Comments by bjohn
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on September 26 at 12:21 p.m.
I'm sorry cracked but if we are going to have clean air then lets have clean air. I'm also allergic to most perfumes. Can we ban the stores from having perfume departments that spray the stuff all over their airspace? They are deliberately spraying it into the air, it cause me health problems. It must be bad, it must be baned. Sorry....just my choice not to go into those stores. Same choice you have. Don't take away my choice and I won't take away yours.
Madpoet you missed the point of my post. I summed it up but you didn't read it closely enough. Allegies do not equal health hazards. Is that clear enough?
Posted on September 26 at 9:28 a.m.
Madpoet did you know many people are severly allegeric to peanut butter? Should we pretend that peanut butter is not harmful to people? Most of the time we do. Perhaps it should be banned from Emporia as well. It does cause people health problems. Just because you are personally allergic to something does not make it a community health hazard. I'm allergic to ragweed. Can we get that banned from Emporia too? I would love ragweed free air to breathe everyday.
I would actually support this ban if they limited it to eating establishments. Most of the time I just make my own choice to not go into an establishment that allows smoking. That is why I go to Burlington to bowl. Though I haven't gone bowling in a long time...Why don't we just buy all the Clean Air advocates breathing masks with filters? Then they can breathe all the clean air they want?
Posted on September 26 at 9:13 a.m.
I'm sorry BigE but if the ban passes they won't be able to do that. They only way for the smokers to be able to carry out your plan is for you to vote "no" on the ban. I propose that you put your cash in against the Clean Air people so you can see your dream become a reality.
Posted on September 25 at 3:55 p.m.
I'm sorry crackinsack but do you really believe that more businesses are going to want to come into a community that regulates them even more with the local laws? Why would buisnesses want to subject themselves to even more restrictions? It doesn't make any sense...not one bit.
They come for the money but the Clean Air people seem to be trying to convince us that if we ban smoking that we are going to magically increase the amount of money being spent in the community. Where is this new money comming from? Is it comming from the Clean Air supporters who have been with holding their money as punishment? If so, shame on them for not supporting local Emporia business. If not, do you honestly think that people are going to flock to Emporia to shop because of the ban? I'm sorry but it doesn't make any sense. No one from the larger surrounding cities is going to say "Let's go shop Emporia. They have clean air." Look past your hatred of the habit and be sensible.
For the record I don't smoke.
Posted on August 29 at 10 a.m.
People will come from Topeka and Wichita to see this stuff. I think that would help our new sales tax pull in more money that is not from the local's pockets.
Posted on August 20 at 3:41 p.m.
devildog: You said that workers get hazard pay to work more dangerous jobs. That would be the equivalent of making more money for working a dangerous job. Its a choice. Like the kind they are trying to take away from us.
I don't smoke and I hate sitting near smokers. I don't feel that it is right to tell a buisness that they can't allow smoking. I can simply choose not to go and not to work there. I feel this ban is more about taking away freedoms than protecting anything. And it is not about taking away non-smokers rights. We have a choice whether to go or not to go. We only need to be informed where the smoking is. We can avoid it if we chose to.
Posted on August 20 at 3 p.m.
If you don't want to breathe smoke, don't go where the smoke is. What is so hard about that? Seems pretty simple to me. If a buisness allows smoking and you don't want to breathe the smoke, then don't go to that buisness. Wow...what a concept! Its what I do and it works for me.
Breathing smoke while working is a job hazard. McDonald's is hiring if you need a different job (seriously). If asthma would prevent you from doing your job....well you remember that section of the application that asks if there are any physical problems that would prevent you from fulfilling your duties....See, pretty simple.
Posted on August 20 at 9:07 a.m.
I agree with madpoet. I'd support this idea if it were narrower in scope. I like to go to a restaurant and not have to breathe second hand smoke. If the owners of buisnesses choose to allow smoking then I view that as their right. They do have the right to refuse service, they should have the right to allow smoking. I have my right not to patronize their buiness if they allow smoking. Its about choice and freedom. If I don't want to breathe smoke, then I don't go to places where smoking is allowed...see how that works...amazingly simple isn't it? Let the buisness owners decide what they want. If there is a market for smoke-free businesses then they will come on their own.
As for protecting the workers. They know they'll be working in smoke when they take the job. Its a job hazard. If they don't want to deal with it, don't work there. McDonald's is hiring and they can work there, its no smoking.
Smokers are now, then come the obese, or alcohol. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted on July 11 at 5:17 p.m.
If I read this right it said the she opened the door. That was the second mistake. The first mistake was not calling to police while he was "trying to break down the door". This is also a classic case of escalation. An admitted argument turned into a shooting. Charges will always be filed in this case. You cannot shoot an unamred individual not matter what he says to you. He can say "I'm going to kill you" but you are not allowed to legally shoot him because of what comes out of his mouth.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on September 26 at 12:45 p.m.
I should clarify my last statement. Personal allergies should not be equated with community health hazards. That is what I should have typed the first time and maybe there wouldn't have been any confusion.
On Group presents alternative to smoking ban