Posted by tillie (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"As for secondhand smoke hurting you, I don’t buy that at all. I have smoked for 53 years, been around smoke for 73 years and I am in perfect health. I know, I probably shouldn’t smoke, but that’s my choice; but as far as secondhand smoke, it’s not any worse than other stuff in the air."

That's naive and ignorant. Sorry.

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its the truth and you shouldn't call people ignorant because YOU don't happen to agree with them. well stated Winky.

Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Winky, you are in perfect health? How do you know? My father smoked for 40 years...several packs a day for the last 20 years he smoked. Even though he quit smoking almost 20 years ago, today at age 84, he's on oxygen 24 hours a day due to COPD. His COPD is a direct result of his many years as a heavy smoker. Dad's long term memory is gone. His short term memory is going and he has little energy or interest in life. You may be in "good health" now, but you likely have some changes ahead. So, if you want to smoke, go ahead! Just don't try to convince others that your smoking and second had smoke is not a health issue. Your right to smoke is not more important than someone's right to breathe clean air. Go outside!

Posted by trainrech (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, the mere fact that the particulate size of second hand smoke is sufficiently large enough to be seen with the naked eye has no bearing?

Posted by Free4all (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ad on the radio about lighting a cigarette and it going to Peter Pan Park,
That is ignorant, no one smoking outside is killing "little johnny" across town.
Can we please get this behind us and find a real problem like gangs and drugs? Do these things hurt people? yes they do but noone has made this kind of noise over these subjects. Whay is that? They affect everyone and kids in school alot more than 2nd hand smoke. This whole thing is getting out of hand and no its us against them instead of trying to better a town. Lets please take care of the gang problem and drug problem then talk about 2nd hand smoke.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tillie, watch the name calling, it is NOT allowed here. You must not know Winky or you wouldn't have said what you did. She stated her opinion and you have stated yours. She was much more eloquent.

Posted by tillie (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry her opinion IS naive and ignorant!!! Get on the cancer society website if you don't believe me. TOUCHY, TOUCHY!!!!!!!!!

Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Even India realizes smoking bans are needed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/76...

Here's an excerpt:
"Smoking kills 900,000 people in India every year, 2,500 people in a day and 102 people every hour. And 40% of all cancer cases in India are due to smoking," says Dr Sajeela Maini, president of the Tobacco Control Foundation of India.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Crackinsack--
Your post has some great statistics...
Too bad none of them have to do with second hand smoke.

Tillie--
If you believe everything you hear or read it is you that is naive and ignorant. For every study liking second hand smoke to cancer and any other disease, there is another study that links it to nothing.

Most of these studies are based on Epidemiology. They have relatively low related risk and confidence rates. To learn more about epidemiology and enlighten yourself to how they come up with these figures I would direct you to a website that will teach you how to read these studies and make up your own mind. Pay close attention to the section abour RR and Confidence rates, as well as confounding and bias.
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/...

Additionally,
I wonder on the accuracy of this, but it is from a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Another little-publicized study was conducted by the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) part of the World Health Organization (WHO). The research ran for 10 years and covered 7 European countries. No matter how it's spun (and it has been) the study concluded there was no statistically significant risk for non-smokers who either lived with or worked with smokers. In fact, the only numbers it arrived at that had actual statistical significance, showed a slightly decreased lung cancer risk in later life among the children of smokers.
-"Multicenter Case-Control Study Of Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer In Europe," Bofetta Et Al, Journal Of The NCI, Vol 90, NO.19, October 7, 1998

Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Smokers that deny the health risks of smoking and second hand smoke are in total denial. It makes it easier for them to smoke and also to expose those they love to their addiction.

Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's another article about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/76...

And another excerpt:
"The aim is to discourage the smokers, to make them quit or reduce smoking. Also all non-smoking employees have a right to a 100% smoke-free atmosphere.

"The perils of passive smoking are equally bad."

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Crackinsack--
It is as I suspected. Are you saying that you would support a proposal to, "make them quit"? And you deny your elitism.
It is nice to hear that non smokers in India "have a right to a 100% smoke-free atomosphere."

Maybe you could move there and tell me how much healthier it is living there. That is if you don't mind your drinking water being your toilet water, your cow bathing water, your bathing water, your neighbors bathing and toilet water.

I would think that India has much more serious health problems than smoking.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anecdotal evidence has no value? These studies you toss around so lightly are in pursuit of scientific data, they are not the basis of religious dogma. Don't do such a disservice to honest scientists, as to make them the scapegoat for other's prejudicial behaviors.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Calling all pro business owners rights voters:

There are two republicans running for office nov.4.

1. Teresa Walters county commission
2. Jim Barnett State senate

They are both pushing a smoking ban and taking away our rights.

Even if you are a registered republican you can vote for their democratic opposition.
1. Phillip Winter
2. Kitty Frank

Register to vote by the 15th of Oct. and vote these anti rights people back to their homes.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know that the above link for how to read a study comes from an anti-ban website, but it has little to do with the information found there that is anti-ban. It is actually fairly objective in its facts about epidemiology, although is does have some examples designed to discourage banning. The point being that it does effectively teach how to read and epidemiological study regardless of your take on the smoking ban. Additionally, I could not find any instructions on how to interperet this data from any of the organizations that use statistics to tie SHS to health problems.

I speculate that they prefer people to just trust what they say because they are aware that if everyone could find out for themselves; the emporer's clothes would be see through.

Again for the record I have never said that second smoke is not bad for you. I am saying that there is way to much conflicting information to propose a ban based on studies. Even if this really were a health issue, and not an issue of property rights, a ban would be premature.

Posted by cbmaggie (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't remember hearing anyone complain when it became the law to wear seatbelts. That law took away our "right" to choose, did it not. I have also yet to hear of anyone dying because I don't wear myseat belt but I have heard of people dying or being seriously ill from secondhad smoke not to mention those who are doing the smoking. This is the stupidest argument I have heard in along time, the smoking ban will pass, just same way as the sunday liquor sales didn't. Because all of you people complaining about the smoking ban won't get out and vote, won't do anything but complain.

Posted by sadinemporia (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You all better watch out...soon we will become a "dry" town...because alcohol consumption can be responsible for taking lives too. If the little pesty CAE group continues on, that is.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As OutsiderJ said so well, second-hand smoke may indeed increase one's risk for certain ailments, but the scientific & governmental facts on the issue are unclear and contradictory at best.

What is absolutely clear, however, is that NO ONE in Emporia is FORCED to endure second-hand smoke. All public, commercial, and retail buildings in town are smoke free. 30 of 37 restaurants are smoke free or offer non-smoking accomodations. At least one bar is smoke free and the one's that are not don't force anyone to enter the door, nor do the bar owners attempt to deceive by claiming to be health clubs or rejuvenating spas. If one wants to indulge in a dangerous and toxic, but legal, alcoholic beverage (a liquid drug) that is known to be highly addictive to some and damaging to internal organs when ingested to excess, they can do so without having to breathe "unhealthy" second-hand smoke.

The CEA social crusader's claim in their media propaganda blitz that "if you breathe second-hand smoke, you are smoking" is flawed and refutable at best, and pure bunk at worst. If that statement is true, why are all those victimized citizens "forced" to breathe second-hand smoke not becoming smokers or fighting the craving to do so by wearing nicotine patches? Isn't smoking addictive?

There is not a second-hand smoke problem in Emporia, Kansas: never has been. Those who wish to avoid it currently have every opportunity to do so with absolutely no effort or alteration to lifestyle or daily activities. We are blessed with freedom of choice.

The problem we DO have in Emporia is a small group of people attempting to force their concept of proper conduct and social mores upon the entire community using misinformation, exaggeration, and fear as leverage. They wish to infringe on our freedom of choice.

Fear will convince people to voluntarily give up freedom faster than reason, rhetoric, or force.

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bjnemp:

BRAVO! Please send your above comments to the City Commissioners. I am sure they don't read these blogs.

Posted by rox_alan (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry but I'm afraid all these little groups that come into Emporia will definitely start taking away our rights little by little till we have no rights anymore. Next they will tell us what church we are to believe in and what foods we are to eat. We no longer will have the freedom of choice. So why is our men and women fighting for freedom overseas when our own community is taking it away. We are no longer being a demorcratic country when all these groups start to take away our freedoms little by little... It's a coming folks if we allow "Clean Air of Emporia" have their way.... I'm sorry there isn't alot of evidence proving that second hand smoke is killing people. I was a smoker and what they are doing is wrong... WAKE UP Emporia!!! Don't we have the right to make our own CHOICE? Do you like being told what you can do or what you can't do? I sure don't!

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rbow: Thank you. It is Done.

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by cbmaggie (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't remember hearing anyone complain when it became the law to wear seatbelts.

Really??? I do......

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Excuse me, Mr. Bartender man. I am trying to get drunk, so I can Drive home, and have unprotected sex, with some chick I just met tonight, and this guy's blowin' smoke in my FACE!!!"
Quote from comedian Augie Smith

Posted by kseyetie (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bring on the nanny state; How long before they outlaw f*rting in public, at least in enclosed spaces?

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

you said

"What is absolutely clear, however, is that NO ONE in Emporia is FORCED to endure second-hand smoke. All public, commercial, and retail buildings in town are smoke free"

That statement is absolutely 100% false. Everytime a smoker breathes their smoke into the air, inside or outside, it mixes with the other air that everyone breathes. It is true that the air outside is better because it circulates more and their is much more of it, but every breath someone takes has some SHS in it.

you also said--

"There is not a second-hand smoke problem in Emporia, Kansas: never has been. Those who wish to avoid it currently have every opportunity to do so with absolutely no effort or alteration to lifestyle or daily activities. We are blessed with freedom of choice.

The problem we DO have in Emporia is a small group of people attempting to force their concept of proper conduct and social mores upon the entire community using misinformation, exaggeration, and fear as leverage. They wish to infringe on our freedom of choice."

This small group of individuals that you choose to constantly put down is exercising their own rights. They are bringing forth a subject that they think is important. They are going through all the proper channels to get something changed because they believe it needs to be done. They believe it to be an issue that warrants such change. You may disagree with them. That is your choice but they are going about it properly. You have the same freedom to bring potential legislation to your local, state or federal governments if you so choose. The decision at that point is up to the law makers. They (CAE) are not infringing on any of your rights, including your right to choose. All they have done is identified something that they view as a problem, have gathered mountains of data and presented a proposition to the commission.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck,

There is a device which has been around for years that will 100% eliminate your exposure to second hand smoke if you don't want to be around it. It is 100% GUARANTEED effective toward eliminating your exposure to second hand smoke if you don't wish to be around it. This magical wonderful device is called a DOOR! Tell em how it works Johnny!

It cannot any easier. It is 100% foolproof! If you know there is second hand smoke present, probably because there is a sign hanging on this magical device, DON'T OPEN IT! If you do not want to be around second hand smoke, DON'T OPEN THE FREAKIN DOOR GUYS! This is not rocket science. There is no possible way to make this any easier.

If you're standing in front of a country bar, and you don't want to be around country music, DON'T OPEN THE DOOR! If you are standing in front of the entrance to Arrowhead Stadium, and you cannot stand the Chief's, DON'T OPEN THE DOOR! If you are standing in front of Josie's, and you can't stand me, DON'T OPEN THE DOOR!

Do I understand that second hand smoke is bad for me? YES! Yes, I understand that second hand smoke is not good for you. This isn't hard either. Do I understand that if I don't want to be around second hand smoke, then all I have to do is not open the door? YES!

According to goemporia.com, there are 52 restaurants in Emporia. 8 allow smoking. That is 16% of restaurants allow smoking. 25% of Emporia smokes right? Where's the problem?

As far as bars, The Blind is non-smoking. Bamboozers was non-smoking for about 3 weeks, and changed back to smoking this week. Might want to ask them why.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

it's incredible that people say "ok, smoking kills and causes cancer, but the second hand smoke is ok for anybody else to breathe". geez, people are talking out of one side of their mouth and smoking out of the other.

and the argument about "nobody is forced to endure second hand smoke". i'm tired of hearing how your habit is more important than anybody else's health. how about enduring an hour of fresh air while you dine??

as for the nay sayers about the health risks of second hand smoke....go read these few articles.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondh...
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-she...
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/se...

now, if you want to argue and say that the Mayo Clinic, the National Cancer Institute, and the Surgeon General of the US aren't reliable sources for research and information on second hand smoking danger, then it's obvious that your own habit has clouded your judgement.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

again about the bars staying open or closing because of a lack of business caused by the ban. ask yourself how many bars in this town stay open for more than a few years at best. i can count 4 off the top of my head. town royale, bruffs (it's a bar but not a bar), annies west, and sidetracks. gee, lets see, that leaves how many others that close, re-open with new owners, close, reopen with new owners...and so on and that was way before this argument started.
quit blowing smoke. it's not the smokers rights that close these bars time and time again.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

josies---

I don't think you read my comment.

I agree with you that if this law passes it could create some hardships on businesses. However, as you and I discussed on another post it is no different than the fire marshall dictating how many people can be in your bar at any one time. That law also puts a hardship on you. My point is that, yes it is your business and yes you get the right to decide what you can and can not do in your business, however, it all has to be within the guidelines of the law. If the commission passes this ban, or the state or possibly even the federal government, you will have to abide by this law no matter if it creates a hardship on your business or not. The CAE folks are not the ones who dictate this, it is your elected officials.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

1) Having more people in a building than allowed by law is illegal. Cigarettes are not. You want to ban smoking, ban cigarettes.

2)A bar in town went non-smoking. In 3 weeks, this bar went from being completely full to completely empty. Few other factors changed in 3 weeks, other than the bar went non-smoking. Where were all of the non-smokers that will supposedly come out to the bars if they went non-smoking? Yes, I understand bars here close for many reasons. MIPs, drugs, bad management, bad partners, the owner just gets tired of it, etc etc. But if you mean to tell me in 3 weeks, a bar that is slam-packed, goes non-smoking, and then is completely empty in 3 WEEKS has nothing to do with going non-smoking, you are crazy!

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where has our beloved State Senator Jim Barnett been during this debate. He is pushing the state ban, so you would think he would jump in there and fight for the city ban. Could it be
RE-ELECTION?

We need to vote him out of office.

Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

josiesbar,
You've got that a little backwards:
"Having more people in a building than allowed by law is illegal. Cigarettes are not. You want to ban smoking, ban cigarettes."

By that logic, you would have to ban people from being in buildings altogether. You say "Cigarettes are not"...well neither is a person being in a building. It becomes illegal when it endangers others in the building.
This goes back to building codes...you can build with a certain material (not illegal), but if it's done in a way that's unsafe for the public, then it becomes illegal.

I think you've been stumped here. Good example of the fire code, slvrnblck! It’s funny how Matt doesn’t protest for his “right” to have 1000 people in his bar. Ha!

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Josies--

you said

"1) Having more people in a building than allowed by law is illegal. Cigarettes are not. You want to ban smoking, ban cigarettes."

My point was that the capacity law already tells you what you can and can not do with your property. The smoking ban will add to those laws.

What gives you the right to be able to endanger other peoples health? The fact that you own the business??? HA! That is what government is for, to protect individuals from others who are reckless. That is why there are speeding laws and capacity laws and food safety laws. Those laws are in place because others, unfortunately, have abused the privelages of freedom and have used their "freedom" to infringe on other people's safety.

The ban will happen because it makes sense. Either the city will do it first and we can be seen as forward thinking....or the state will do it, but one way or another, IMO, it will happen.

"2)A bar in town went non-smoking. In 3 weeks, this bar went from being completely full to completely empty. Few other factors changed in 3 weeks, other than the bar went non-smoking. Where were all of the non-smokers that will supposedly come out to the bars if they went non-smoking? Yes, I understand bars here close for many reasons. MIPs, drugs, bad management, bad partners, the owner just gets tired of it, etc etc. But if you mean to tell me in 3 weeks, a bar that is slam-packed, goes non-smoking, and then is completely empty in 3 WEEKS has nothing to do with going non-smoking, you are crazy!"

There are a number of reasons that bar could be losing business. Has the business switched back to a smoking establishment and if so has business picked back up?

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks crackinsack!

Like I said, I believe this ban will happen one way or another.

Josies--

Also, I really am not trying to pick on you. As I said earlier, I think you did a really nice job at the meeting the other night. You stand behind your point, believe in what you say/type and are not afraid to get out there and lead others who share your same beliefs.

I do believe you are wrong on this topic however and I support a smoking ban in Emporia. Hopefully there can be a sensible compromise for everyone.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblk: No one confirms the anti-ban argument better than you! We contend this proposed ban is a useless intrusion on individual freedom and rights by a small group of self-serving elitists. You counter that argument (above) with these words:

"This small group of individuals"
"a subject that they think is important"
"because they believe it needs to be done"
"They believe it to be an issue that warrants such change"
"they have identified something that they view as a problem"

Do those words and phrases not strike you as being blatantly elitist rhetoric?

All Emporians should be embarrassed and ashamed if they allow this small group of self-involved elitists to use fear tactics, bullying, deception, and power of privilege to ensure this "smoking ban" becomes law.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jim Barnett is the one pushing for a state-wide smoking ban. If this gets shot down in Emporia, all someone in Topeka has to ask is "If your constituents in Emporia voted this down, what makes you think its good for the rest of the state." This ban, one way or another, will have effects reaching far past the city limits, IMHO.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, as far as your capacity argument goes, let me see if I can understand you. Right now, in one of the biggest economic downturns in US history, you see nothing wrong with this quote "if this law passes it could create some hardships on businesses."

SOME hardships? Sir, I respectfully say that you don't know the meaning of the word.

You want this because you feel its progress? Look up and down Commercial St! There are a bunch of empty businesses! Enacting this ban will create more, I guarantee it. The smokers will stay at home and drink, and the non-smokers who are all for this ban, will either still sit at home and gloat, or go to the country club and do the same.

In the meantime, my employees hours will get cut due to lack of business. Then one of my employee positions will get cut. Then two, then three, then all. If this ban gets enacted, and a bar is forced to close because of the smoking ban, I want your word that you will go to that establishment personally and apologize to everyone that lost their job. ESPECIALLY the bar owner, who probably lost his entire life savings, not to mention livelihood, just because you couldn't exercise enough common sense, that you felt an overall ban was needed.

Posted by BigE (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the CAE people are self-serving elitists, doesn't that imply that they want the ban only for themselves? Wouldn't they still want everyone else to be exposed to SHS, just not themselves? You guys keep saying that they are not the type of people that would ever frequent the bar scene, so how does that make them self serving?

Bj, the statements that you quoted from slvrnblk are just that, statements. He is correct in his words. It is their constitutional right to do what they are doing. It's not as if they have overthrown the city council, forced the laws into effect and started enforcing their own punishment for violations.
If you were to re-word the statements above to read:

"this large group of individuals"
"a subject they think is not important"
"because they don't think it needs to be done"
"they believe it to be an issue that warrants no change"
"they do not view it as a problem"

Would you still think it is "blatantly elitist rhetoric?" I doubt it, because it would then be reflecting your view. Just because it is a different opinion than yours, does not automatically make it "blatantly elitist".

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bj--

you said

"slvrnblk: No one confirms the anti-ban argument better than you! We contend this proposed ban is a useless intrusion on individual freedom and rights by a small group of self-serving elitists. You counter that argument (above) with these words:

"This small group of individuals"
"a subject that they think is important"
"because they believe it needs to be done"
"They believe it to be an issue that warrants such change"
"they have identified something that they view as a problem"

Do those words and phrases not strike you as being blatantly elitist rhetoric?

All Emporians should be embarrassed and ashamed if they allow this small group of self-involved elitists to use fear tactics, bullying, deception, and power of privilege to ensure this "smoking ban" becomes law"

Do you think that this group should not have the RIGHT to bring their concern to the commission?

As a patriotic American I believe it is everyone's right to bring their concerns to their Government. I know that you value freedom. Do you not think that one of our most important freedoms is the freedom to bring our concerns to our government? Do you think that we should take CAE's freedom to propose a change of legislation?

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." - Voltaire

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

josies--

I was just saying that I can understand your concern that it MIGHT create a hardship on your business. However, for you to think that your business revolves around people who want to be surrounded by SHS is ridiculous. You may have smokers who want to smoke but you do not have patrons who want to breathe SHS. As many have posted, bars tend to not stick around for a long time in this town anyway. Yes, we are in an economic downturn in the US but the impact on Emporia is small. Economy is very cyclical. It goes down and it comes back up. Being a business owner, especially a bar owner, you should know that.

I would be very surprised if a bar closes due to the smoking ban. I am absolutely positive that there would be other contributing factors, like poor management or marketing.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE and Slvrnblk: Yes, that is blatantly elitist. When a "small group" arbitrarily decides what is right for the overwhelming majority and attempts to force the will of the few upon the many, that is elitist, selfish, un-American, and looking, walking, and quacking much like a socialist duck.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Slvrnblk: You said:

"for you to think that your business revolves around people who want to be surrounded by SHS is ridiculous. You may have smokers who want to smoke but you do not have patrons who want to breathe SHS."

You better sit down, Slvr. This is going to come as a shock to you, but most people aren't nearly as paranoid about, or terrified by, second-hand smoke as you are.

The vast majority of people are far more tolerant and sensible about a risk that is minimal at best, especially when compared to air quality, smog, exhaust, processed food, and societal predators.Geez. I bet you sleep with a light on.

Posted by BigE (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bj, you are having some trouble understanding this. Please go back and read the posts from slvr and myself. CAE is not "arbitrarily deciding" anything. They are not forcing their will on anyone, and not deciding what is right for the "overwhelming majority". They are excersising their rights afforded to them by this great country. That's as American as it gets buddy. It seems that if someone has an opinion that differs from yours you immediately throw some type of slanderous label on them. It is clear that you don't agree with their thoughts, but that doesn't make them elitists, un-american, or selfish.

And who says it is the overwhelming majority? No stats to back that one up. Sounds like the actual % of smokers in KS is 20%, lets even be generous and double that, make it 40%. Still not an overwhelming majority either way.

The fact that you think the risk associated with SHS is minimal is merely your opinion. I don't think you can speak for the "vast majority of people". I would bet that if you did a survey, removed all other variables, and asked if people would, or would not rather be exposed to SHS, most would not.
thank you, have a nice day.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE: No, I'm having no trouble understanding anything; but thank you for your concern. Everything I stated is accurate. It would appear you are the one failing, or more likely, refusing, to understand. If you were at the fact-finding meeting last Monday night, and if you are who I think you are, you were, then you know what I am talking about.

You are right about one thing: only about 24% of people are smokers. So, if about 80% of the people at that meeting were opposed to this grossly over-reactive and over-restrictive ban, what does that tell us? Perhaps those folks opposing the ban resent a small group of virtue vigilantes attempting to dictate social behavior and erode personal freedoms.

C'mon, BigE. Just admit it. You and a small band of elitist bullies are trying to force your will on the community with no regard for personal rights or fairness.

Those of us opposing this ridiculous ban see it as a battle against oppression. Those supporting the ban see it as class warfare.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

I am going to repeat my questions to you.....

Do you think that this group should not have the RIGHT to bring their concern to the commission?

As a patriotic American I believe it is everyone's right to bring their concerns to their Government. I know that you value freedom. Do you not think that one of our most important freedoms is the freedom to bring our concerns to our government? Do you think that we should take CAE's freedom to propose a change of legislation?

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." - Voltaire

And in response to one of your responses.....

you said

"BigE and Slvrnblk: Yes, that is blatantly elitist. When a "small group" arbitrarily decides what is right for the overwhelming majority and attempts to force the will of the few upon the many, that is elitist, selfish, un-American, and looking, walking, and quacking much like a socialist duck"

That is the currently the way things work. A group of elected commissioners make the decisions for everyone in town.

And, I don't know where you come up with this overwhelming majority talk. IMO the majority of people would support a ban.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

you said

"You better sit down, Slvr. This is going to come as a shock to you, but most people aren't nearly as paranoid about, or terrified by, second-hand smoke as you are.

The vast majority of people are far more tolerant and sensible about a risk that is minimal at best, especially when compared to air quality, smog, exhaust, processed food, and societal predators.Geez. I bet you sleep with a light on."

If you would have read what I said you would have understood that I said nothing about being scared of SHS. I said that most of his patrons don't go to his bar in order to be surrounded by and to breahe SHS. Meaning that if you remove the SHS his #'s would not be affected.

Please read what I write and not the way you twist it.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Slvrnblk: Surely you jest. You wrote:

"Do you think that this group should not have the RIGHT to bring their concern to the commission?"

"As a patriotic American I believe it is everyone's right to bring their concerns to their Government. I know that you value freedom. Do you not think that one of our most important freedoms is the freedom to bring our concerns to our government? Do you think that we should take CAE's freedom to propose a change of legislation?"

First, Slvr, CAE did NOT just "bring their concerns to their government". They delivered an iron-clad edict to the commission and requested it be swept into law with no input from or vote by the general public.

Second; CAE didn't "propose a change of legislation", they demanded a change with no provision for review or rebuttal.

Third; the proposed ban, as first presented, was so offensively restrictive as to border on ludicrous and was obviously more about abolishing smoking and punishing smokers than about concerns for health. It was also clearly discriminatory toward owners of taverns and bars.

Stop grasping for straws, Slvr. You are drowning in a sea of futility and your panic is pulling you under.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi-Ho, Slvr: Stop twisting facts. You said:

"That is the currently the way things work. A group of elected commissioners make the decisions for everyone in town."

You have a short, or conveniently selective, memory. When this ban was proposed to the city commission it was made clear by the CAE committee that they would accept no revisions, grandfather provisions, or exemptions whatsoever from their edict and that they expected the ban proposal to be relegated to law without being submitted for a vote by the public.

So, your comment above about "a group of elected commissioners" making the decisions "for everyone in town" is, in this instance, deceptive at best. This decision was made by a small group of elitist reformers who attempted to bully the commission into giving their edict a stamp of approval without scrutiny, debate, or vote by the public.

Luckily, it didn't work. Maybe in Russia, but not in Emporia.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

You yet again have avoided my question so I will break it down in a simple form for you.....

#1 Do you think that this group should not have the RIGHT to bring their concern to the commission? YES or NO

#2. Do you not think that one of our most important freedoms is the freedom to bring our concerns to our government? YES or NO

#3 Do you think that we should take away CAE's freedom to propose a change of legislation? YES or NO If YES please state why?

After responding to the questions please feel free to add any additional information you would like in order to justify your responses.

It seems that your avoidance of the questions is showing signs that you might be the one who is drowing.....

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bj--

Yet again you didn't read my post. The CAE made a proposal to the commission. It is the commissions job to either accept their proposal, modify it or deny it. It really is no simpler than that. Part of their request was that there not be modifications and they did not feel that it was necessary to go to a public vote (I disagree with this) but all in all it was just a REQUEST. Once again, they CAN NOT enforce anything. The Commissioners, who are voted in by the public, are the only ones who can make a decision where to go next. That, my friend, are the facts. You can make assumptions about the intent or claim they were trying to bully people but the facts remain that CAE has no power.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What I would like to know is, what will the smoking ban advocates tell all of the sons, daughters, cousins, etc., that were and are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight and preserve our freedoms and were lucky enough to survive and return home, what will the smoking ban advocates tell them, when that soldier, sailor, marine, etc., want to go to a restaurant, bar, tavern or club and have a smoke, a meal, a drink or a good time and the place they go to allowed smoking before they were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, but does not allow smoking now because of a ban forced on them, that business and all of Emporia's citizens.
Will the CAE and their supporters try and tell those military personal who were in a combat zone, in harms way, to protect all of Emporia's citizens freedoms that smoking just happens to be a worse health hazard than trying to survive in a hostile, combat environment and explain to them why they lost one of their own personal, individual freedoms, (freedom of choice) that they were fighting to preserve.
I would like to be there if and when that discussion ever happens.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblk: Don't patronize me or treat me as a simpleton. I have continually, eloquently, and definitively stated my arguments. Explaining or justifying them to you over and over serves no purpose other than feed your need for attention and replace that elusive straw you keep grasping for.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, Slvr: I can't let this one go without rebuttal.

"Do you think that this group should not have the RIGHT to bring their concern to the commission?"

Of course they have that right. ANY group or individual has the right to present a CONCERN to the commission. But that is not even close to what happened in this case, and you know it; so why do you continue to misrepresent the facts?

CAE did NOT present a concern. A "concern" is "Hey. Cars are speeding on my street. Can we do something about that?" That's a concern. The CAE commandos went before the commission with a long, professionally composed, iron-clad legal document written by attorneys and demanded it be instantly drawn as law with no right of review, revision, or vote by the public.

Quit trying to deceive and hide the facts. A concern is far different from an edict. The CAE had no right to do that and shame on them for trying. And shame on you for condoning their bully tactics.

And shame on me for actually stooping to your level and responding to such nonsense.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 2:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bjnemp,

Great example on the speeding cars. CAE did the equivalent of saying to the commission, "Hey. Cars are speeding on my street. We demand that vehicle speed is reduced to no more than 20 MPH. If a car gets caught speeding on our street, We demand that after 3 violations the driver loses their license. We will not accept a 30 MPH speed zone, it MUST be 20 mph. We will not accept any variations or exemptions to this law whatsoever."

Had CAE came to business owners, and actually sat down and listened to their concerns, I feel a LOT of this would have been avoided. But when they go before the city commission with a proposal like the one presented, and told the city commissioners what would and would not be allowed, and the way the city commission was going to enforce it, and what penalties would be applied, was to me, EXTREMELY elitist. Then to go back, and say, ok, we will now accept this, this, and this, NO! No way!

The proposal submitted to the city commission, was in my research, the most restrictive smoking ban in the United States. As near as I can tell, CAE meshed all parts of existing smoking bans into one, and then still added to it. It was absolutely NOT conducive to business whatsoever.

I also take into consideration the history of EDA and bars. EDA has historically pushed legislation to limit the number of bars in Emporia. A few years ago, they tried to limit the number of liquor licenses issued by Emporia. Another example was when they tried to extend the distance a bar must be from a church, school, or historical building from 200 feet to 600 feet. This would have affected at least 3 bars in town, including my own. Existing bars would have been grandfathered in, but new bars wouldn't. That means that I wouldn't have been able to sell my business had circumstances dictated. This tells me that this was just another attempt by this group to put a hurt on the bar business in this town, and had nothing whatsoever to do with public health.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. To CAE regarding your provisions you will now accept, I say one word:

NUTS!

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

slvr: I don't think anyone thinks CEA doesn't have the right to bring an issue before the city commission. I do however question the groups judgement in their timing and the way they presented it. We do have more pressing matters in this city, than 2nd hand smoke. Their all or nothing stance on the proposed ordinance was a good bargining chip from the get-go. You first Say you will accept no compromise, and after the public outcry and the name calling and pitting people against each other, you offer, (in the spirit of compromise), a few bits and pieces of the ordinance that don't matter anyway. You know Steve was behind that tactic. This whole thing has torn this town apart when we should all be working to work together to make Emporia a better place to work and live for non-smokers and smokers alike. There was no problem before this all started. THANKS CEA FOR TEARING EMPORIA APART!

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CAE did not tear Emporia apart. As a matter of fact, I think this shows that Emporia has a lot of passionate people that care about this town. Hell, the people against the ban even won over BJ.( now that is a task)

CAE did everything by the books. BJ, josies and rbow obviously don't agree with CAE's proposal but so what. I don't agree with all parts of either but who cares. That is not the point. The point is that what they did was perfectly legal, American, and by the book. BJ, you can twist it however you want but I have laid out the facts YOU keep adding your opinion to it. I will repeat the CAE has no power. They laid out a proposal and now the ELECTED COMMISSION gets to vote on it....period. Maybe it is too strong and tight and they need to make revisions but the bottom line is it is THEIR proposal. They can put whatever they want to in it. If they make it too strong the Commission will turn it down, if they make it to weak the Commission will turn it down. It really is a simple process. Do you understand now BJ??

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Duh... ah dont t'ink so, miz Slvr. Yu be uzin sum mity big wurds an whut u sa iz purty komplikated but ahll tri an kepe up. i aint neer as smart an edjukated az yoo CAE foks.

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I knew you were having trouble grasping the concepts that I have tried mulitple times to lay out for you, I am not sure I could make it any simpler.....would it help for me to draw you pictures in crayon?

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Slvr: Your "concepts" are a tad bit too radical for most of us to grasp, comrade. Instead of using a crayon, why don't you try drawing us a picture in the dirt using your sword, or toe of your combat boot?

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems to me the anti-ban folks are exercising their first amendment rights as well. I usually drink at home or friends homes, but now I am intrigued. Which bars have what amenities in Emporia? I might make the rounds. If the ban passes, it'll have to be Olpe or Americus after that. Oh, just the bars I can take my wife to, I don't prefer the "gentlemen's bars".

Posted by BigE (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Slvrnblck, it does not matter how simply you state it, Bj is not going to get it. He will avoid common sense questions by twisting your words, or adding a few of his own. You cannot reason with him, because he is unreasonable and irrational. I don't even think the crayon pictures will help.

CAE has not forced their will on anyone, and have gone through all of the appropriate steps with their actions. They do not decide if the ban passes. They have every right to address the commission with their concern.

So far on this forum, the only one who has acted in an elitist, or dictator like manner is Bj. Apparently if you don't see things exactly as he does, you are wrong. His way or no way at all. I would say that makes your attitude more elitist than any other!
thank you, have a good day

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Josie,
Just curious. How do you feel regarding the issue of health and second-hand smoke?

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BJ--

I think the only ones having trouble grasping the concept is you. It looks like Big E has you pegged perfectly.

What's that saying?? "You can't rationalize with irrational people"

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on October 4, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Time to move to a forum:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...