Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One reason, money. Money is dictating this issue, not health. This happens time and time again, but I will wager everything I own that in my lifetime this will change, in fact I am waiting for lawsuits against business owners to be brought, and depending on the business the owners will be the losers if they show negligence.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Make up your mind goodoleboy. Is it about health and safety or is it about money?

The only money it is about is the the money invested in and made from privately owned businesses by the business owners. If the government wants to control the type of customers a business can cater to, then the government should buy and manage the business.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is a plumbing company and an ac/heating company downtown whose employees smoke in the back room on there breaks and after work. Will the city shut them down after three citations? The federal government is bailing out Wall Street companies (700 BILLION DOLLARS) after they broke government laws and regulations. Will the city government do the same to JOE BAROWNER when this ban passes?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its money Outsider, how many major lawsuits has this country seen where business or companies ignored the health of the public and it resulted in billion dollar lawsuits, I wager in our lifetimes that we it happen, people will blame ailments on the bars or clubs they worked in and will back it up with scientific evidence as more comes to light and they will win. If I was a smart bar owner I would be having waivers of sort drawn up, its something at least.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Haha, if someone sues me for second hand smoke, they only thing they'll get is a blown up car, a burnt down bar, and the keys to both!

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

If you were found by a jury of your peers liable and you did that they would happily collect all your insurance money for said property, retirement, and garnish your wages. You are truly a piece of work, and from that last post a pathetic human being.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lawyers and lawsuits will be be the death of democracy. The worst politicians are lawyers, too.

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

goodoleboy,

Why don't you look at the first 4 letters of my post. I think that will give you some insight into the seriousness of that comment.

Posted by johnsmith (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW goodoleboy with that comment me thinks you aint no better.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We were told tonight that the reason more pro-ban people were not in attendance, was because of the "threats and the likelyhood of lost business for supporters of this ban outweighed their public comment on this issue." I think some people ought to get some cajones or keep quiet.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a bunch of Marys! I have been told that people were going to boycott my bar. I have been called, on this thread, "You are truly a piece of work, and from that last post a pathetic human being." And I stood up and gave my speech! To say people have been threatened because they are for this ban is absolutely ridiculous, and is a pitiful excuse for the fact that 85% (at least) of the people present tonight were against it.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To think that the meeting was a direct representation of what this community feels is absurd. This matter needs to be put to a vote and if you are correct in your assumptions than you have nothing to fear from a vote.

You can wrap it any way you like. You are a business owner and to make comments like the one above shows me you are irresponsible and crude. We all know 2nd smoke is bad for people, for Christ's sake we know smoking causes cancer, its elementary. What if in 5 years more evidence comes to light and because of your insistence on money people get sick and have to endure radiation treatment or perhaps death? Oh yeah that's right, you would torch everything you own in an effort to thumb your nose at them, model of humanity.

Ban or no ban, more research and data will come in and I will wager that it shows 2nd hand smoke to be a lot worse than we thought. Just like the tobacco industry, asbestos,etc , if we knew 30 years ago what we know now..... its a matter of time in my book.

Currently it is your right to have smoking in your establishment, but refusal to even think about the prospects of what that does and joking about it is poor taste.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What if in 5 years people who used to frequent my establishment have liver disease from drinking alcohol? Or the college kids who come in that are under 21 develop ulcers from Red Bull? Am I responsible for that too? According to your post, that would make the Sweet Granada responsible for cavities, right?

People know when they come in my establishment that there will be second hand smoke present. I don't know how many times I have to say this. You don't go to a bar to be healthy. Period. When you go in a bar, you are not going to do one thing that is healthy. I have never said, nor will I ever say, that second hand smoke is harmless, or smoking is harmless (I quit in Feb, thanks). I KNOW it is harmful! But because of my "insistence on money (HA!)" I still exercise my freedom of choice, and run my business the way I see fit.

You said, "To think that the meeting was a direct representation of what this community feels is absurd." Well lets see. It was a "PUBLIC" forum, and all members of the community were invited to attend, and the fact that at least 85% of the people there were against it, I would say that makes it decidedly not absurd.

By the way, if the worst thing you can gig me for is telling a bad joke, I'm doing good!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No you would not be, because none of those habits are shared with the others around you directly. My example for this would be if you have people chewing tobacco and spitting on others how long would that last?

The topic of this article was is it dangerous, nothing about choices. Yes 2nd smoke is dangerous, but again if your referring to choices on this my argument would be that if I choose to enter your bar why is it that the smokers make my choices for me? If smoking was akin to chewing or drinking you would NEVER see a complaint from me or any of these other CAE types (which I am not a fan of either) How many no chewing or drinking ordinances do you see?

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But I thought the CAE people DIDN'T WANT this issue to be put to a vote. That tells me they're afraid their big idea may not pass and then they will have to give back all the grant money they've received. Plus they will have no recourse but to stand down.

It would be interesting to know who really said that many pro-ban people didn't show up because of threats and the fear of loss of business. Boo to them, but this is the same thing that was said when we all showed up at the hearing regarding the Somali issue. So is this really true, or is it just the pro-ban people looking for an excuse for why their numbers were so thin last night? Spin, spin, spin!

Let's say it is true -- Boo Hoo, we're afraid of getting boycotted.-- Poppycock! These chickens don't have the courage of their convictions, no backbone. Now the Air Queens have an excuse for a lack of visible support. But think about it -- wouldn't the opposite also be true? That business owners who are against the ban would also be afraid to show their faces for fear the Warriors of the Air and their ilk might boycott them? Works both ways

Spunk! That's what it takes, and spunk was there last night in the faces and demeanor of those of us who are against this silly ban. Frankly, I'm glad those with courage outnumbered the cowards when it was time to sign the Declaration of Independence. "One man with courage makes a majority." Andrew Jackson.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What does this have to do with the topic?

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"It would be interesting to know who really said that many pro-ban people didn't show up because of threats and the fear of loss of business."

Teresa Walters

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Last I read this topic was about adverse health effects of 2nd hand smoke, nothing to do with our ban and the political climate of Emporia, simply is it dangerous yes or no. Why the thread derailment?

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Because it is off topic and not in line with the article. Consequently not presenting a good counter argument makes it look as if you have none and are resorting to thread hijacking to hide the issue.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This has to do with the topic, goodoleboy, you brought it up on this thread: "To think that the meeting was a direct representation of what this community feels is absurd. This matter needs to be put to a vote and if you are correct in your assumptions than you have nothing to fear from a vote."

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

See? Right up there...on this thread...today....

"Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To think that the meeting was a direct representation of what this community feels is absurd. This matter needs to be put to a vote and if you are correct in your assumptions than you have nothing to fear from a vote."

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I addressed the poster above then when right back on track with what the topic was about. You are completely off topic, quote the whole post not the pieces you like, you can see that I kept the discussion where it needs to be.

Lrn2forum

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's my counter argument:

http://www.wibw.com/localnews/headlines/...

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I attended the meeting last night, just as an observer. It was quite interesting. It was one of those civic exercises that reveals the social divide in this city. One one side you had city "elites," well meaning as they may have been. On the other side was blue collar Emporia.

I didn't really feel that I had a great stake in this. I don't smoke, although I did smoke three packs of Camels a day from the time I was 11 or 12 till I was 26. My wife and I don't frequent restaurants much and have found eating at home much better.

The one thing that tipped the scale for me was when Ms. Walters said that those who supported the ban had been intimidated. That just didn't ring true with me. Actually, I attended a civic meeting about a month and a half ago at which CEA Emporia made a presentation. When they were done they passed out a signature petition. Now I know I'm an adult and should have made up my own mind, but I felt the same type of peer pressure a teen feels. So, I (regrettably now) signed it. After the meeting I spoke with Ms. Walters and told her that intimidation can work two ways and requested that my name be taken off the petition. I also told her that I didn't like the idea of her speaking for me in this matter, nor did I like the draft proposal I'd seen. I then told her that no smoker had attempted to intimidate me or any other non smoker I know.

I honestly can't figure the science out on this. I tend to believe the last study I've read, either pro or con. I do have asthma (possibly a result of my years of smoking), but I'm not as worried about second hand smoke as CEA thinks I should be. The triggers for my athma are actually things like leaves that get mouldy in the fall because of wet weather, exhaust fumes, and the burning of the hills here in the spring. Part of me would like to ban mouldy leaves, but the Almighty has already voted that ban down. And part of me would like to ban automobile exhaust fumes and the burning of the hills. Maybe CEA can work those issues for me.

Part of the rationale for CEA's work has been to protect non smokers from harm. I'd really like that decision in my hands. I deal with a lot of temptations about every day. I go to the grocery store and eye the jelly donuts, twinkies, and ho-hos, then find myself having to resist the temptation. Sometimes I succeed, often I don't. It's also tempting at those times to think that the stores should ban these items because they aren't good for me. Maybe they should sell them in a back room somewhere, covered by plain paper wrappers with a warning notice attached. Of course, it's foolish to consider.

I hope this comes to a vote. I recommended to one of the commissioners that it does. If so, I'll vote no!

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So as long as you get back on track, it's okay to hijack? In case you'd like to check, I was responding to other comments on this same thread that introduced what Walters had said about last night's thin numbers reflecting the fear of boycotts. If they were off topic too, then I'm in good company!

Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Net
Unfortunately I was not able to make the meeting last night, so I was a little surprised to hear that you observed a feel of "elite vs. blue collar". I have spoken with people who range all over that spectrum and have observed people on both sides.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Deepthoughts

That was my observation. I can't say that's what others observed. I felt that on one side there were the "enlightened" wanting to "protect" us and on the other were "average" Emporians who just wanted government to leave them alone.

The divide looked pretty clean to me. The ban proponents were sitting together up front, prominently placed. They appeared to be a slice of Emporia's blue ribbon citizens. The other side seemed to be blue collar workers and small business owners. I suspect that many of them feel that their views and needs aren't considered in this city's machinations. I can't say that the feeling is right on, but I can that that it is a very real feeling. The last thing most of them want is more government intervention.

And I can't say that the divide I sensed was completely clean, but it was there nonetheless. Others who were there could speak to that I suppose.

I think the last speaker made an excellent point. She asked why CEA hadn't spent more time trying to working with the counter group. Had CEA done that a proposal satisfactory to both sides might have been drafted.

I spoke to Ms. Walters about that. She reminded me that it was just a "draft." I think what she failed to mention was that the draft language included everything that CEA wanted. Had no one objected, they would have taken every item in the draft and made it law. The one thing that stopped them in their tracks was the pushback from the other side. Only then (last night was the first time I heard CEA offer alternative language) did they shift their position. I think it was the sense that CEA was trying to jam this down their throats that got opponents really riled up.

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

Good god do you read? I never took this off track, merely responded to Josiesbar and rbow, then went right back on topic in an attempt to get this back where it needs to be. I really would like to see this thread moderated. There are plenty of threads about the ordinance and the politics of this town, leave this one how it is supposed to be please.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So now I am responding to Netloafer before I get back on track with the OSHA question.

Netloafer, you are absolutely right about the comment you made after Walters told you it was just a draft, and I agree wholeheartedly. "Had no one objected, they would have taken every item in the draft and made it law." Once we read the proposal for ourselves, it was easy to see that we could have been railroaded.

As to the OSHA question"

"OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result."

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PELs can be variable due to all the factors present in the enclosure , including number of patrons, it would be almost impossible to find a working number for each place of business, not to mention the fact that said established PEL's could be changed at any time as more comes to light.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So since it's almost impossible to establish PEL's then we should just pass a blanket no-smoking ordinance and bar business owners be damned? This proposal is a witch hunt. Welcome to October.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is my belief that yes this will eventually happen to smoking. I can see the lawyer's on TV already fishing for former bartenders and the like. Not what I want to see but the divide on this issue makes it more of a winner take all scenario.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess what i dont understand is this, I think most if not all people would agree smoking is probably bad for you and secondhand smoke is more than not, not good for people. Given that, I say if it is legal, and if adults are able to make thier own choice as to where to work, where to eat and when to smoke, Thats thier choice, we all all grown and of age, we can think for ourselves and we can decide for ourselves what we wish to do when no laws are being broken.
Put a damn sign on the door and give this ban a rest already!
I have lived here my entire life and have yet been forced to breath anyones secondhand smoke, it has always been my choice, I say leave it that way.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is an opportunity to make up you own mind on the research you read. If you can see where it comes from and how it is compiled I think everyone can make a more informed decision.

http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/...