Proponents of a clean-air ordinance have made smoking cessation a component of their proposal to prohibit smoking here in buildings to which the public has access.
“We don’t want to make smokers feel that we’re targeting them,” said Teresa Walters, director of Emporians for Drug Awareness and a proponent of the Clean Air Emporia movement. “We know that some people are going to have to change their lifestyles.”
The group was organized through a grant under the auspices of EDA.
Clean Air Emporia wants all of those buildings to be free from second-hand smoke and “blow-by” smoke, the smoke that a cigarette or cigar emits when it is not being inhaled by a smoker. It’s a project intended to protect the health of non-smokers, rather than punish smokers.
Cessation is the third of the three-pronged campaign, which has begun with education and awareness and soon will move on to proposing a non-smoking ordinance to the city commission.
Bobbi Sauder, leader of the Clean Air group, anticipates that smoking-cessation programs already established in the area will make the programs available to people who want to quit smoking, rather than creating new programs. The women also recommended that smokers who want to quit call the Kansas Tobacco Quit Line, (866) KAN STOP ((866) 526-7867), for quitting tips geared specially toward individual smokers’ habits.
Sauder and Walters are pleased with the progress the group has made in educating the public and making them aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke.
“We’re going to be kicking it up a notch,” Walters said in an interview earlier this month. “We’ve really got a good plan in place to try to reach people and let them know that we’re not just trying to pick on smokers, it’s everyone’s health.”
The local group was one of six that the Kansas Health Foundation has chosen to be provided services of a Wichita marketing agency for its education and awareness campaign.
Proponents of clean air ordinances and laws are concerned about the chemicals and known carcinogens that result from both smoking and from the burning cigarette itself.
“The toxic chemicals that are in that smoke are not being filtered,” Sauder said. “You’re breathing more of a raw smoke, so to speak, than you are when smokers inhale the smoke coming through the cigarette.”
Second-hand and blow-by smoke causes physiological changes in non-smokers who are forced to breathe the air around them.
“It may not cause lung cancer, but it’s causing a change in your airway that can certainly suggest many other kinds of illnesses and can change your airway permanently,” Sauder said. “We know it changes your blood vessels. We know that the nicotine changes the cholesterol, it changes the constriction, the flow of the blood in your body.
“We didn’t have that knowledge 20, 30, 40 years ago. I think that’s one thing that leads us to protect all human beings, because of the knowledge that we have today.”
Clean Air Emporia and the agency have created brochures, fact sheets, and other materials with information and statistics gleaned from a variety of health-related organizations. Several thousand signatures have been obtained in support of a petition that will be submitted in support of the proposed ordinance.
Among the information is a list of local businesses that already have chosen to be smoke-free. Governmental buildings already prohibit smoking, other than in designated areas; other entities, such as Newman Regional Health and the Emporia school district, have banned smoking inside buildings, as well on their entire properties.
If Clean Air Emporia’s campaign is successful, smoking would be prohibited in these types of places:
F all businesses that are open to the public
F private clubs, such as the American Legion and Knights of Columbus
F private offices within buildings that are open to the public
“The ordinance that we are focusing toward is a comprehensive ordinance that will have clean air in all buildings, interior buildings,” Sauder said. “Any (structure) that has confined walls, four walls and a ceiling, a roof.”
Business people likely would be able to set limits for smoking within a certain number of feet of a door to the business.
“Almost all ordinances have been within 10 or 30 feet that there could be no smoking,” Sauder said.
Smoking would be allowed in vehicles, in private homes and on public streets, unless smoking violated a distance-from-the-door requirement.
“What we want is complete elimination of the smoke in any public place,” Walters said.
The ordinance needs to be clear, she said, “so people can’t skirt around ... and expose people to high levels of smoke.”
“I think there’s still plenty of places that people can smoke where they feel like they’re only exposing themselves, like in their own home,” Walters said. “But I think in a public place where everyone can have access to it and not be exposed to carcinogens and things like that, that’s why we want a level playing field.”
Those involved in the clean-air campaign said that health issues are the core of their campaign for change, and that the hospitality industry is of particular interest. Many of those employees, they said, are students who take jobs without realizing that they may be placing themselves in an unhealthy situation. Health issues brought about by those jobs may not become evident for years.
“They may not have any idea of what they’re really getting into, but it comes down to ‘I need a job,’” Sauder, a former nurse, explained.
Hospitality-business owners later may face liability for exposing employees to second-hand smoke, Walters said.
The industry is the “only business I can think of where ... we make them make that choice, essentially be able to have a job and earn the money to make a living ... but then acknowledge that their health has been put in danger,” she said. “I think that’s kind of ludicrous myself.”
The women cited other cities — Lawrence, several in the Kansas City area, New York, Dublin and Chicago — where no-smoking rules have gone into effect without harming business. They cite instances, such as that of a Lawrence bowling alley, where customer traffic actually increased, much to the surprise of the business owner.
Bar and restaurant owners who worry their businesses will shrink or die also may be surprised by an increase in customers.
In Lawrence, when the city’s no-smoking ordinance went into effect in 2004, there were 84 businesses holding licenses for serving alcohol, “strong” beer and wines on-premises; in 2008, the number had jumped to 128, according to statistics from the Kansas Department of Revenue, which licenses bars, as well as the restaurants and private clubs that also are considered on-premise licensees.
Emporia currently has 30 state-issued licenses for on-premise consumption of alcohol.
Licenses for taverns, which serve 3.2 beers called cereal malt beverages, are issued by local governmental units and include not only taverns, but off-premise businesses such as grocery and convenience stores.
The women said that numerous Emporia businesses already have gone smoke-free over the years, and more have been added since the campaign began taking form.
“I know that particularly one car dealership has gone totally smoke-free,” Sauder said. “I know that some of the gas stations have gone smoke-free. ... There have been several businesses just within the last month that have gone smoke-free in Emporia.”
To be added to the list of smoke-free businesses, or to obtain a copy of the list, call the Flint Hills Community Health Center, 342-4864, or EDA, 341-2450.
Members of Clean Air Emporia are available to make presentations to any interested group. They may be reached at 341-2450.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Over-under for how many posts it takes before the first personal attack is 5
Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this ordinance it a little too aggressive and wide in scope. Ban smoking in restaurants, yes that would be great. Keep people from lurking by doorways to non-smoking places creating a cloud of smoke people have to walk through. OK that sounds good. But private clubs? Come on. Private offices were people come in is too far fetched too. I personally am allergic to tobacco smoke and avoid it as much as possible. Plus I find it an ugly habit. Nothing to me is more disgusting than watch people puff away while eating a meal. But clubs and bars where people go to hang out should be exempt. Only adults are allowed there anyway in most cases. I think if they scale back the ordinance they'll get more support. Also you can't expect to make such radical changes all at once without huge outcry. Take a small step now then go from there once people can see how it works out. If restaurants go smoke-free and gain or at least stay steady in revenue then bars and clubs will be more likely to consider banning smoking on their property.
Posted by yellowdog (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Finally, someone with some sense! Madpoet, I agree with you 100%. I also do not smoke and really don't care for it, but people have more of a discretionary choice about going into clubs. I applaud bars like "The Blind" that choose to be non-smoking, but if a club owner wants to allow smoking in his or her establishment, that is their business decision and should not be controlled by those that feel the need to protect us from our selves.
Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
“We don’t want to make smokers feel that we’re targeting them,” said Teresa Walters, director of Emporians for Drug Awareness and a proponent of the Clean Air Emporia movement. “We know that some people are going to have to change their lifestyles.”
If thats not "targeting" smokers I don't know what is. Some people ay?! Well spoken madpoet.
Posted by gazette_reader (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to suggest an alternative to full-out non-smoking ban.
As adults over the age of 18, we have the right to make choices about whether or not we smoke, and whether or not we spend our money at businesses that allow smoking. Even though I, myself, avoid businesses that allow smoking because I can't stand it, I question whether or not there needs to be legislature. I've seen several businesses in town give up their smoking sections because they could see customers willing to wait in line for a non-smoking table even when smoking tables were available. Businesses adjusted to meet the demands of their customers.
However, children under 18 generally do not have the right to make decisions about where they eat or spend their time, because they're usually tagging along with a parent or guardian. They are being subjected to second-hand smoke whether they want to be in a restaurant or not. They don't have any choice as to whether their asthma or allergies become aggravated by smoke.
I would like to suggest that any laws about smoking in restaurants should pertain to the businesses that serve those under the age of 18. People over 18 have the right to choose whether or not they go into a smokey bar, and are themselves old enough to smoke. Children do not have those choices. This would also give business owners serving adults who can legally make decisions on their own the right to run their businesses as they sit fit - and profitable.
Posted by ratdog (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If these folks get their way, where will it stop? Looks to me like they'll have to do something about alcohol consumption if Emporia follows in Lawrence's footsteps. It cites a 66% increase in liquor licenses since the ban. That has to translate to a huge increase in liquor consumption, alcohol related crime and DUI. If I were pushing this smoking ban, I probably would have left out that statistic........
Posted by hickory (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Walters and Sauder wants to change smokers lifestyles......why don't they change their lifestyle and move to Dublin?.....they both have enough money to do so. A business owner has the right to decide for theirselves what they want to do. The only reason Walters is running for county commission is to change the lives of everyone, for her benefit, not for the taxpayers benefit.The next thing she'll want to do is outlaw alcohol in bars. OH!! wait a minute......if a "No smoking" ban is passed there will be more bars, isn't that what she mentioned above? And since she's against alcohol too, then what will she do? Don't let her in as commissioner.......you'll all be sorry. What else does she have up her sleeve? I'm sure it is something that will benefit her and her band of friends.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Laws are made to protect the rights of people. The laws are changed or removed as more information becomes available. Back in the 60's and 70's we didn't know how bad smoking was not only for the smoker but for the second hand smoker as well. (We also thought blacks should have their own toilets and seats on a bus) Extensive research has been done and it has been determined that smoking is not only bad for you, but also for the people who breathe in your byproduct. The proposed ban is not trying to take away your right to smoke, it just trying to keep my right to not breathe YOUR smoke. If you are a business owner you must comply with all kinds of rules that are designed to protect the public. For instance restaurants have health inspectors that come in and check the temperature of foods so that you are not exposed to harmful bacteria, bars have limits on the # of people who can be in there at one time to protect you from being trampled in case of a fire, etc etc. So, they are already telling you what you are allowed to do. A ban on smoking would just be one to add to the list for the safety of the people.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"we don't want to make smokers feel that we're targeting them".
"We know that some people are going to have to change their lifestyles".
WHAT!! How stupid do Ms. Walters and Ms. Sauders think we poor uneducated low-income common folk are? Anyone who believes this "ban" on individual freedoms and use of a legal, government subsidized, product isn't targeting a specific group (smokers) is either brain-washed or brain-dead!
The morally enlightened and finacially superior do-gooder brigade has decided Emporia is not to thier liking or up to their standards so they are going to use any means necessary to force their will upon us. If they get their way, we will see other groups "not targeted" in the future. People like this are never satisfied everyone thinks and acts exactly as they do.
If we let them get away with this atrocity---a well-financed elitist attack on personal rights and freedoms---then it means we condone their actions, and what we condone, we deserve.
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For those of you who might have forgot, they are using tax dollars to fund this.
The reason there was a 66% increase in new liquor licenses was because a lot of the bars shut down, and then were re-opened by someone else. THAT'S why there was so many new liquor licenses, because a bunch of bars shut down, not because the smoking ban spurred development! Also, if you have been to the bars in Lawrence, the sidewalks and parking lots are COVERED in cigarette butts. IF this passes, I feel sorry for the city employees who have to clean this up, because I'm not going to.
Posted by peacebrothers (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
slvvmblck:
"(We also thought blacks should have their own toilets and seats on a bus) " What in the world are you talking about? Smoking doesn't have any more bearing on the lungs of blacks than it does on whites lungs. I think you are delibertly race baiting this issue. Are you saying that whites lost a freedom so that blacks could gain a freedom? The issue here is smoking in public. Smokers ARE losing a freedom so that non-smokers can gain a freedom. It is that simple. Please leave the race card out of it.
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
peacebrothers, slvrnblk was merely referring to the mindset of the 70's when people THOUGHT they knew what was right. They THOUGHT that cigarette smoke was harmless; they THOUGHT that blacks should have their own toilet seats and should sit only in backs of busses. Slvrnblk was demonstrating how society wasn't always right in the past. He wasn't making a race remark. Would you have been happier if he had said "we used to think the earth was flat."
Right on, Bj, Madpoet, and josie's bar. Thanks for the update on all the licensing activity too, josie's bar. Good job!!!
I'm not a smoker anymore so I don't have an axe to grind, but Bj so vividly nailed it when he said that this is nothing but, "a well-financed elitist attack on personal rights and freedoms--"
The words of Teresa Walters are pushy and ominous when she said, "We know that some people are going to have to change their lifestyles." Sounds threatening to me.
Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
we quit going to restaurants and bars years ago, the only time we eat out is when we are out of town during meal times.the choice to stay home is because we grew tired of the atmosphere especially in restaurants, noisy dishes clanking, toddlers making messes and fussing, people blowing thier noses at the table. we dont have to deal with wait staff that is slow or crabby or cooks who use a microwave to rubberize the food. also eating at home is healthier than eating out, look at the criticizm kids meals are getting. going out is a choice and if you dont like the atmosphere stay home. i signed the petition the smokers are passing around because they have a right to smoke just like non-smokers have a right to eat out, eating at home is more relaxing anyway and this is another example of an erosion of rights.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I certainly hope after this article, more recognize that their agenda is not about health, but rather on Social adjustment to suit their personal preferences. I certainly hope residents of Lyon Co are smart enough to not elect Walters into a County Commissioner's seat, she'd be pushing for resolutions to further dictate how we live our lives.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These ordinances are insidious. In California (home of the smoking ban), after the smoking bans had been in place for awhile, the elitists sought other targets. Recently, the California Legislature outlawed trans fats in restaurants, and Los Angeles banned fast food restaurants in certain neighborhoods. Why? Because both were bad for people. Sound familiar? Beware of the Trojan Horse. It is not a gift.
Posted by rdgrey (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not a smoker but yet beilieve people have a right to choice. They can choose to smoke or not. A person who owns a business has a right to let people smoke or not in that business. I hate the thought of a law that will stigmatize a certain type of person, this time smokers. I can choose to go or not go to a place that allows smoking. If everyone here is SO concerned about the air they breath you better get a mask because doesnt a car put off some kind of pollutant? You ride in cars with your windows down and others next to you and you inhale the exhaust. People bbqing puts off carbon dioxide. Going to a restaurant with someone smoking 80 feet away for 1 hour will not harm you or your family. Most business have a vent system in the smoking areas too. Whats next, no one over 175 lbs can eat at dairy queen? If the owner says its ok then so be it, most businesses try to make both parties happy with seperate areas.
Posted by nks (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe the problem lies with inadequate ventilation especially in the restaraunts around town.
If people want to smoke, that is there choice, but when it interferes with my family, especially my children sitting 20 feet away, then it does become my business.
Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 5:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
“We’re going to be kicking it up a notch,”
"all buildings"
"any (structure) that has confined walls, four walls and a ceiling, a roof."
"private clubs, such as the American Legion and Knights of Columbus"
"private offices"
"What we want is complete elimination of the smoke"
Little by little, with each article, "what they want" is becoming more clear. I hope we are all paying attention....
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MisterO,
Those quotes are the best examples in that whole article reflecting that this is not about health. This is about what they want. What do they want, you ask?
"What we want is complete elimination of the smoke"
Its not what do we need, it is what we want. I know that both ladies cited health concerns in the artilce, but their true colors come out with statements like what we want, and kicking it up a notch.
Anyone who doesn't realize that this is not about health could use a history and or a civics lesson. Again in this article it is stated that Ms. Walters and Ms. Sauder are doing this to protect employees of smoking businesses. They say it is what they need. And again I ask, have either of these ladies ever asked a waitress, bus boy, or bartender what they need to make their jobs better. Do either of these ladies even know any waitresses, bus boys, or bartenders. I kinda doubt it, but they want their lives to be better. Please!! No one is gonna fall for that one. JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT. SAY, "I DON'T LIKE SMOKE OR SMOKERS, AND I WANT TO TAKE AWAY THEIR ABILITY TO DO IT ANYWHERE I MAY BE AT ANY GIVEN TIME." Just be honest about it instead of clouding the issue with this other nonsense about what is best for so and so.
Posted by bjohn (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with madpoet. I'd support this idea if it were narrower in scope. I like to go to a restaurant and not have to breathe second hand smoke. If the owners of buisnesses choose to allow smoking then I view that as their right. They do have the right to refuse service, they should have the right to allow smoking. I have my right not to patronize their buiness if they allow smoking. Its about choice and freedom. If I don't want to breathe smoke, then I don't go to places where smoking is allowed...see how that works...amazingly simple isn't it? Let the buisness owners decide what they want. If there is a market for smoke-free businesses then they will come on their own.
As for protecting the workers. They know they'll be working in smoke when they take the job. Its a job hazard. If they don't want to deal with it, don't work there. McDonald's is hiring and they can work there, its no smoking.
Smokers are now, then come the obese, or alcohol. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If this ban passes with a distance requirement such as the one stated 10-30 feet from an entrance,The only smoke free bar in town "THE BLIND" would not be able to have a smoking patio behind their bar, What about all the apartment rentals downtown? It would be illegal for Ron and Becky to smoke in their own living room because it falls in the ten foot range. Let the free market take care of this "problem".
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The group was organized through a grant under the auspices of EDA."
Let me paraphrase...
We are going to make you change your lifestyle to fit ours, and we are using taxpayer dollars to do it.
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Matt, your right. Although, the major dollar amounts used for this campaign is being funded by a Private foundation grant, the EDA GROUP IS FUNDED BY TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND FREE RENT AND SUPPLIES FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. Let the EDA do what their job is, educate the children and leave adults alone to make a personal decision about a legal product.
Posted by hjcary (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I live in the Denver area and there is a smoking ban here and it’s GREAT! We rarely ever ate out before because even in the non smoking sections of a restaurant the smoke still permeates and affected us. Now we eat out much more. Here in Denver restaurants can have covered patios for smoking. I see both sides in that a person can choose to work or dine where there is smoke if they choose but what if that is the only job someone can get then they have to breathe that wretched smoke all day at work. With my asthma I could not do it. Businesses are still packed here you still have to wait in line to eat out. I think it probably increased business I know a lot of people that go out more now that it’s non smoking. I took my kids bowling yesterday and we didn’t leave with our hair and clothing smelling like an ashtray it was great!
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hjcary: That is "GREAT" news! Knowing that tens of thousands of Denver area residents, and countless tourists and visitors, are having their individual rights and freedoms infringed upon by a bigoted few so that your kids hair and clothes can smell springtime fresh seems to validate fears about our proposed ban. That is, it is not a "pro-health" issue at all, but a "holier than thou" attack on smokers, smoking, and individual rights.
Walters, Sauders, and their nicotine narcs can call this proposed ban "pro-health", or any other politically expedient term they choose, but it clearly translates to what it is: an attack on smokers and their personal freedoms by a few socially superior matrons of the misled masses.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bjnemp--That may be the best post I've ever read on this forum. And I've been reading it alot longer than I have been posting on it.
It will all come out in the wash, this is an issue of choice, not of health.
Posted by devildog (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No one is trying to take away smokers' rights. Smokers have every right to smoke. What is being debated here is if they have the right to poison others, epsecially workers. We know now that second hand smoke is a poison. It immediately affects the cardiovascular system and acts as a heart attack "trigger" for persons with blocked arteries, many of whom do not even know they are walking around with blockages (that's why heart disease is called "the silent killer"). These people would not even know to walk away from the smoke. No one has a right to knowingly cause harm to another human being. And what about our fellow Kansans who work in restaurants and bars? It is irresponsible and cruel to expect people to report to their places of work and be systematically poisoned. We do not expect this of any other workforce except those in the hospitality industry. In jobs that potentially require hazardous exposure, employees are fully informed, given as much protection as possible, and paid more (hazard pay). So wait staff should just get another job, right? That is a ridiculous notion under any circumstances, but especially so in this economy. Most people are thrilled to have a job these days. And while I'm at it, since when do businesses have "rights"? I must have missed that history lecture where my forefathers sacrificed and died so a business could pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Individuals have rights. Businesses have privileges that are granted to them through licensure by the people of Kansas. And any entrepreneur recognizes and accepts regulation as a legitimate part of doing business. If that were not the case, we would all be concerned everytime we went into a restaurant since it would be more cost effective to serve old food than toss it. This issue is not about taking away anyone's rights --- it is about taking ethical action to prevent individual's choices from harming others.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, at least you get it devildog. For the life of me I don't understand why others don't. This seems to be a very simple issue. Smokers can smoke, but they can't force me to. That is all this boils down to.
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
devildog The anti-smoke people taking ETHICAL ACTION to prevent my choice to run my business as I see fit is harming me. In one of the most heavy regulated and taxed businesses in Emporia we don't need another regulation.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bjnemp--
Can I ask why you feel that this is a personal attack on smokers? Have the "clean air" people once said that you can not smoke? Have they tried to make smoking illegal?
That answer is No to both. All they have asked for is that the air that they breathe is not polluted by your smoke.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Devil Dog. I don't recall anyone saying that they were trying to take away smoker's rights. They are trying to take property rights away from private property owners. Its as simple as that. There is no such thing as a right to smoke. Everybody (except you maybe) knows this. Just like there is no such thing as the right to breath clean air in a business owned by someone else. Do you refuse to visit friends that smoke at home? It (second hand smoke) may or may not be harmful, but that hardly matters. Health is just a red herring for what is really going on here. If an organization wanted to ban businesses from doing something legal and 100% harmless (instead of something legal and possibly harmful), which side of the issue would you be on?
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rbow--
It is not ETHICAL ACTION....it is well with in their rights to seek legislation to protect themselves from something that is proven to be harmful. If smokers could control the smoke so that only they have to breathe it, this wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OutsiderJ--
Why do you think that property owners should have the right to decide? Because they own the business....HA! Businesse are told all the time what they can and can not do. They have to have so many handicap spaces, and so many parking spaces, they have to serve food at certain temps, they have to get a license to serve liquor, they can only be open certain times, they have to have specific documents and post signs where people can see them, they have to limit the # of patrons they have at one time. Why did the government put all of these rules in place......to protect you!
Posted by bjohn (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you don't want to breathe smoke, don't go where the smoke is. What is so hard about that? Seems pretty simple to me. If a buisness allows smoking and you don't want to breathe the smoke, then don't go to that buisness. Wow...what a concept! Its what I do and it works for me.
Breathing smoke while working is a job hazard. McDonald's is hiring if you need a different job (seriously). If asthma would prevent you from doing your job....well you remember that section of the application that asks if there are any physical problems that would prevent you from fulfilling your duties....See, pretty simple.
Posted by devildog (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rbow: I certainly recognize your feelings about the limiting nature of regulation. However, when you applied for a business license, that is one of the conditions of doing business that you voluntarily accepted. And OutsiderJ: when has it ever been anyone's right to posion someone else just because they do it on their own property? And there is a basic fundamental right to breathe clean air and drink clean water. When these basic conditions for life are threatened, a person is deprived of life without due process (that's prohibited by the Bill of Rights). And if you don't believe that second hand smoke is harmful, then how do explain the published reports of increased lung cancer (previously rare) in pets of smokers? When was the last time you saw a cat or dog light up?
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
slvmblck--
those regulations are for things that have to do with zoning, fire codes, the Americans with Disabilities Act, health standards for food preparation, Alcohol licensing requirements are there to keep people from buying moonshine and going blind. They have nothing to do with the type of patrons a business hopes to attract.
devil dog--
That is a little dramatic. Poisoning??? As far as the constitution and deprivation of life without due process, have you ever heard of a straw man argument? Because that is the one you are making (if you need another good example of a straw man you could see the above post from slvmblck). Come on, the only thing thats been proven about second hand smoke is that researchers will return any results you want if you pay them on time. Why is it so difficult for people to see this for what it really is, a property right issue. Your right to frequent businesses or not is fully intact. If you don't like it don't go there. For the record, I smoke (alot) but always sit in non-smoking in a restaraunt because most of friends and family do not smoke.
The only RIGHT in this whole argument is the right of property owners to manage their private property as they see fit. Period. It is a long established and cherished right in this country. Do you want all the businesses to take down signs that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Because the flip side of that sign and message are exactly what we are dealing with. It being that a business reserves the right to serve its customers and patrons the way it sees fit.
Posted by devildog (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bjohn: are you seriously suggesting that someone should be placed in a position of having to choose lower pay to protect their health? And it is not always an informed choice about walking into a smoke filled establishment. People experience unintended heart attacks from second hand smoke exposure due to heart disease they don't even know they have. Communities that have enacted clean indoor air ordinances have documented decreased emergency room visits (that would translate to saved healthcare dollars) due to sudden heart attack shortly after enactment.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For crying out loud, Sauder even said in the article that, “It may not cause lung cancer". Even the people proposing this ban are murky on the effects of second hand smoke. That alone is enough to make a ban a little premature to say the least. As far as changing blood vessels and airways, the same thing can be said for most things we ingest and or breathe.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OutsiderJ---
Yes some of those are zoning laws, etc and some like the food prep and fire codes are there to protect you, and besides they are still things that the govenment if telling the almighty business owner what they can and can not do. It is part of the deal of being a business owner.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OutisderJ--
I am sure that if you would like to read some of the research the "clean air" folks would love to share it with you and then you could learn all about the harmful affects of second hand smoke.
And, regarding the things that we ingest affecting our blood vessels....that would fall under the personal choice category and one that does not infringe on my rights.
Breathing your smoke into our community air would be live me pissing in the drinking water. We need both to live and I am polluting your water with my byproduct.
Posted by bjohn (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
devildog: You said that workers get hazard pay to work more dangerous jobs. That would be the equivalent of making more money for working a dangerous job. Its a choice. Like the kind they are trying to take away from us.
I don't smoke and I hate sitting near smokers. I don't feel that it is right to tell a buisness that they can't allow smoking. I can simply choose not to go and not to work there. I feel this ban is more about taking away freedoms than protecting anything. And it is not about taking away non-smokers rights. We have a choice whether to go or not to go. We only need to be informed where the smoking is. We can avoid it if we chose to.
Posted by nks (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are there regulations on smoking and non smoking areas of restaraunts as far as ventilation, etc... I would say they are very flexible, or most restaraunts do not abide by them.
I dont care if people chose to smoke, but if I want to take my family out to a restaraunt to eat, I dont think I nor my small children should have to suffer from people across the aisle smoking.
Yes, you can say, "well dont go to those establishments." It can be the same for smokers if places go to a smoking ban.
Of course I dont like breathing second hand smoke because of health issues, but what about people with asthma, etc... I know the minute I get a whiff from cigarette smoke, my eyes itch and I cant breathe. I am sure I am not the only one with these issues.
Smokers do have a right to smoke, but when their actions affect others, it violates non smokers rights.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pissing in drinking water is illegal. and probably wouldn't be noticed unless you have a bladder the size of a house.
Smoking is not illegal, neither is tailoring your business to cater to certain people.
Can anyone come up with a valid argument. Once the supposed health issue is stripped away, the whole ban falls apart.
slvmblck--you said, "that would fall under the personal choice category and one that does not infringe on my rights."
Do you choose to breath car exhaust, or radon being produced by millions of degrading elements that are all around you. Do you have any idea how many know carcinogens go into textile production.
This whole, "my right to clean air or air that doesn't smell like smoke" is a little tiresome. It just doesn't wash. In regards to rights, you only have the right to breathe the air that is available to you. You couldn't truck in clean smelling air to get rid of the Tyson smell. No one is trying to take away anyone's right to breath. But the idea that you have a RIGHT to breathe air the way you want it, is ridiculous.
Someone commented earlier about tobacco farm subsidies and smoking bans. The gov't gives taxpayer money for both. So they pay to keep the farmers in business and they pay to prevent people from using the commodity produced. Talk about a conflict of interest. Seems no one wants to talk about this legitimate concern...or waste of taxpayer dollars...or example of gov't in action...or whatever you want to call it.
I asked a valid question that actually relates to people's rights and got no answers. Everyone just wants to attack the straw man and dramatize their role as the victim of the evil smoker empires. So I ask again, " If an organization wanted to ban businesses from doing something legal and 100% harmless (instead of something legal and possibly harmful), which side of the issue would you be on?"
Posted by rdgrey (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hjcary...
THAT IS GREAT FOR YOU IN DENVER. Now do something with the dark brown haze that covers the town everytime I drive through.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To slvrnblck: In answer to the question you posed to me in your entry above...
No, you can't. Anything I could say has already been addressed and would just be repetitive. This is not a "pro-health" issue; it is an attempt to infringe on individual rights and you know it. If you don't, you are either predudiced beyond redemption, or have Gustapo goggles on.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OutsiderJ: Thank you for the kind comment. You have always presented yourself as an informed citizen and polished communicator. For that reason, I consider your praise to be a most valued compliment.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was especially taken with the part about trading choices for springtime freshness. I think that most people these days could be convinced to trade for alot less. Its like the old "here is $25 worth of beads for your ancestral home." Only this time the average American citizen who thinks they are getting a good deal.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That is what I thought. August 20, 2008 4:09p.m I posted a valid concern and a valid question. Concern about farm subsidies and question about other types of bans. I got no takers. The do gooder, I want to push my morality onto others and smell good doing it crowd doesn't want to talk about the real issues. They just want to complain about something they don't like and legislate it out of existence. Can anyone on the side of the ban defend the subsidies and bans issues with a straight face. I doubt it. It really exposes the level of misinformation and ignorance about this issue. Walters, Sauder, and the rest only want to talk about what they don't like and how they know what is best or preferred. They don't want to tackle anything that has to do with the real meat of this issue. They don't care what the general public loses, as long as they win and get their way. This may as well be a red-rover ban on the playground.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OutsiderJ--
The subsidies is not the issue. The government is far from perfect and what they do sometimes puzzles me. The issue that we were discussing was clean air.
Yes pissing in drinking water is illegal....that is kind of my point. I was making a comparison for you which apparently went way over your head. They are both harmful byproducts that affect something that you need to live.
Regarding your comments on exhaust and Tyson....both of those are regulated also. Exhaust from cars as well as businesses has to meet certain emmission standards. And, yes, I would prefer not to breathe that also but at least there are steps that have been taken to minimize those harmful byproducts.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OutsiderJ--
I will give you kudos on your redrover comment....that was pretty funny. :-)
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.h...
"when it comes to those carrying out the current war on smokers, no other group matches their tactics, approaches and arguments as well as the Nazis. It's a damn near perfect fit."
"The anti-smokers, of course, bristle at the comparison, quickly pointing out that they are not rounding up smokers and sending them to death camps. Hitler never did that to smokers either. He simply vilified them, taxed them, lied about them, restricted advertising of tobacco, and forbade smoking in public places. Comparing Hitler's treatment of those he murdered to smokers would be absurd. Comparing Hitler's treatment of smokers to the behavior of today's anti-smokers is a perfect apples to apples comparison."
"Today's tobacco nannies demand that no one ever smoke in any room they might enter someday. They claim hurricane force winds are necessary to clear smoke from a room. Adolph forbade anyone smoking in any room he might ever enter."
"California is trying to raise the legal age to purchase tobacco to 21. Hitler raised the age to 25."
"Under the control of the Nazis, smoking was banned in streetcars, and many cities instituted bans, including bans in privately owned buildings like bars and restaurants. Sound familiar?"
"The phrase "passive smoking" was coined by Fritz Lickint in his book "Tobacco and the Organism," which he produced for the German AntiTobacco League. With no evidence to back him up, he claimed that smokers were poisoning everyone around them. (He also insisted that coffee caused cancer.) Passive smoking is, of course, the primary battle cry of today's nannies."
Not that I am saying Emporians for Drug Awareness has any resemblance to the Nazis whatsoever....Ohh wait, I guess I am saying exactly that.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
josiesbar---
All you have done with that post is show your true ignorance of the issue at hand.
Comparing EDA members too Nazi's is not....well it's unbelievable that someone would stoop to that level and I am going to restrain from responding further.
Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
josiesbar,
Nazis? Seriously? In the USA, people are allowed to practice their beliefs. The government steps-in, however, when these practices harm people. For instance, there may be a religion that thinks you have to chop your child’s arm off in order for the child to have a good afterlife. Obviously, this behavior is harmful to the child and our government would step-in and put a stop to it.
The thing with you smokers is you believe there is nothing wrong with smoking; you just don’t know any better. You have this belief so ingrained in your heads that you continue to smoke when any logical person would see that it’s harmful and a blatant waste of money. I, personally, think smokers lack this common sense. If you do realize smoking is bad for you, you obviously still need help quitting. That’s what these initiatives are trying to do; protect those who can’t help themselves.
If you must waste your money on something, buy lottery tickets instead of cigarettes. That way, money goes to state revenue and you have a change to retire early. The benefit is that you could win a lot o’ money and there are no ill side effects like lung cancer.
Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Remember the public outcry when the ACLU forced the School District to change the name of the Christmas program to the Seasonal Celebration? Why is this issue any different? Does loud equate to power? Why can we not have policies for smoking at each private business? And just a thought....if EDA is a registered 501 c 3...then they are prohibited from engaging in any political processes
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lycomu--
You are only partly right about the 501 c 3
Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities (but not private foundations[citation needed]) are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "no substantial part" of a public charity's activities may be devoted to lobbying, charities with very large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test) or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying. [6]
All 501(c)(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues, or fund research that supports their political position without overtly advocating for a position on a specific bill. Think tanks such as the Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, and Heritage Foundation and other 501(c)(3) organizations produce reports and recommendations on policy proposals that do not count as lobbying under the tax code. Another example is the The American Foreign Policy Council is a lobbyist organization operating under this code.
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
According to crackinsack, "...The thing with you smokers is you believe there is nothing wrong with smoking..."
Hang on a second, crackinsack. Not all of those who are opposed to the EDA let-us-mind-your-business-brigade of do-gooders are smokers. I'm not a smoker, but I am opposed to a group telling me what I can and cannot do all in the guise of keeping the public safe from second-hand smoke. Statements like "We know that some people are going to have to change their lifestyles.” and, "What we want is complete elimination of the smoke in any public place," are dictates and thus they are exacerbating opposition.
What's next on their agenda? Spitting on the sidewalks? If I step in it and drag it into my car and home, is that not harmful to me and my family?
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 11:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Crackinsack: You really stepped in it this time; and showed your true colors to boot.
You said smoking "is a blatant waste of money". Who the heck are you to tell me how to spend my money? I can easily afford it and it is none of your business how I spend my money.
You said: "That's what these initiatives are trying to do; protect those who can't help themselves." What! Who elected you to decide what is right for me and whether or not I need help?
You said: "buy lottery tickets". "That way money goes to state revenue." Do you have any idea how much money from each pack of cigarettes goes into state revenue coffers? Erase that revenue and your taxes will have to skyrocket to make up for it.
Your argument is crackin', jack. You have proved this assault on smokers is not about health; it is an attempt by a few (uninformed) bullies to dictate how others behave.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on August 22, 2008 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Time to move to the news forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...