Posted by eiggohp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

excuse me.....but I have a right to breath air free of smoke when I am in public places! I hope the smoking ban passes~~ good luck to those in this endeavor.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eiggohp: I agree with you that you should not have to breathe someone else's smoke. Can you kindly identify for this forum's readers what public place in Emporia where you are forced to breathe smoke?

Posted by Emporiafan (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

just for the record resturants and bars are not public places....they are privately owned businesses...the courthouse and govt owned offices are..and they are already non smoking...

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You Guardians of Air Supply Purity just don't get it, and you never will get it because you are not as interested in clean air as you are in controlling everybody in town, period. You have been told over and over and over again that most of the public places here are ALREADY smoke free. Yet you continue to harp on a smoking ban. Why do you insist on wasting time? You can CHOOSE to go where it is smoke free. If the place is not smoke free, DON'T GO!!!

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on, create. In fact, lets challenge anyone to identify one place where the public goes (other than bars) in Emporia where a person who enters is involuntarily subjected to smoke. One place. Just one.

As a follow up question (since no one will be able to meet the first challenge), if there is no place where smoke is a problem (again, other than bars), I challenge anyone to provide one reason, just one, why we need this ban. Stated another way, other than dictating to private business owners what they can do or can't do with their own property, how will a ban in any way change anything for a nonsmoker?

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Must agree with create and Jayhawker on this one, the quote "Can you kindly identify for this forum's readers what public place in Emporia where you are forced to breathe smoke?"
Got to love it, I sure cant think of any place someone is FORCED to breath smoke. No one forced them to get up, put on their shoes,go outside get in the car,drive towards smoke filled places,pull into a parking lot, get out of the car, walk to a smoke filled building and then go into a smokey room and inhale deeply.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just one more reason to get out and VOTE!

Posted by Pollyanna (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nice post USN

to me that about sums it up. Gettin' tired of reading the same old support and opposition arguments for this ban. It's the same argument spun 100 different ways ad nauseum. Let us vote and get on with our lives. If you are so opposed them move yourself and family to a different community who, will probably follow suit with their own bans. Don't we have new and better things to fight about??!!! ha.

Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Someone define bar for me, and why is it that we have to exclude bars from the places where folks encounter second-hand smoke?

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker: Shame on you! You asked eiggohp a question so difficult that he/she hasn't yet answered. I, like you, would like to know in what public place in Emporia eiggohp and the other smoke-free saviors are forced to breathe smoke. I hope one of Walters' Warriors or Egghead's elite can answer your question. Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

smith_ron: I try very hard to understand others' point of view, even when I strongly disagree. But come on, you can't be serious when you ask for a definition of a bar. That is a tactic that we in America have become conditioned to accept - we can't deal with anything other than one size fits all. Is that what you are doing? Surely you are smart enough to know what a bar is, and smart enough to understand the argument for exempting it. If not, I sure hope that you aren't registered to vote.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker: Stop it! You're making me laugh. I hate it when that happens. It tarnishes my grumpy image.

Posted by gazette_reader (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is an interesting question: Is a privately owned business really a public space?

Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I only ask because Bruff's is one place where smoking is an issue. The question is: is it a bar or a restaurant?

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

restaurant

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

eiggohop we are still waiting for your answer. Name the one place someone is forced to breathe second hand smoke in Emporia Kansas.

gazette-reader the term "private property" means just that. Property which is owned by a private person and/or company.
Public property is that property owned by the taxpayers.
So where are we forced to breathe second hand smoke on public property?
As far as Bruffs goes, I have hardly ever been there when second hand smoke was lingering or wafting through the air. I think Gary has a pretty good ventilation system.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Applebees....Bruffs.....Coaches

Those businsesses are privately owned but cater to the public. The public is allowed to go in there with out a membership card so it is not "private". Kids are allowed to go in all of those places and should not have to breathe smoky air.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

slrvnblck: You hit the nail on the head. The public is ALLOWED to go in there they are not forced to. By every legal term they are still private property.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Walmart, Dillons, Newman Hospital,The Public Library These also don't require a membership card to enter, but are non-smoking. Two of these are private property but the OWNERS deceided to ban smoking, JUST LIKE IT SHOULD BE!

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seems to me that smoking is a legal activity that anyone over 18 is allowed to do. For a business owner to allow this legal activity on their property is totally up to them. If they are losing business because people are going elsewhere where smoking is not allowed, then they will in turn ban smoking and gain that business back.

Let people vote with their dollars, not by government dictating what will or will not happen on private property. Government is already too involved too much in people's lives.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck: To me, Coaches and Bruffs are bars. I agree that in both of those places it is possible that you could encounter smoke. I am a nonsmoker and I have never noticed a problem in either. Are you sure about Applebees? I don't go in there often, but I don't recall encountering any smoke and I think that they have a nonsmoking section.

Since I don't know for sure, I'll accept Applebees as a non-bar restaurant that a nonsmoker like myself would involuntarily encounter smoke. One restaurant. One. In the whole town. So, if I understand correctly, we are going to make every private business owner prohibit smoking in all parts of his restaurant in every restaurant in town when there is only one that is a problem for nonsmokers? Even though in all but one restaurant in town, nonsmokers have nothing to complain about, we are going to dictate terms to every business, even though only one offends. This is outrageous. What this tells me is that the real target here is bars, since most (if not all) bars currently allow smoking. I guess that I'm not surprised since the group promoting this is strongly against alcohol in any form for any person. In other words, they can't have prohibition on alcohol, so they want prohibition on tobacco. And are willing to trample over the private property rights of the owners in the process. So what happens to the owner if he allows smoking to continue in his bar? Will he be prosecuted? If so, how much jail time should he get? Life in prison without parole, maybe? Let's get real here, folks. This is outrageous.

Posted by hottopics (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whats next? Someone doesn't have to smell another person's cologne they find offensive, so no cologne?

I realize it isnt second hand smoke but I believe that if owner's of restaurants want to ban smoking fine, if they dont, still fine. But we shouldn't choose for them. Our natural air is more polluted than these establishments.

"Land of the Free" is becoming more and more, "Land of the Cant.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 5:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker: I think you may be on track about the EDA targeting the bars and drinking, While the clean air gestapos are funded by a different tax exempt entity, the EDA is involved and they have been using tax dollars for years doing everything they can to limit bars and drinking. Most of these same people don't care about the common man bars because they can sit on the hill drinking their cabernet at the Emporia
Country club which they got changed to non-smoking.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I won't be able to dedicate enough resources to enforce this smoking ban. I already budget more every month on security than I do on rent, adding another employee/security person to enforce this ban is out of the question. My security has better things to do than make sure people aren't smoking, like making sure potential troublemakers are removed, minors aren't drinking, etc.

If you think I am exaggerating, I am inviting anyone who thinks that this ban can be effectively enforced to spend a night in the trenches. Come to my bar on a Saturday night after an ESU home football game (the next one is Sep. 20th, hint hint), and tell me people smoking cigarettes is something I should really be concerned about, because it isn't.

Matt Slater
Josie's

Posted by Renegade (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I lived in a small town in Colorado,that passed a "partial" Smoking ban, a few years ago..The ban required that owners of Bars and Restaurants, partitian off Smoking sections, with many rules and regulations, that cost the owners huge expenses.
Within ONE year...The Government, made the State of Colorado, a NON-Smoking State. So, it didn't matter what the town wanted...or Voted for....the State was the decision maker.
I agree with you Create..and everyone against the ban...I think the Business Owners should be able to make the decision of whether or not they allow smoking in their establishment..and, let US, the people, make a decision as to whether we want to enter, or not.
I can live with that....because, in the end...our State Government is going to be the decision maker for us.