Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad someone else is saying what I have been. I feel like I'm yelling into a hurricane on this issue. I'm not trying to trample on smokers' rights but feel like MY rights as a non-smoker are being ignored. I'm glad to know Montana Mike's is now smoke-free. I wanted to go out for my birthday next month and had a coupon for them but was weighing the options. I don't think all businesses should be smoke-free but restaurants shouldn't suffer for it and many will benefit.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Love the ordinance, hate that it will affect bars though, those should be left alone. If they amended it to leave out bars I would be %100 behind it.

Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't forget Village Inn, who also recently went smoke-free.

Posted by awesome_sauce (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm all for non-smoking environments as I find smoking to be a disgusting habit. That said, legislating a smoking ban in a private business is even more disgusting.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We all appreciate having the few dictate the behavior of the many. It's the American way.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If its put to a public vote then I fail to see how that could hold true Bjemp. Do your part and vote, majority of VOTERS will dictate this one, so if you don't show up at the polls, don't complain.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goodoleboy: I won't complain. I'll move. The outcome of this ban is pre-determined. Once Walter's Warriors got big bucks behind their Fascist assault on individual rights and began bombarding the area with full-page newspaper ads and a flood of radio spots, the final result of this ridiculous ban was pretty much assured. If Emporians are so weak and complacent as to allow this ban to come to fruition, they deserve it.

Posted by hottopics (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 11:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was talking with a friend the other day about this topic. Do any of you remember being able to walk through the grocery stores and light up? I cant even imagine that had ever being an option. Goes to show you how much has changed. Somethings for the better but some just keep taking away this "freedom" we so loudly proclaim.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students
in the class.

One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man
(exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his
back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter.

The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back.

He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were
trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist
government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange
question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor
thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said
this was no joke.

'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting
corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the
free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down
one side of the place where they are used to coming.

When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you
put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat
again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in
the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come
through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole
herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around
inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the
free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage
in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
happening to America The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and
keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as
supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine,
drugs, etc.

While we continually lose our freedoms - just a little at a time. One
should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a
politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it
yourself=

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goodoleboy, your choice of one word is just one more reason why so many of us are against this clean air ordinance. "...majority of VOTERS will dictate this one," Dictate. You didn't use the term "decide." Something small, yes, nonetheless it smacks of having to live under someone's thumb. No thanks.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems to me that these eateries in Emporia recently going smoke free voluntarily is proof that the free market and business owner's can regulate their own market. Which would of course make a ban unnecessary. I sincerely doubt that those who wish to trample on the rights of these business owners can see this common sense connection, but it seems pretty clear to me.

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Liked the pig story -life. Pretty good and oh so true. I personally quit listening to the Emporia stations the first time I heard the ads. I realize I am just one person but thats one less rating point they will get.

Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This has been said before, but maybe it is worth more consideration for everyone's rights...
1. Allow business owners to go smoke or smoke-free, but make it an all or nothing deal.
2. Require businesses that allow smoking to place highly-visible signs on the outside telling potential customers that they allow smoking.
3. Since smoking is illegal for those under 18, do not allow anyone under that age inside a business that allows smoking.

This way, all have the choice about smoking and no one's rights are trampled. As a non-smoker, I will not go to a business that allows smoking. But if my neighbor wants to allow that foul, disgusting smoke in his lungs while he eats or drinks, so be it.

Thoughts?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dictate, decide? who cares, if an ordinance gets put to a vote and passes its a democratic process. What does it matter what adjective I use to describe, perhaps you should spend less time complaining here and more time organizing a counter to Mrs. Walters group, you know free speech and all......

Pigs eh? Nice story but some kid from a war torn country is not going to sway me me one way or another with his opinion. An outsider looking in cannot possibly comprehend how things work here. Our pigs can and will get out if need be, remember the 60's and times of change in this country?

People vote on policy in this country, some get their way and others do not, alcohol was once banned and if smoking carries as much support then we will see something similar happen. My personal opinion is that many people just do not like smoking, no other habit makes others directly privy to its by products. If it was the government making this decision for us I would support some of this fascist talk, but this will be decided by a vote, which is not in any way fascist. All I see is people upset that they might not get their way cause another stepped up and took action. I chuckle everytime when people talk about this country being communist or fascist when things don't go their way.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 3, 2008 at 4:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Heather: Your friends from Wichita that drove up to eat with you: they produced (and breathed) substantially more smoke and pollutants from their automobile in the round trip from Wichita than 20 visits to a "smoky" restaurant (especially if they sat in the non-smoking section). Should we ban cars, too? When you turned on your air conditioner, Heather, you used electricity which created pollution from its production. Should we ban air conditioners, too? Many industrial used chemicals, some used to make movies, are harmful to breath. Should we ban movies, too? Fast food, Heather, is bad for your health. Should we, like parts of LA, ban fast food restaurants, too? How far should we take this, Heather, to satisfy everyone? Are you going to support all the bans, or just the ones that you want? While we're at it, Heather, let's go to the Public Library and burn all the books that we don't like. Between us, we could probably burn half the books there, and ban the library staff from replacing them. We'll have a grand ole time, you and me. This banning stuff can be fun. Meet you at the reference desk. Bring your lighter.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 3, 2008 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've already countered Mrs. Walters' group by signing a petition with my real name. I'm not just spouting off under a pseudonym. By the way, dictate is a verb not an adjective.

Yeah, I remember the 60's. I remember my husband flying medi-vac helicopters during three tours in Vietnam. I remember draft-dodgers running off to Canada. I remember seeing a ball of spit roll down my husband's dress blues at a parade in Milwaukee. I remember getting shoved in San Francisco airport with a baby in my arms by some filthy, long-haired, fringe-wearing freak all because I stood with my husband's sea bag at my feet and it was stamped USMC.

You get to vote because my dead husband stepped up and took action. Don't tell me about the 60's!!!

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 3, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy, it was just a story. I dont expect some kid from a war torn county to sway your vote or your opinion, it was just a story. So are you saying you support things like supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), etc? If not then the story stands true

Posted by wirewatt (anonymous) on September 3, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't smoke and don't want to, I think if you own a business you should be able to decide who you cater to on your property. I also think that people under eighteen years old shouldn't be allowed into the business. We have way to many laws on the books telling us what to do, with only a part of them enforced. I would think that after we get a smoking ban then the fast food for us fat people would be next. I really like the food in Bruff's but can't stand the smoke, so we don't go there, and thats their business. Our dollars can do our talking for us, we don't need needless laws. We do need to protect the young people and the ordinance that bans people under eighteen years old would solve the problem.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 3, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker--

You said:
Heather: Your friends from Wichita that drove up to eat with you: they produced (and breathed) substantially more smoke and pollutants from their automobile in the round trip from Wichita than 20 visits to a "smoky" restaurant (especially if they sat in the non-smoking section). Should we ban cars, too? When you turned on your air conditioner, Heather, you used electricity which created pollution from its production. Should we ban air conditioners, too? Many industrial used chemicals, some used to make movies, are harmful to breath. Should we ban movies, too?

All of those things that you listed above are already regulated. The Government has restrictions on what and how much of those pollutants can be expelled into the air and all of those things you mentioned dispel their byproduct into the open air not into an enclosed space. When smoker's exhale their byproduct into an enclosed space, non smokers are forced to breathe in that same exhaled byproduct.

You said:

Fast food, Heather, is bad for your health. Should we, like parts of LA, ban fast food restaurants, too? How far should we take this, Heather, to satisfy everyone? Are you going to support all the bans, or just the ones that you want?

Their isn't a byproduct that anyone forces upon you by eating fast food. So banning FF restaurants makes little sense. Should she support every ban.....obviously not, but she should support the bans that make common sense. She believes this one makes sense and so do I.

Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't get it. I can understand why someone smoking a cigarette next to me would be bad for MY health, but how is someone eating fast food bad for me, too?

For that matter, how does banning cars and use of electricity compare to limits on smoking in PUBLIC (not PRIVATE) places?

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvernblk: First, no one forces non-smokers to breathe "polluted" air in an enclosed area. You have the choice to be, or not to be, there.

Second: the majority of restaurants in Emporia (over 30) are already non-smoking. So what you are advocating is that ALL restaurants should be non-smoking, primarily to please you and your Wichita friends, and NO restaurant should allow smoking in order to please those who smoke. I guess I could see the fairness in that scenario... if I were living in a third-world dictatorship!

Give it up. You and Walter's Warriors are attempting to solve a problem that just does not exist.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

I have to breathe no matter where I am at. You can't live with out air. If I am in an enclosed area I have to breathe the air that is there. Why do you think you should have the right or freedom to pollute that air?

The whole idea is proposed on the fact that your personal choices infringe on my rights. It is not based on the fact that you smoke. I couldn't care less what you do in your home. However, the second that your habit invades and influences my personal space and health....then I have a problem with it. No matter where we are. If I am in your home I will leave. But we are not talking about your home, we are talking about public places. Places where everyone has a right to be. And the choices of the few are affecting the lives of others. It puzzles me that you can not see that, that is not right.

And, for the record, I am not one of Walter's Warriors. I don't even know who Teresa Walters is, I just believe that she is right.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck: You just don't get it. Most restaurants in this town are already smoke free. Very few allow smoking. You are advocating making ALL public buildings smoke free, including bars and restaurants. Therefore, you are wanting to dictate that all bars and eateries adhere to your values and lifestyle and remove all rights of choice from smoking customers and, equally disturbing, the owners of those businesses. Who gives you that right?

Also; I don't smoke in restaurants and I don't go to bars so you will never inhale my smoke. Not even in my home because I don't smoke in my home if I have guests who don't partake of the pleasant habit. You are a self-righteous do-gooder out to take away personal rights and freedoms of choice from a large segment of the population to please your own holier-than-thou deluded sense of morality and perceived appropriate lifestyle.

You may not know Ms. Walters, but you are certainly one of her crusading warriors of righteousness.

Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bjnemp,
If slvrnblck is a crusading warrior of righteousness, that would probably make you a radical separatist of some kind. If the majority doesn't like smoking, perhaps you're the one who is wrong...think about that for awhile.

Also, did you know you have an average of 1.39 posts a day since you joined? slvrnblck only has an average of .10. It seems to me that you’re more “self-righteous” than others or at least more opinionated. Then again, create has 3.63 posts a day, so maybe you’re not so bad…

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Crackinsack: What are you: chief of the post police? What business is it of yours how many posts I, or anyone else on this bog, make? It's obvious that your are also some kind of self-appointed warrior of righteousness. Perhaps opinion post monitor?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bjnemp: Thank you for keeping this issue on the front burner. I don't smoke and to be honest, second hand smoke does bother me. However, there are two points (at least) that I appreciate your making: 1) they have created an issue where one did not exist since most, if not all, restaurants have no smoking areas, and 2) this issue cuts directly to our republican form of government and freedoms (not those of smokers, but those of private business owners). The proponents of this issue have no respect at all for those freedoms. Don't they understand that this is an insidious slippery slope? Where does it end? This is America, not Nazi Germany. Keep posting. The hard core will not see your point, but the reasonable people who venture to these forums will. They are the people who need to be reached.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, Jayhawker. You are right; there are none so blind as those who will not see, and these anti-smoking, anti-business rights crusaders will never see the facts through the cloud of emotion. They either don't understand, or don't care, that they are trodding on people's rights; especially the owners of small businesses.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck--

How many time does someone have to point out to you that there is no such thing as a RIGHT to breathe clean air or air that you "think" is clean. No more than there is a right to smoke. Those are issues of choice.

And as far as Walters and company are concerned. If you are in this for the employees of these smokey businesses then you ought to contact OSHA and have them set an exposure level and have the exposure regulated like everyone else who works in a hazardous environment. I work with a known carcinogen virtually everyday and I have never gone over the threshold of acceptable exposure. If you guys banned this substance I would be out of a job instantly. I don't have cancer and most people in my profession don't either. Do you know why? Because their exposure is regulated and they don't go over the acceptable limits. If SHS is bad then there is your best recourse. Not a ban. Not a restriction of the legitimate rights of business owners.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am pleased that more are recognizing how redundant an ordinance is with ALL public buildings already being smoke free and the overwhelming majority of restaurants doing it on their own already.

Who all read D. Coldsmith's most recent article? He stated very clearly why medical expenses and insurance rates are so high, it has nothing to do with being obese or being a smoker. I wish he would have included the tobacco issue, which is really all about money and creative taxation as well.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh my goodness, Bjnemp, I should have not been sipping my coffee when I read your answer to crackinsack about the number of posts people are making. I nearly drowned!

And Jayhawker is right. Thanks for making your two excellent points. But I wish you'd sit in the front seat for awhile and drive. Make a few more posts to get this target off my back. ;)

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Careful create--

Your driving up your average. I would be happy to break my posts up into one sentence at a time to produce the whole statement if you like. LOL

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...But we are not talking about your home, we are talking about public places..." slvrnblck

No, you are not talking about public places. You are talking about private businesses.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

you said:

"Therefore, you are wanting to dictate that all bars and eateries adhere to your values and lifestyle and remove all rights of choice from smoking customers and, equally disturbing, the owners of those businesses. Who gives you that right?"

I have to ask you the same question....who gives you the right to pollute the air that we all have to share? What gives you the right to dictate to me that I should be forced to share your smoky air with you when I am in a public place.

And, I have said a million times that government already dictates what businesses can and can not do. The government is ALREADY THERE! It's not like this is the first thing that they could step in and change. As I have pointed out a multitude of times, the government tells you how to keep the food that you are preparing, how many people can be in your establishment, etc etc etc. This would be just an addition to those laws that are already there that is also designed to protect the public.

you said:

"Also; I don't smoke in restaurants and I don't go to bars so you will never inhale my smoke. Not even in my home because I don't smoke in my home if I have guests who don't partake of the pleasant habit. "

If that is true then I commend you for it. Unfortunately, not everyone shares the same values as you and would rather smoke in and pollute shared air. If everyone did that, this would not be an issue. And because everyone does not do that, the Clean Air folks are asking that we put in some restrictions and regulations so that the uncourteous smoker does not pollute the air that we all share.

You said:

"You are a self-righteous do-gooder out to take away personal rights and freedoms of choice from a large segment of the population to please your own holier-than-thou deluded sense of morality and perceived appropriate lifestyle."

That is a personal attack and hardly worth responding to. It makes your argument, no matter how right or wrong you are, look weak and defensive. You and I may disagree but the personal attacks are unnecessary and make you look ignorant.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Outsider J--

"Individual rights identify a boundary of just social interactions, in the presence or absence of government. With respect to individual rights the role of the government is as a third party protecting, identifying and enforcing the rights of the individual while attempting to assure just remedies for transgressions."

"Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, 'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.' Rights must apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time. So rights must therefore be limited to claims of freedom to do anything which does not violate the freedoms of others. This requires recognizing, respecting and abiding by anyone else's wishes to be left alone whenever he wants, and his wishes to be free to do anything which doesn't violate others."

Basically, there is no civil right to breathe clean air but it is a pesonal individual right. You have the right to do what you want until you begin to infringe on my rights and vice versa.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker--

Normally you are up for a good debate and are very respectful with your viewpoint. You refrain from personal attacks and although it seems that you and I have yet to be on the same side of the fence I do appreciate your input. With that being said, I have to ask you why this ban is such a slippery slope? Or maybe a better question is why is it a more slippery slope than the one we are already on? The government already has many regulations that control what we can and can not do and the justification for these rules is that it helps protect our society. So why is adding a restriction that benefits the health of it's citizens a bad idea?

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvernblck: Call me ignorant if you wish, but I am smart enough to recognize a social bully when I see one and to realize that you still don't get it. Every public building in the city is already smoke-free, as are most of the restaurants in town, so exactly what is it you are trying to prevent?

As "ignorant" as you proclaim me to be, I can still see that you have a plethora of choices if you seek a smoke-free environment. That is as it should be. Choices are what makes our nation unique and great. If you want to eat dinner in a smoke-free restaurant, you have many choices. If you don't want to eat in a smoky environment, you have the choice to avoid the business that allows smoking. You have choices. But you seek to eliminate the right of others to have those same choices, and that is fundamentally unfair and just plain wrong. You want to have the right to choose every building, business, bar and restaurant in town as your personal smoke-free domain. At the same time, you want to prevent smokers and business owners from having any choices at all: none, zero, nada. Why is it fair for you to have choices of restaurants and saloons to patronize but smokers to have none whatsoever?

I may be ignorant, silvrback, but at least I don't consider myself so socially superior that I attempt to force my lifestyle and beliefs on others by taking away their rights and personal freedoms, based on questionable information, to solve a non-existent problem. Perhaps If I was incredibly intelligent and educated, always right and never wrong, and self-important enough to feel worthy of dictating behavior to others---as you profess to be---I'm sure I would consider your stance viable and fair. Fortunately, I'm not like you, and find that what you are trying to do is deplorable, unfair, and downright un-American.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

Once again, what gives you the right to smoke in public builidings? Why are you exhaling your byproduct into the air so that others have to partake in your habit?

Why do you think your "right to smoke" supercedes my "right to air"? Is that not an elitist position of your own? Do you not agree that "the smokers" are acting as an elitist group saying that "I will smoke wherever I want to and no one can tell me different"?

It boills down to this. You have your opinion and I have mine. And from your many comments and mine.....neither of us are going to change the others mind. I am fine with that. I do not need to convince you of anything. If the ban passes we all will have to abide by its rules if it doesn't nothing will change. I just go on and voice my opinion. I try not to personally attack anyone on these boards because it reflects poorly. If I have insulted you in any way, I apologize. However, I do stand firm in my beliefs and will continue to be an advocate for Clean Air.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck: Once again, ad nauseum, I repeat: you just don't get it. This is not about my right to smoke or your right to clean air. It is about the right to choose. I have no issue with government buildings or office buildings having no smoking policies. I have no issue with restaurants or taverns that are smoke free, either. What I, and most Emporians, Kansans, and Americans, have an issue with is individual business owners being told they have no right to make that decision for their respective business. I don't care if every restaurant and bar in Emporia bans smoking, IF that decision is made by each individual business owner and not forced upon them by some meddling group of elitist vigilantes out to change the world to suit their puritanical standards.

I rarely eat in a restaurant that allows smoking and have no problem with that. It's my choice to eat there or not. What I have a problem with is you and your elitist bullies trying to tell business owners how to run their businesses. Let the free market decide the issue. If a business owner allows smoking and the business flourishes, he made the right decision. If it fails, he may want to hang the no smoking sign. Either way, that decision is to be made by the owner of that business, not by you or Ms. Walters and her band of bored social reformers.

Do you get it now, slvernblck? It's not about the dangers of smoke or the degenerate behavior of smokers. This is about freedom, rights, choice, and the prevention of deluded do-gooders from interfering with a business owner's rights or the free market system.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OH! By the way, slvrnblck: above you said "I try not to personally attack anyone on these boards because it reflects poorly."

Really? In your post preceding that one, you called me "weak and defensive" and "ignorant". Uh-oh! I think I see a reflection there! Wow. I'd hate to see what you would call me if you did engage in personal attacks!

Me thinks perhaps you be wound a bit too tight. Try smoking; it is very relaxing.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

Apparently you don't get it. As I have repeatedly stated, business owners CAN NOT DO AS THEY PLEASE. They are regulated on many different things. This is just another one of those things. Unfortuantely people aren't courteous enough to smoke outside so we are being forced to ask for government assistance to allow us to be able to breathe air that is not polluted by smokers smoke.

Why do you think businesses should get to do as they please? Do you think they should be able to serve you old food that will make you sick? Do you think that they should be able to allow as many patrons in there business as possible which puts you in danger of being killed in the event of a fire? Do you think that businesses should be able to discriminate and only allow whites into their business if they choose? What about women? Do you think that they should not have to provide handicap accessible parking and ramps?

Now, if this was your PERSONAL home, you could do all of these things. You could serve old food or discriminate against blacks or women, you don't have to provide handicap parking etc etc. But we aren't talking about your home, which still has government restrictions, we are talking about places where the public goes. This issue is not about a business being able to choose what they want. They have to work within the confines of the laws and regulataions set for by the Federal, State and City laws and ordinances. If you think otherwise, maybe you should attack some of these other laws that are in place.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

I did not call you weak and defensive....I said that personal attacks make your ARGUEMENT sound weak and defensive. And I said that by doing so that it make you appear ignorant.

Ignorance is defined as unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge.

And, as I am sure you are aware you conveinantly you left out the part where I said that if I offended you....I apologize. So once again, if you feel like I personally attacked you, I apologize.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

slvernblck: I give up. You just don't get it. Nearly every restaurant in town is non-smoking now. You are waging war on windmills. I can't rationalize with an irrational person.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck: In answer to your question about the "slippery slope": California was one of the first states to impose smoking bans. That was, as I understand it, about 8 years ago. Now, having decided that banning smoke is not enough, the governor recently signed legislation to ban trans fats in restaurants effective next year. In LA, the city's governing body, again deciding that banning smoke and trans fats were not enough, banned fast food restaurants in parts of the city. The theories to justify all three were the same - smoke, trans fat and fast food are bad for people, and consequently, we need to a) save people from themselves, even if it tramples on the private property rights of the business owners, and b) the ill effects of smoke, trans fats and fast food cost society as a whole because of the increased need for medical care attendant thereto. These bans are insidious. I have read several posts on these threads in which the authors say that the smoking ban is good, but they would not support a fast food ban, etc. That's the way banners get their foot in the door. People who promote something new always start off with a small step, then, like in California, take a bigger step. I have no doubt that California is not done yet - in a few years from now, there will be some other dangerous activity that they will ban. Where does it stop? You made a good point about how businesses are already regulated in certain areas, and that is true. In fact, that opened the door for these bans, which opened it wider for the next, and so on. This is a new and different area of regulation, one that we have done fine without for centuries. If we cave in to this, we are on the road to a day when J's Carryout will be illegal. In America, our traditions are to respect private ownership and respect individual rights to choose for themselves. It has worked fine. The free market can handle this very well - if enough patrons want a smoke free restaurant, the owners, as profit motivated enterprisers, will provide one. This is Kansas - not New York, and not California. Historically, we have employed more common sense. Let's see if that has changed. I fear that it has.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker--

Good post. And I agree that this could potentially be used by some as a stepping stone because it does change something that has been allowed for a very long time. However, just because we have allowed or tolerated actions by others in the past does not mean that they we should continue to as we look forward. If there is a ban request to eliminated fast foods and trans fats etc, I will not support it. The reason I support this ban is because the byproduct of this habit affects everyone, not just the ones who choose to do it. And, I believe that if everyone were as courteous and BJ claims to be, I don't think this would be an issue. Unfortunately, alot of smokers aren't and believe that they should be able to smoke anywhere they want and that I should just live with breathing their smoke. As I mentioned, it has been tolerated for many years but it doesn't make it right. I know that your opinion is based on adding a restriction to what a business can and can not do. I am going to throw this out here as a possible solution in order to get some feedback Soemthing that I see that might be a compromise would be to have businesses that wish to allow smoking, go private and have a members only type atmosphere. Thoughts , hawker?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck: Since private clubs are already possible, I don't know that it is much of a compromise. To be honest, I had not thought about that. Personally, I think that it is wrong that in America a private, small business would have to become a private club (thereby excluding nonmembers as paying customers) in order to keep its clientele. However, if this happens, it may come to that. I understand your points, even though I disagree. I learned a long time ago that two reasonable people can look at the same facts, but come to opposite conclusions. To me, America does not represent government dictates like this, which I equate with Nazi Germany. To me, America is a place where the free market would decide this. With fewer and fewer smokers, I think that if everyone would be patient, in five years or so market forces would give you what you want on this, without one time costing a small business person his/her livelihood, and not one time dictate a business decision upon someone whose lifetime's work would be diminished.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, private clubs are already possible, but correct me if I am wrong, the current proposed ban would restrict smoking from them as well. I would be in favor of removing that category from the list. However, what I would be in favor of is irrelevant because I am not a member of the Clean Air committee, I just support them.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To be honest, slvrnblck, I don't know if private clubs are included or not. I agree with you, though, that if they are, they should not be. Additionally, I have heard several supporters say that bars should be excluded. As you know, I am adamantly opposed to the whole of the proposal, but I recognize that the world of my youth no longer exists, and that this ban will probably pass. I feel like that I, and others of my opinion, are completely at the mercy of the so-called Clean Air Committee, and I am asking people like you to bring to bear whatever influence you have with them that they consider leaving bars and private clubs out of it. I recognize that we are going to get this rammed down our throats, but I hope that they will at least modify it somewhat from its current form. Thanks for your post.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker: Excellent comments. You display much common sense and wisdom. You are the voice of reason.

Slvrnblck: You have shown yourself to be capable of clear thinking and compromise. I still don't agree with you, but I admire your passion and ability to discuss an issue with manners and respect.

Thanks to both of you for your input.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you to both of you for your comments and input. I do understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree with it and vice versa. I guess we will just agree to disagree.