The Emporia Gazette

City, state smoking bans will work in tandem

If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?

There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade

March 4, 2010 at 9:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Teacher’s smoking could bring sanctions

People who break the law should be sent where the 13 Virgins are.

September 5, 2009 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

City Commission hears proposal to postpone smoking ban

It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined

with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely

artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the

standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology

does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial

and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has

set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not

scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers
can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern
ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not
just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious
contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade

February 13, 2009 at 12:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Smoking-ban question is set for April vote

Negative side of Referendums or Plebiscites

1. Referendums are contrary to our system of representation of democracy

2. Referendums can also become divisive and can potentially undermine
minority 'rights' through the votes of the majority.

3. They can be controlled by political elites who can set the question and
determine campaign rules.

4. Difficult to simplify complex issues into 'yes'/no questions.

5. They can weaken the will of legislature and government to deal with
difficult issues.

6. They provide no opportunity for parties and government to engage in
consensus-building.

February 5, 2009 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Smoking-Ban foes ask, ‘What compromise?’

An alternate to smoking bans

It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined

with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely

artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the

standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology

does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial

and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has

set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not

scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers
can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern
ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not
just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious
contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade

November 28, 2008 at 1:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

The smoking ban ordinance as proposed by Clean Air Emporia

And there is no safe level of second-hand smoke??

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/toxic...

September 12, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Making criminals

Smoking is the least of all dangers facing an inmate.
He can be raped, wounded in a prison brawl, killed by another inmate; he can lose his wife, children and friends; even under the best of circumstances, his future is bleak.
And we want to turn this guy into a sweet, healthy-conscious New Ager?
This is like telling a starving man to stay away from non-organically
grown produce.
The anti-smoking lobby, mixing lofty ideals and authoritarian impulses, as most crusaders do, want inmates to take programs to help them break the habit.
Why would a method that often fails when applied to well-adjusted citizens be successful in the tense environment of prison life?
Depriving inmates of cigarettes is an imposition of middle class values on a population that is largely under-educated and thus, as statistics show, more likely to smoke.
Inmates are paying their dues and their cell is their home. How far can the state invade someone's privacy?
And what's next? A ban on fantisies and masturbation?
Can prisons be transformed into peaceful, healthy havens? Probably not.
If inmates receive unnecessary, cruel treatment, the backlash might be worse than whiffs of second-hand smoke.
Thomas W. Laprade

February 23, 2007 at 1:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )