Comments by Merry_Carol
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on July 14 at 11:46 a.m.
LOL, BJ, no worry, I'm not campaigning against anything, just expressing an opinion. Moving cattle with big trucks is necessary. Range burning is evidently necessary. Hey, it's always something! ;) And there are certainly bigger problems in this world than where you get to smoke.
Outsider, I understand the slippery slope concept, but we could say that about many laws.
I frankly think it is a shame that we have to even consider a law like this. If people who smoked were all as polite as you are, then there wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. There are enough smokers who don't give a second thought to other people that finally non-smokers and even smokers who don't want to be in smoke in restaurants are rebelling against it.
I really think it is that simple. If people could just be considerate about their smoke.........
I am in favor of nonsmoking laws to a degree. I've seen them work. But I already have it worked out for my own life where I eat and where I socialize. So, it's not a big problem for me most of the time. I simply don't have the freedom to go to certain restaurants or any bars if I don't want to breathe cigarette smoke. No big deal to me personally.
On Smoking ban
Posted on July 14 at 8:42 a.m.
Monkee, perhaps I worded my post badly. I didn't mean the neighbor's smoke was filling my house. LOL Not visibly, but when she would smoke on her front porch, especially in quiet weather, we could smell it in our living room, some days more than others. This hampered our comfort in our own home, and forced us to keep our windows closed some parts of some days. Not a big issue, because it wasn't all the time. But one of those things that happens.
Our house isn't real tight, so we are slowly replacing windows. As that happens, it will be easier to keep unwanted smells out. But even at that, when someone smokes on the porch of that house in some weathers, we have to keep the windows in the living room shut.
As for the hysteria that people think all our freedoms are going to disappear because smokers must be forced by a law to be polite about where they smoke, that is just hysteria. Look around the country. These laws have been enacted, fairly successfully. Time Emporia and the rest of Kansas catches up.
I'm not going to sit here and carry on about the many ills of smoking. There are a lot of ways we humans hurt ourselves. But laws to protect people from other people's smoke seem inevitable and reasonable since smokers insist that they have a right somehow to make the rest of us breathe their smoke.
If it makes anyone feel any better, I gripe about the prairie fires. I realize they must be necessary, but they ruin a lot of Spring for my family.
I also gripe about the exhaust from the cattle trucks that go by.
There are so many ways our air is polluted. Cigarette smoke is just one. I simply think it'd be nice to be able to go out and enjoy ourselves in a smoke free environment.
Most malls are smoke free now, and so much more pleasant than they used to be. Why can't restaurants be smoke free too? I don't like to smoke with my food.
So, smoke all you want. I have absolutely no problem with your right to smoke. I just have a problem with it being in my face, my husband and especially my children's faces too.
On Smoking ban
Posted on July 11 at 10:57 a.m.
dougmarshall, what about the college students or other people who can't find work elsewhere? Jobs aren't all that easy to get in Emporia. That is still a public health issue.
Melissa, LOL so true, so true.
And anyone who thinks smoking should not be prohibited in public places...... How long do you want Emporia to wait before it catches up with most of the rest of the country?
The rest of us have a right to breathe clean air. If you smokers could keep your smoke right around your own face and not tresspass on mine or the next guy's, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. "Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose."
This is such a positive move in the right direction. I will be sorely disappointed if Emporia doesn't go smoke free in public places.
Posted on July 10 at 11:16 p.m.
How about Teterville? Have you ever driven out into that neck of the woods? It's out here some miles from Madison, and I don't think there's anything there anymore, although I understand it used to be an active little town. I'd like to know more.
Posted on July 10 at 11:10 p.m.
alan, If I was a landlord, I would do my best not to rent to smokers. Do you know what smoke does to a place? It takes a lot more work to clean up after a smoker, whether it is an apartment or the workplace. It gets in the carpet, on the walls, even gets into the attic and basement. Now, that isn't the end of the world, but for a landlord it ultimately creates more work.
Most landlords do allow smoking inside though, so not to worry if you are a renter.
And, I don't think they are talking about outlawing it outside, just inside buildings used by the public. Don't panic. If you live in some kind of gov't housing or where the landlord says you can't then go outside to smoke. I know smokers who do that anyway, because they don't want to get smoke smell in their belongings.
Many college campuses across the states don't allow smoking anyplace on campus, at all.
This will be a wonderful move for Emporia. It will encourage more people to come to town and spend their money. It's a wise economic move.
Posted on July 10 at 8:22 p.m.
TrueloveCharlie, Actually, Emporia is way behind the times. There are towns in the USA where this battle happened 15 years ago.
Having a public smoking ban may actually bring more people to Emporia. People are getting smarter about it and want to go places they can breathe good, smoke-free air.
If you need to smoke, do it inside your own home, unless nonsmokers live with you. We had a neighbor who lived clear across the street and smoked on her front porch, but due to the way the breeze usually blows, often her cigarette smoke wound up in our house.
You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to damage my health or anyone else's with your smoke.
I hope this happens, and soon. We will enjoy our restaurant experience and spend more money in Emporia if we can go places that are totally smoke free. "Smoking sections" would work, if they could keep the smoke confined. Usually though the smoke drifts around the whole restaurant. Not to mention the wait staff that has to serve in the smoking area should not have to breathe that stuff.
Yay for Emporia to catch up with the times and give us the freedom to be able to breathe clean air.
Posted on July 9 at 7:49 a.m.
Common-sense bound, Yes, my dogs are restrained with doggie seat belts we designed when I worked for a veterinarian years ago. They are comfortable and happy that way.
Anything in the car that is not buckled down somehow could become a lethal weapon in an accident. Humans can crush each other's skulls when their bodies fly about in a car.
Posted on July 8 at 9:44 p.m.
wyse guy, my dogs are in the back seat restrained in a safe manner where they can still move around, but not jump into the front. They have comfortable blankets to sleep on. We even practice safe driving with our dogs in the car when we are in states and areas where there are no laws. We love our dogs.
Kansan, dogs should not be in a driver's lap, ever. That is so dangerous.
I think we need to be reasonable and safe, not only for ourselves, but for everyone else on the road.
Posted on July 8 at 6:36 p.m.
Mr. Bailes may have his dogs trained well enough that they won't jump out. There are a couple of things to consider though.
First of all, even his dogs are not immune to the laws of physics. Maybe they'll never have a problem, but a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so if Mr. Bailes throws a bearing or hits something he's not expecting, those dogs will indeed fly around, perhaps being badly injured.
The other thing to consider is that he's not the only person riding around with his dogs in the back of his pick-up. There are sometimes problems with dogs.
For instance, some years ago I witnessed a neighbor take a corner at a normal speed, the dog was off balance and fell out of the back of the truck and the man ran over his dog with the rear tires of his truck. He was devastated. The dog was in horrible pain and had to be put down.
Another time I saw a young dog hang himself off the side of a truck. The owner had restrained the dog with a leash that was too long. The dog jumped out and was hung. If he hadn't been restrained, he'd have hit the ground at about 65 mph, and likely my car would have killed him. The dog should have been properly restrained or in the cab with its owner.
There are reasons for these laws, and rather than be so negative about our elected lawmakers, maybe we should be grateful that they care, even about our pets.
People who aren't responsible enough to restrain babies or pets just need to be told they have to. They'll be safer.
As for threatening violence, that is uncalled for. And it won't get anything changed.
My dogs ride in the cab of my truck with me. We consider them family, and we don't put other family members back there. They are in the cab in air conditioned or heated comfort.
If Mr. Bailes simply has to have his dogs outside the cab, I think he's come up with a remarkable and wonderful way to restrain them. I cannot imagine why they'd be bothered if they stay in the bed of the truck anyway. They shouldn't be hanging over the sides, so I bet they'll get used to that cage and love it. That was ingenious.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on July 17 at 3:58 p.m.
What a funny comment for gayzettesux to make, when he himself is using an anonymous handle so he can say what he says without being recognized. Sort of dark humor, huh?
On Rural resident shoots stray dogs