Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What graphs?

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Really nice graphs! I had to adjust the smoke screen setting down a bit in order to see them. Many thanks to the Gazette for sharing them with us!

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I found them in the print edition. Are they online, too?

Posted by Cliffy (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder...will there be a smoking section at the meeting tonight?

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliffy: No smoking section at tonights meeting, but there was still alot of people BLOWING SMOKE!

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How many people attended?

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 12:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Approximately 200 attended. 85% or more of those opposed the smoking ban as proposed by CAE.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So what are you implying by that figure? Just curious cause it is no way representative of the total population of this town.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think he is implying that approximately 200 people attended the public forum, and 85% or more of those people opposed the smoking ban as proposed by CAE. I could be wrong though.

Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why does it feel like I am banging my head against the wall trying to get through to some people. I believe the "slippery slope" was mentioned in another post people. The same people who were all for changing the name of the Christmas Program so as not to offend anyone now can't fathom changing Halloween since it might offend someone. Must be nice to make the rules up as you go, but that is not how it works. You make a rule and it typically sticks and now you have to deal with the consequences. This ban would just be one more of those slippery slopes. Next thing you know, some idiot will be asking government to tell the restaurants what they can and can't serve based on health issues.

You want a solution - here's a solution:
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS BY MAKING YOUR OWN GOOD CHOICES!

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not to fan the flames, but doesn't government already tell restaurants, to some extent, what they can and cannot serve -- health-wise?

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Deepthoughts,

The good thing to know is there is at least 175 other people banging their heads on the same wall. After last night, I feel this has a really good chance of being put on a ballot, possibly shot down altogether. Mr. Sauder stated CAE would give ground on 4 different points of contention. I will give ground when the last copy of the smoking ban proposal goes in the shredder.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Newsie, what exactly are you talking about with regard to government telling restaurants what they can and cannot serve? Please be more specific. Do you like refried beans? Unless posted otherwise, refried beans contain lard. I don't know of any local government rule that says restaurants can't use lard when preparing refried beans.

One clip used by Channel 13 news last night was the one when the majority of the people stood up and cheered when asked if they were against the ban. It matters not whether they represented the majority of the number of people in town. The spunky ones showed up and that is the name of the game. For that matter, voting numbers never represent the total numbers of people in town either. Do we negate the results? Spin, spin, spin.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was there and I would say the #'s were closer to 65-35 or 70-30. Both sides did fairly well in getting their respective points across. I am still for the ban, but that is because I truly believe it is a health issue. I definitely understand where the businesses come from though and I do, I can't believe I am saying this, agree with Matt Slater about how bars are being unfairly targeted. Seriously though, Matt did a very good job of rounding up the troops so to speak. He spoke clearly and to the point. IMO he was the best speaker by far for those against the ban.

On the other side, there were many good speakers and most of the info was fact based. You could tell the CAE was a little more prepared and had prewritten most of their speeches and that those that opposed the ban were speaking more off the cuff. My guess is that CAE had more time to prepare their speeches and had anticipated they were going to be brought out to speak.

I did find it interesting that CAE is now ready to modify their proposal. I personally don't think the timing was the best but the simple fact that they are wanting to compromise is a good sign.

These are just my observations from what I saw last night. Like I said I think both sides presented their cases well.

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not in the restaurant business, but I am willing to bet that government does ban some items from being served. I seriously doubt, though, that refried beans are on the list. But what is, for example, is foie gras in Chicago.

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

the point is, government is already into the restaurant owner's private business. To say they should not be is a little too late.

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the CAE was willing to compromise all along, despite what they said previously. The question now is can a compromise be reached. Lot of bad blood has been spilled over this issue. A lot of really dumbass stuff has been said by both sides.

I'll bet that both sides will claim a victory when all is done.

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All this may be a moot point...

http://www2.ljworld.com/videos/2008/aug/...

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do think that most people realize that a ban is coming. It's just whether or not it is this one at this time. The world is changing---for the good??? Well that seems to be the real question.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Newsie, just because the voters of Chicago voted against the serving of foie gras because they believe it is cruel to geese, tell me, why do they still sell and eat milk-fed veal? I guess it's okay to pen up a calf and feed it nothing but milk, but when its feet can't hold it up any longer, it gets supported by straps. Is it because no one showed them any pictures of how milk-fed veal is raised? Veal is a popular item in Chicago markets. Foie gras is still available for sale in other areas. What 's the point? Geese are still being force fed until their livers swell. It's against the law to speed too.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I worry about the lack of communication between the two sides of this issue and their ability to compromise. Simply by bringing this issue into the public consciousness, I feel like the bars in particular are in a lose, lose situation. Let's say that the citizens against the ban have their proposal adopted and sinage is placed on the front door of businesses that allow smoking, while internally employees are made aware that they will work in a smoking environment. In essence, owners of smoking businesses will put a warning label on their front door and in front of their employees. This worries me because I know that the amount of lawsuits actually went up for cigarette companies after warning labels were placed on packages. Essentially, all smoking businesses would say "yes, we understand the potential dangers that some say could exist from the long term exposure to second hand smoke." If any additional data reinforces existing data concerning second hand smoke, that admission makes smoking businesses a huge target for any former employee or long time patron seeking to pay for mounting medical bills for any perceived smoking related illness.

I still think if current bar owners want to keep their establishments open to smoking they should simply pursue a grandfather clause and stay the heck out of the rest of the argument. And, because I like a lot of our bar owners, please don't open yourselves up to future litigation by broadcasting potential exposure via sinage or employee memo's. I'd hate to see someone in 10 years, desperate for cash to pay off medical bills go after someone like Corbin in retirement (maybe, but keep working as long as you want) for the chance at a quick pay day (they probably could get a non-smoking advocacy group to foot the legal bill). Please, people on both sides, try and get together and see if you can compromise. I'm not sure how many more divisive battles this community can take.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momus,

Incredible, someone else finally gets it! This is what I have been saying will happen in time regardless of this measure. Not saying I advocate it, its just what I know is coming based upon the history of this country. Bravo sir!

Posted by Cliffy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's your compromise....You allow smoking in your home and I'll not allow smoking in mine. I choose whether or not to come to your home. You allow smoking in your business; I choose whether or not to do business with your business. Whether it is pole dancing, drinking or passing gas, it should be up to the individual. GOVERNMENT and other nosy, do-gooder, busybody people get out!
If it's better in Johnson County, then go back and live there. We already regulate dogs in the back of the pickup trucks, sofas on the front porch and tall weeds...Go Away!

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If CAE was willing to compromise, they sure didn't show it. Everything is going along just hum Jim Dandy, and WHAM! This group comes along and wants to throw a wrench in my gears. To my knowledge, this group never once called any bar or restaurant owner or any business owner for that matter, to even discuss this. Then they had a page and a half long list of compromises they were not willing to accept. The absolute best thing they could have done was called all of the bar and restaurant owners, at the very least, and sat down with them and explained their point of view. This never happened. To me, this ban, the way it was written, was nothing more than a personal vendetta against bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

I never wanted this, it was forced upon me. I guarantee 99% of this could have been avoided had this group been far more considerate of others.

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Create, the point is that government did step in and tell restaurants what they could serve. If it happened in Chicago, could it happen here?

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Really good point, Cliffy. Interesting, though, that a pickup, front porch and lawn are all private property, yet government has stepped in and told us what to do. I say we let our dogs run loose in the backs of our pickups that our parked next to the couches on our porches that could barely be seen because our lawn is so tall. That'll show the neighbors.

Didn't I see recently that the city does not allow recreational vehicles to be parked in home driveways? Dang that G-Man treading on me.

Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

there are alot of non smoking businesses and its just as easy to find a non smoking job, on one is ever forced to patronize or work in a smoking environment.