Enforcing a city-wide ban on smoking in public has not been difficult for the Lawrence Fire Department, according to the city’s fire marshal, Rick Barr.
Barr’s department was charged with primary responsibility for enforcement when the city enacted the ordinance in 2004.
“Lawrence had a very limited smoking regulation prior to the smoke-free workplace ordinance that was adopted,” Barr said. “In that original ordinance, we were the enforcing agency.”
Responsibility for enforcement shifts to the police department when violators or situations become troublesome or confrontational, but the fire department bears primary responsibility for the ordinance.
“It covers, really, any public and private business where the public has access and there are employees, any enclosed space within the city limits,” Barr said. “So that means to us, any office, even if it doesn’t have public access but it has employees that work there. ... The only exception is that tobacco establishments, which are defined by city ordinances, smoking is allowed in a tobacco establishment.”
Barr said in order to qualify as a smoking establishment, the majority of sales receipts must be generated through sales of smoking products or related items.
In the early days of the ordinance, there were reports of violations.
“Right now, we have very few complaints. We get them periodically — maybe one a month — and we respond to them,” Barr said. “But primarily, we do not run a lot of complaints now.”
In most instances, Barr said, business owners handle smokers without needing to call the fire department or police when a customer or client lights up to smoke.
“It is the responsibility of the business owner or manager to go over and tell those individuals to quit,” he said. “... We rely pretty heavily on the business to take action.”
If a business owner fails to comply with the ordinance, he or she would receive the citation, Barr said; firefighters do not cite individuals who are smoking. If the smoker refuses to comply, or if he complies but the complainant wants to carry the complaint further, “then we would ask the patron, ‘Would you be willing to file a complaint against the person?’ Then the citizen would actually sign the complaint and testify in court that the person was smoking,” Barr said.
If the smoker refuses to stop or becomes confrontational, the business owner “needs to call the police department and have that person removed,” he said. “... The business owner or manager has the same lawful means to remove (a customer) as if he is threatening or causing a disturbance.”
Because firefighters are not trained in handling aggressive or combative people, police would need to be called, Barr explained.
“We don’t run a lot of complaints,” he said. “A few times I have sent out our nighttime (inspectors) in plainclothes to go to drinking establishments and just observe and document. We have an extremely high compliance.”
Complaints are run through Lawrence Municipal Court. The court manager did not return repeated calls to obtain the numbers of complaints filed and the revenue generated through ordinance enforcement.
Emporia’s proposed ordinance is more restrictive than the one enacted in Lawrence, Barr said.
In Emporia, smoking would not be allowed within 20 feet of any business doorway.
“We don’t do that,” Barr said. “We don’t tell them they have to smoke so many feet away from a business or a store. Now, a business owner could go ahead and do a self-imposed restriction.”
Enclosed spaces where people can smoke at businesses also is not well-defined. Initially, the lack of definition caused confusion and resulted in, for example, smoking in hallways of apartments and businesses.
“It’s good that Emporia’s getting ahead of this,” he said. “We didn’t define enclosed spaces at the onset of the ordinances. Then people started smoking in what they termed outdoor areas, when in reality they were really confined spaces with employees.”
Many Lawrence businesses added patios for smokers, he said, and the patios can be enclosed, as long as they meet the required criteria.
The ordinance proposed in Emporia, according to Clear Air Emporia proponents, would prohibit smoking in any area that has walls and a roof or ceiling.
In Lawrence, a smoking area can have walls and a roof, with a restriction. Barr said that a business owner needs to measure the dimensions of the four walls that make up the smoking area as the first step toward compliance.
“Then 20 percent of that area has to be open to the atmosphere,” Barr said. “That could mean either the roof is gone; it could mean, for example, an entire wall is gone. It could mean an opening in all four walls, with a roof.
“As long as the amount of opening is equal to 20 percent of the area of four walls, then we don’t care where the openings are,” he said.
Barr emphasized that an opening could not be closed off with awnings, shutters, or other protections from the climate.
“They have to be entirely open to the atmosphere,” he said. Otherwise, it is no longer considered a smoking area. “We monitor those fairly closely as winter starts coming up.”
Barr said that the smoking areas are used year-round, with some business owners installing heating devices to take off the chill in winter.
“You’ll see people outside in some areas and, yeah, it’s not 70 degrees. It may be 50, it may be 45,” he said. “It’s not hugely uncomfortable, so we’ve seen a lot of that occur. As long as they meet the opening requirement, that’s fine.”
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 8jnemp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm...maybe the world won't come to an end if the ban passes here. Sign us up!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The only thing that this story proves is that smokers are, as a whole, law abiding. It also points out the cost to private business owners. It further points out that Emporia's "Clean Air Committee" proposes something more restrictive than even Lawrence (and that says a bunch).
Posted by toninj (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe I missed it in the article, but isn't Lawrence's ordinance still being disputed in the courts?
Posted by kcfan (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:46 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a way that the "Clean Air Central Committee" could handle this simply. The ordinance could require the police department to establish road blocks at all roads leading into town, the mission for which would be to confiscate any smoking materials before they got into town. It could further create a "Smoking Enforcement Unit" within the police department whose mission would be to go house to house looking for smoking material and paraphernalia. The court system could establish a "Smoking Division" to deal with the criminals found at the roadblocks or by the SEU. We could add on to the jail to house these low lifes. In this way, the "Clean Air Central Committee" could devote its resources to the next ban on their agenda.
Posted by booker5m (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cracks me up Emporia always want to be like the big towns.and now they dont. Wichita has a smoking ban,Lawrence does maybe more . What wrong Emporians lets be like the big boys!
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:27 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on, Booker5m! Emporia would just love to be like Detroit, New Orleans, South Central LA, or urban Washington, DC. Get real, Booker. What separates us from the large, crime-ridden, decaying, ultra-liberal big cities is good old-fashioned common sense, conservative American values, and a desire to NOT be like the bigger cities.
You want to live in a big city? Start packing. Those of us believing in rights and freedoms will gladly help and pack you a lunch for the trip.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
History is replete with individuals and groups that got too high handed, most of whom, in the end, suffered a backlash. Hitler paid the ultimate price. Napoleon had Waterloo. FDR's "Court Packing" attempt in 1937 set back the New Deal. Joseph McCarthy was ultimately friendless. Richard Nixon's attempt to sic the IRS on his enemies partially contributed to his resignation. The Soviet Union crashed. I suspect that, although it may take a while, the "Clean Air Central Committee's" agenda will be seen for what it is, and rejected.
Posted by rdgrey (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My wife and I go out frequently and since all this smoking ban stuff kicked up we payed special attention to the businesses that we go into. We have yet to enter a family businesses and even smell smoke. Neither of us smoke so we would pick up on it easily. I do believe in breathing clean air but this is just nuts and a waste of time and money when the problem isnt even there. Several people have ask as I have, tell me one business other than a bar where you encounter a smoky atmosphere where you cant stand to be there. No one has ever answered this question and until someone does, why even bother.
That is just sneaky and low 8jnemp, why do you feel the need to stoop to such degrading measures on here. If you think your right then stand up for yourself.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rdgrey: Great post. You have pointed out correctly that this is a solution looking for a problem. I am a nonsmoker, too. The only restaurant that I have noticed a smoke issue is S & S Cafe, so I just don't go in there. Simple.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:27 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by prettyblues (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Booker...Since when did Wichita become smoke freee???News to me! I would be mad if they did though.
Posted by 8jnemp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:47 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:48 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 3:58 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 4 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 4:11 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by dale011 (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 4:21 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by former_emporian (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People who smoke use anything as an ashtray; plates, leftover food,drink glasses,salt shakers, you name it and it is covered in ash and butts. It's the smokers way. All about what they want. Hooked on the leaf. You can't buy liquor on sunday but smoke up all over town!! One vice is just as bad as another.
Doesn't tyson allow smoking in its cafeteria? I know they did in the mid 90's
Emporia is lame
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Former_Emporian
I would say that you could probably smoke in about 90% of the indoor and outdoor property at the Tyson plant, since it sits mostly vacant, and know would even know you had been there. Former sounds like you don't reside in Emporia anymore. That fact that you obviously didn't know about the Tyson layoff says it is probable that you don't live in the area either. Why would you be so interested in our lame ban?
Nice post.
8jnemp-- nice try!!
jayhawker-- do you think Elba has room for Walters et al.?
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OutsiderJ: Not a bad idea. However, Elba has a poor reputation for a place of exile. I fear that she may try to make the island smoke free. Perhaps Saint Helena would be better.
Posted by former_emporian (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Didn't say anything about the downsizing of "the beef" because the question was "is smoking still allowed in the cafeteria"? The place still has people working on 1st shift right? I'm interested in the ban (didn't say the ban was lame,I said emporia is lame)because when I stop in town (only reason is because its on I-35) to have dinner it would be nice not to have smoke in my face as I eat and then reek of smoke when I get in my car to go home.you townies have no idea there is a world outside the city limits. Ill tell you all a secret.....The best view of emporia is from ones rear view mirror. put that in your pipe and smoke it pony boy.
Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 5:47 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Next time you stop thru for dinner, I'd like to suggest that you choose one of the many smoke free facilities. Obvious choice to most, guess when you moved to the city you forgot to pack your common sense.
Posted by former_emporian (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Should one drive all over the 4 square miles of emporia to find a smoke free establishment to dine in? My common sense should not be in question.(I'm the smart one who got out of that hole.)and guess what? I live in a town that's smaller than emboria. So suck it! just like a nice cigarette after dinner.
Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 6:32 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is going to be a meeting here at Josie's this coming Monday, the 22nd, for all of the opponents to this ban. The time will be 7 p.m. I am not going to turn the outside lights on, but the doors will be open, so come on in. The address is 19 E. 6th. It's right across from where Bruff's was, the old CJ's, Outback, Buckets, etc, etc. If you are opposed to the smoking ban, for whatever reason, I invite you to attend, and would love to hear your thoughts. Let your friends know!
Matt Slater
Owner-Josie's
P.S.--There will be second hand smoke present.
Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
prettyblues,
I hate to tell you, but Wichita is now smoke free. They do have an exception for businesses to purchase a smoking permit and allow smoking in their establishment. If they do, they may not let anyone under the age of 18 in the door. The other option is to have an area totally closed off with a separate ventilation system. One restaurant down the street from me did this at a cost of $40k. I tried to provide a link to an article in the Wichita Eagle for you to read about it, but you have to have an account with them to read it after a certain time period. It's on www.kansas.com if you care to create an account and do a search for it.
As I sit here and type this note, I am watching an episode of "Speeders" on Tru TV. A cop has a guy pulled over on a custom built motorcycle because his pipes are too loud. They have a limit in CA that your vehicle cannot be over 82 decibels or you can be fined. Watch out, this will be the next thing to come to Emporia from the social police. A smoking ban first, motorcycle ban next, what will follow after that?
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You know, I was willing to accept a compromise on a smoking ban until some jerk outside village inn blew smoke in my face as I was going in for breakfast. The pile of discarded cigarette butts at prairie and 12th was bad enough. The kicker came in the form of a phone call from my best friend, a long-time smoker who found out today he has lung cancer.
For all you smokers, I pray for your health and ask that you be considerate of others.
Sounds to me like we can't ignore the consequences of smoking and second-hand smoke any longer.
Posted by eiggohp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's hoping that Emporia will follow suit....and Salina, Hays, and Garden City have already done it also recently, and it is working great.......sure is nice to be able to go into a restaurant and not have to breathe that soot!!
Posted by rdgrey (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again I will ask these people ......WHAT RESTAURANTS? Name one that has soot, smoke so thick you cant stand it? I hear the complaints but NAME SOME. GEEZ. I dont smoke but have yet to encounter this problem and we go out alot. GIVE ME A LIST If it is a legit complaint you should have your evidence, if you have no evidence of this happening then you are blowing smoke yourselves and just getting people worked up for no reason.
former_emporian we are probable better off without you and your attitude and if you hate it here so much, dont visit and take emporiagazette off you favorites list.
Posted by Doug (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 10:43 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by birch (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 10:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When Emporia was founded it was the first US city chartered as anti-alcohol and gambling. The state followed the dry rule in 1880. The nation followed in 1920. In 1933 Prohibition ended, since then reason balanced things.
Alcohol and smoking is in mankind's Anthropological heritage. To rid man of these is like swimming up stream during a flood. Sports also exacts a cost to society. Living exacts a cost to society.
Let's all work toward a season of reason.
BTW, what is the comparative long-term medical cost and over-the-counter pain killer expense of sports-related injury? I would wager (I know this is gambling.) this cumulative cost is greater than that of smoking. This is a health expense growth area, I believe. What do you think?
Universal health care will reduce both costs. Don't forget we were born to die.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
smith_ron: You made one of the the best practical arguments that I've heard to oppose this ban. If it passes, it will force all of the smokers outside in front of the door, so now everyone will have to face second hand smoke, whereas before, they didn't.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
10-15 years from now this will be standard policy, its not choice it common sense and decency, tired of hearing all the backwards uneducated repsonses, this town needs an enema
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
former_emporian: Since 90% of all restaurants in Emporia are already smoke-free, you are either lying or are delusional about "smoke in my face", "reeking of smoke", and having to drive "all over the 4 square miles of emporia to find a smoke free establishment to dine in". Which are you: a liar, or delusional?
Also, I have worked in Seattle, Denver, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Boise, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Atlanta, various other cities in 19 states and have traveled abroad. I contend Emporians aren't near as stupid and backward as you claim. Well, one of them was: but he is now a former_emporian, and boy, are we glad!
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Goodoleboy: You said:
"10-15 years from now this will be standard policy, its not choice it common sense and decency, tired of hearing all the backwards uneducated repsonses, this town needs an enema"
Are you referring to "backwards uneducated responses" from people who never learned to properly write the English language, are unable to punctuate correctly, can not construct a complete sentence, and fail to capitalize words? Whoops! I think we just found one!
Posted by ratdog (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By reading this story I get the impression that we should somehow congratulate Lawrence for passing a completely uneeded law. They now waste time and money on inspections and enforcement because they don't give their own citizens enough credit to walk into a restaurant, smell smoke and then walk back out the door if they wish to avoid it. How ridiculous!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
smith_ron: I am sorry about the jerk that blew smoke in your face. I've had that happen, too, and it is very offensive. Smokers overall, from what I've seen, are mindful that their habit is offensive to some. This issue, to me (as a nonsmoker myself) is not about smoking, but to some it is. All the smokers out there need to read smith_ron's post. You lost a potential supporter by the actions of a single, rude smoker. (I'm also sorry about your friend, smith_ron.)
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Matt Slater, for taking this campaign on. We need to be careful about discussing strategy on these boards because the "Clean Air Central Committee" is reading these as much as anyone (Hi, Mrs. Walters). Just like we will be monitoring their campaign finance reports (always interesting to see who contributes to these campaigns), etc., they will be monitoring ours. I hope that as many who are opposed to this ban come to Matt's meeting as possible. Even though we need to be careful about discussing strategy, for the organizational meeting bring with you a list of potential yard sign locations (check with your friends and neighbors), look around and bring with you anyone who has a useful talent (an example is Bjnemp has a background in advertising); think of people to bring who may have time and ability to make signs, for example, etc. Two big things: As any of us who have run campaigns before know, there is a tremendous amount of work that goes into it. Matt will need help. There are legal things to think about - Campaign Finance Reports, etc. Someone with an accounting or bookkeeping background will help him, so bring that person with you. Most important of all: The "Clean Air Central Committee" will try to make this a smoker v. nonsmoker contest. It is not. I am a nonsmoker. The issues here are the private property rights of owners, the erosion of American rights, the insidious nature of these bans (like California now banning Fast Food places) and the very idea of the City, by Ordinance with the force of law and the enforcement powers of the police and the courts, trying to tell us how to live. All of us, smoker or nonsmoker, can relate to that. Good luck.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 2 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 2:21 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by orlando (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I notice the article says that the Emporia proposal is more restrictive that the Lawrence one is. Maybe if the Emporia ordinace were less restrictive, it would not gather such ire.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bjinemp,
Is that the best you can do seriously? Criticize grammar and spelling on a message board? I thought you more intelligent than that. Guess I was mistaken.
Posted by rdgrey (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok I have asked for a restaurant that is congested with smoke, soot and cig. butts but have yet to hear of one. Again why is this necessary? And why have the staff of the emporiagazette pulled some comments but yet leave others? Does someone down there have a strong arm in this whole mess? I just want some EVIDENCE. Show me the evidence and yes there could be people who join your side, but all you rely upon is hearsay and speculation.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I get so sick and tired of hearing about denial of rights and all this rubbish. This really boils down to a simple equation. If enough people believe in something, and go the processes of enacting legislation then it is no longer and infringement on your rights. Nothing is set in stone in this country and anything is subject to change if the people deem it necessary. Mark my words, regardless of the outcome of this particular resolution in 10-15 years as more information and studies become available policy like this will be the norm. Smoking is the only habit that has adverse direct effects on those around you, hence why it is being attacked, pretty logical argument.
I will wager that in the near future we will see lawsuits brought against owners by employees that had to work in smoke filled environments. Its just a matter of time. No one ever thought the tobacco industry would be sued and regulated as they are either at one time, but it happened.
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, why was my comment removed? Is Latin not allowed on here or what?
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't buy the good for business routine....
I think someone mentioned a Salina ban on this thread. It may have been another. Salina has a ban that excludes bars and clubs. You can smoke in any bar in Salina. Just not restaraunts and places that were already smoke free.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/economic.h...
Posted by BKGS (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Reading all these posts just proves to me how Emporia is so stuck in their ways. I have traveled around for some time and majority of the towns I visited are smoke free. I never really noticed it, since I am not a smoker. Now that I am a mother, I can only go to smoke free facilities. Bruff’s is my favorite place to eat, and now I will not be going there since the entire place is smoking (Not saying having a “smoking section” does any good, but at least it is an attempt.) I read some of the post against the smoking ban and I am ashamed that there is so much passion against this issue. This passion is being wasted on the inevitable. I am sure Emporia will become smoke free in one way or another. Maybe not today or next year, but it will happen. I don’t care if someone smokes; it is their right to choose so. BUT you would have to be completely foolish if you don’t think your smoke doesn’t affect others. Second hand smoke is very serious and very real. Instead of wasting your time fighting against this issue, why don’t you research ways to compromise? I am only 27 years old and I feel I am more educated, open, and real about the harm of smoking then many of you complaining.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Second response to you former_emporian since the editors decided mine and josiesbar's previous responses were improper.
As there are 20 non-smoking restaurants for every restaurant that allows smoking, it shouldn't take long for an intelligent person to choose a place that fits their non-smoking preference, especially when they are familiar with the choices already like you are.
Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
as printed in the gazette aug 22nd 2008 --- The call set off a flurry of activity. Reporters, editors, and publisher huddled in the smoking room in the basement to make assignments for interviews with the candidate and with members of the expected crowd, and to come up with a slate of questions on topics pertinent to this area.
While the gazette is busy deleting comments maybe they can take time to give us their input on this ban. According to one of their articles they have a smoking room in the basement wonder if they have made any decisions on how they are going to handle a smoking area 20 feet from their entrance or are they going keep it tucked away in the basement. Oh wait tthey wont be able to walk to feet across the street the city owns the parking lot? they wont be able to go 20 feet out the backdoor isnt that school property back there? no smoking on any city owned property will be allowed. Does that include sidewalks, streets and parking lots owned by the city (tax payers) Sounds like a lot of smokers huddled in the basement over all the excitement. where will they smoke when this passes?
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BKGS, as has been said over and over and over again on these posts, it's not about smoking in and of itself. It's about the freedom to choose and how one group has decided that it is within their power to decide what is right for everyone in town. Can't you see that? I am not a smoker, so I am fully aware of all the places in town that do not allow smoking. I go to those places. You have similar choices. Sorry you can't go to Bruff's anymore, but you made a CHOICE not to go there. Passing this ban would give no one a choice, neither smokers nor non-smokers. It's all or nothing and therein lies the rub. Again, it's not about "the harm of smoking." Rather, it's about the harm of allowing one group to dictate it's own agenda to an entire town. The last time I checked, this is still a free country.
Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BKGS --- Now that I am a mother, I can only go to smoke free facilities
Why would you take your child to a bar/grill in the first place??? More people go there to drink alcohol/liquor then to eat for pitty sakes! Thats YOUR choice.
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
create--
I understand your point, but the fact remains that this group will not be the ones making the decision. The city commissioners or the people themselves will. The group is just an advocate for the proposed ban. They believe in something strongly enough to try and get legislation passed. There have been a lot of hateful comments towards a group of people that are only proposing legislation. They are not the enemy. They are exercising their rights.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In an epiphany of common sense this morning, I thought of something I haven't really seen addressed on this second hand smoke is bad issue. If people are getting so much of so many dangerous chemicals in their systems from second hand smoke, how is that non smokers who are routinely subjected to SHS are not addicted to nicotine? How come everyone who has endured repeated exposure to SHS isn't do the old shuck and jive nic fit dance?
The radio says that if you are near a smoker, then you are smoking. Really???
Or could it be that the lungs of the smoker are filtering out most of these toxins? Could it be that an organ in the human body is actually fulfilling its secondary function (so to speak, the lungs and sinuses work as air filters for the body).
Could it be that this issue has nothing to do with health and everything to do with preference?
It is apparent that BKGS and others like her who complain about not being able go to their favorite places because of SHS have never heard of ordering their food "to go". Heck, if you call it in I bet you'll even get the food faster than if you had sat around with all those people you consider beneath you and your standard of life. Ya Think?
God save the property owner!!!
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Or maybe they can't have cocktails with supper if they order to go.
Which leads me to wonder if all of these concerned parents take their kids to bar/grill settings because they are alcoholics or because it is fun for them drive intoxicated with their kids in the car.
I realize that this statement is extremely unfair, but hey if you name specific businesses then you kind of open the door to speculation. Especially considering that often the businesses mentioned as allowing smoking also serve as bars.
Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, I am against this ban, and I am against censorship also, but before you criticize the Gazette, I think they have presented both side of this issue fairly and accurately. Maybe Gwen Larson isn't even-handed on the blog site but that is between her and her boss to settle. The stories and wails are honest and present both sides, just as it should be. If you want a comment published, mail it to the People Speak column and BE NICE! IT WILL GET PUBLISHED. I think Mr. Walker is probably against this ban, but he can speak for himself.
Posted by BKGS (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To wyse_guy, do you really think people only go to Bruff to drink and smoke. Come on, that is insulting to them! We go to a bar and grill to eat.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OutsiderJ,
You present no scientific fact to support your argument, your are just throwing out statements that by your own admission you do not know the real answer. Second hand smoke is bad not matter how you slice it, everyone agrees on this. The levels which people are subjected to are irrelevant, would you like it if people that chewed tobacco spit on you? I think not.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The real crime in all of this is the habit due to its very nature. Chewing tobacco and alcohol are not shared with those in proximity. People choose to go into establishments that are smoking because they have no choice in that its either don't go socialize or socialize and inhale smoke. I would wager an incredulous sum of money that as time passes and more comes to light about the effects of exposure to second hand smoke bars will see a dramatic drop in business as more people will not patronize them, this ban is just a precursor of things to come for SMOKING, not our liberties.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 19, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's move to a news forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Goodoleboy: You wrote:
Bjnemp
"Is that the best you can do seriously? Criticize grammar and spelling on a message board? I thought you more intelligent than that. Guess I was mistaken."
Yes,Goodoleboy. As usual, you were mistaken. You gave me way too much credit. I'm actually dumber than a bucket of guts. I AM smart enough to know a biased and unfounded attack, however, and YOU were the offender. You called me, and everyone in town wise enough to oppose the smoking ban, "backwards" and "uneducated". Tsk, tsk! And you did so using 2nd grade grammar, 1st grade punctuation, and kindergarten writing skills that were barely comprehensible. All I did was deliver a deserved dose of "touche". Your comment about all Emporians needing "an enema" was tacky, too.
Your rude comments gave credibility to the old phrase "the pot calling the kettle black". That was a pretty "backward" and "uneducated" posting, don't you think?
If you don't want to get stoned, oleboy, stop throwing stones.
Posted by spectator (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am against the ban but not because I smoke. I too have encountered smokers who use anything and everything as an ashtray, blow smoke indiscriminately, toss butts on the ground/floor next to the ashtray but that's the exception, not the rule. I never did smoke and really don't want to be around it but I do go to Bruff's to eat and I have been to S&S to meet with friends. Bruff's usually isn't a problem but S&S was pretty smoky the day I was there. I knew it would be but it was MY choice to go. Another friend elected to miss the informal get-together and that was O.K. with everyone else. It was HIS choice and no one thought the worse of him. I too believe this is simply a get-the-foot-in-the-door ploy and am concerned what will be taken away next on the assumption this passes.