Latest Headlines:


Additional Stories:

Most Commented:

Most Read:

Thanks, but no thanks


6/21/2009

Petition drive attempt was notable, but it's good the effort failed

Thanks,

but no

thanks

Headhere

It's not easy fighting city hall. Just ask opponents of Salina's new smoking ban. They worked hard gathering more than 2,000 signatures on petitions seeking a special election to repeal the ban ordinance.

We respect those efforts. The petition drive got people involved. Organizers kept the discussion going in city commission meetings, in the media and certainly on the Journal's comments section on Salina.com. That public debate is healthy.

But the petition failed because it did not have enough valid signatures. It takes 25 percent of those who voted in the last election to call a special election, or 1,390. After checking each signature and address, Saline County Clerk Don Merriman said his office could verify that only 994 belonged to registered voters living in Salina.

While we appreciate the efforts involved in the petition drive, we also are thankful the attempt failed.

Certainly it can be argued that the ban infringes on individuals' rights to run their business the way they see fit, and if nonsmokers don't like a cloudy bar then they can go somewhere else.

But we put clean air requirements in the same category as food safety and fire codes. It is good public policy, and ultimately good business, to make environs as safe and pleasant as possible.

Besides the safety issue, we also don't like the way ban opponents held off filing their petition until after April's general election. By waiting, a successful petition would have triggered a special election costing taxpayers $20,000.

It's another example of ban opponents putting their own agenda above the best interests of other city taxpayers.

Some opponents say they will keep trying until they gather enough legitimate signatures to require a public vote. We hope they don't bother because the end result will be same.

Even if they gather enough signatures, the public will defeat the repeal attempt because the smoking ban is popular with most Salinans. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay $20,000 to prove it.

-- Tom Bell

Editor & Publisher

tbell@salina.com

822-1491





Join the Discussion:

Salina.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here. Read our full online terms of service policy.

Dave says....
nice unbiased moderation nate,..or are you sheila today?
8/7/2009

nate says....
Please allow me to moderate this contentious tit for tat. Its time to simply let the people decide. this like most of the decisions being made by the few for the many should instead be directly voted upon by the people. Majority rules. However any privately owned business or entity should be able to decide this matter on their own. Don't like smoke don't go to a place that allows smoking. People will vote with their wallet and businesses will base their own smoking policies on their revenues. Simple enough. I don't smoke but I don't cry like a baby because I can smell someone elses smoke. I could suggest you step back if its bothering you. Do business somewhere that is smoke free. The govt does have the right, in fact resposibility to make public buildings smoke free. As for privately owned buildings they have ZERO rights making rules. Let politicians and beaurocrats make choices for you than you might as well be a plant.
8/6/2009
says....
Smoking is a silly past time anyway.
8/6/2009
Timmy says....
What you mean Clinton never exhaled,of course he did!
8/6/2009
sheila says....
Happy Thursday Jack, or whatever monicker you're using today. Love those stats and YOUR incredible knowledge of the hospitality industry, AND a medical wizard? And your unbiasedness. WOW! So you are saying that the smoking ban is causing NO loss in business, or that you don't care that it is causing a loss? You pro ban people can really turn on a dime! I thought you non smokers were going to FILL the gap in the Salina nightlife after the ban? Funny how no one is saying NOW that the ban does not affect business. But now it's OK that it does? Please direct me to a SCIENTIFIC study OR the death certificates attributed to second hand smoke. And, PLEASE read the OSHA report on second hand smoke. I know you are NOT interested in the real facts, just in the ones that support your position, and coincidentally are funded by the nicotine replacement money of Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. YES, I AM biased for property rights and freedom from tyranny. Yes, I believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! Don't it just make you CRAZY!!!!!
8/6/2009
Jack says....
Witless informed individual!I looked at some of your enlightened facts.Soo,25,000,(a little less)deaths from second hand smoke is o.k. with you.I hope your obituary would be ahead of all the deaths you condone,so you can spread you ignorance and cancer to others.25,000 my friend is not a vialable option.You counterpoint yourself.How about one of those 25,ooo,expendible lives so you can puff a fag,be one of your close loved ones.Still expendable and unsignificant?
8/5/2009
Becky says....
mmmchew:You definitly have the pukie mentality of a smoker,that is why your ilk is being controlled.
8/5/2009
Jack says....
Sheila:If you open your biased mind,you will observe that there has been businessess closing,and businessess opening,probly mainly..bars and restaurants,guess what,that is how it works,there are so many of said bars,etc.Salina simply can't afford to support you,unless you are very innovative,which none of your post have indicated.Best of luck.Your going to need it.The best of the best will survive.Thats life.
8/5/2009
Jack says....
MISINFORMED INDIVIDUAL:One persons facts are one persons opinions,you can do anything with numbers and thats a fact.I haven't seen one thing in your posts that are a valid common sense argument.And yes,talk till your blue in the face..or smoke till your blue in the face,i care not.You are,and will be,wrong on this issue.Rave on fool
8/5/2009
Sheila says....
I like smoking. It's legal to buy, and legal to use. So Says says that after 14 years he is STILL a tormented, sick addict. Perhaps he is NOT a good example to get people to quit smoking. I'ld rather smoke than be like THAT! If that's what quitting smoking does to you, FORGET IT!
8/4/2009
mmm...chew says....
Ill just put in a dip of chew and spit on the floors and sidewalks.
8/4/2009
says....
Bottom line is....smoking is a filthy, disgusting, stinking, addiction. I know I smoked for 30+ years and my body is paying for it. I quit 14 years ago and thank God everyday for giving me the strength to overcome this horrible addiction. It is what is it folks and like it or not sometimes our government has to step in and control those who choose not to do the right thing or don't have the strength or faith in God to get it done.
8/4/2009
Informed Individual says....
Jack -- I give the information and show comparisons, it is not wisdom but just a little bit of research and some logical thinking. I can talk till I am blue in the face, but the fact remains that you will never acknowledge a smoker's point because you are so biased against it. I have shown the distortion in the smoking numbers, have you acknoledge it, no you turned around and attempted to insult just like in your last post. I say this to you, when you can debate without attempting to insult, bring some concrete facts, please feel free to debate me, but all you are doing at the moment is expressing your opinion, not fact.
8/4/2009
Tired of same ol' same ol' says....
Rabbi, Oh, sure you are. The city should be sooo scared.
8/3/2009
THE RABBI says....
IN RE: SMOKING BAN Well this little triade will cost the city of salina and the tax payers alot of money I am preparing a FEDERAL LAWSUIT against: City Commissioners (past present), Dr. Davies (the psychiartrist) The salinehealth Dept, the so called anti smoking coalition, and all other parties involed. HERE IS WHY: THE ALLEGED STUDIES THAT ARE BEING QUOTED ARE AT LEAST 25 TO 30 YRS OLD, IN ORDER TO PASS LET ALONE ENFORCE SUCH A ORDIANCE STATUTE THAT MUST BE BASED UPON PRESENT DAY EXISTING WELL FOUNDED SCIENCE, AS WELL AS BE ACCEPTED BY OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUTATION IN THAT FIELD OF SCIENCE. THIS IS NOT TRUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. under Title 18 USC § 241-242 Title 42 USC § 1983, AND THE CIVIL CRIMINAL RICO STATUTES I WILL COST THOSE INVOLVED SERIOUS MONEY MILLIONS IN FACT AND WILL NOT COST ME A DIME
8/2/2009
sheila says....
Top of the morning to you. Hopefully you folks that said that the smoking bans would increase business have read the Emporia Gazette article posted in the Local News Forum on the Salina Journal forums. It's in the "Has the Journal done the story on business since the ban" site. I truly believe that people smoking IN bars rather than OUTSIDE should be the law. Better than that would be the total ban on SELLING nicotine products if you really believe that health is so affected. The money that the State and Federal government receive from tobacco taxes is SO tainted that they should be EAGER to ban it. Wouldn't that SOLVE the smoking issue?
8/1/2009
Jack says....
INFORMEDINDIVIDUAL:Of course everyone that drank was an outcast at the time of prohibition and I would have been one of them.Wise up.Your posts always try to sound so wise,and I haven't read one yet that is.
7/31/2009
Informed Individual says....
Jack here is a quote from you "WE are a society of laws and rules,only the most outcasts cannot abide." You do recall the US had a prohibition on liquor -- Does that mean everyone was an outcast during that period in time? Just because it is a social norm does not mean it is the correct one..that is basic college material.
7/31/2009
Informed Individual says....
Jack I was never felt insulted -- however I did say you are resorting to insults to justify your position. As far as logical points -- I have used many you are just failing to recoginize them. As far smokers having a choice of where to smoke -- the smoking ban took that away -- If a smoker goes out they do not have a choice to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment -- that choice was taken away, which is a choice non-smokers had. Fed-up and Samantha -- I never forced you to inhale second hand smoke. You had a choice of whether or not to go to the smoking establishment or did smokers force you to go there? You both miss that point. Dave -- I do feel for the individual who survived cancer -- but as far as educational -- hear is education for you an ESTIMATED 3000 people die from second smoke, an estimation is a guess..that is according to the CDC. Go look up your facts before you assume we are not educated, you would have known this if you read the entire post.
7/31/2009
Jake says....
TO SAYS:Soo,this conversation is stupid.I noticed you joined in.
7/29/2009
says....
This discussion is stupid. For you OBAMA haters, to bad for you. He's what you got so you have to roll with him.
7/29/2009
JR says....
I believe that the business owner should have a right to choose if his establishment is non smoking or not, as long as they cater only to people over the legal age of 18. The bowling alley, for example, would not be ok for smoking, since individuals under the age of 18 frequent the establishment. This is somewhat of an oxymoron to me. I don’t understand why we would allow smoking over the age of 18, and not allow people to do it at a business with the owner’s permission, or desire, that caters only to people over this age limit. I would rather have them inside, than outside blowing it into the air I breathe, as I walk down the sidewalk. It is their prerogative if they choose to eliminate as patrons those of us that cannot, or don’t want to be around smoke. Otherwise, why not ban all smoking if we hate it so much? After all, there are bars that are labeled non smoking for the people unwilling to waste their money and health, on addictive cancer sticks. Wouldn’t you rather hang out with like minded non smoking individuals? It is an easy way to segregate after all. (Just a little sarcasm folks.) Bottom line is, I don’t mind people making the decision to smoke. I just don’t want your election paid for, on my dime. If you smoke, and then can’t afford healthcare for your smoking related ailments, I feel that I have a right to restrict you from hurting yourself, since I am the one effectually paying for your unwise choice. However, if you have the means to afford to take care of the repercussions go right ahead and smoke within your legal right. I know a lot of smokers though, that are on section 8, welfare, food stamps and wic, that somehow manage to come up with funds for cigarettes, (and gambling, but that is another subject altogether.) This should make any taxpayer angry. Not only are they hurting themselves on our dime, but they are also subjecting their children to secondhand smoke, who are unable to do anything about it. Who looks out for the children’s rights? My grandmother is so allergic to cigarette smoke that she comes down with pneumonia, even if she only smells smoke on someone’s clothing. Her doctor has to put her on antibiotics every time. We are worried about what to do if God forbid, she were to ever need to stay at a nursing home. Many of the nurses smoke, and then come back after break, with the smell still on them without even realizing it. My grandmother should have a right to be able to shop and eat, without worrying if she could end up in the hospital. Maybe smokers should have to pay for her hospital stay, and antibiotics. After all, they are the catalyst for her pneumonia.
7/28/2009
Julie says....
Sheila:I don't think you'll have to worry about too many people patronizing your establishment,you won't have to worry about weeding anyone out.
7/28/2009
sheila says....
Poor Julie, overreacting, trying to be insulting, and trying to change the subject. Do you NOT understand personal responsibility? Silly? Insane? Obsessed? Man, you are starting to lose it! And by the way, yes, a property owner MAY tell you that you are not welcome in their establishment. Personally, I try and keep people who are too nutty or just weird out of my business. People like that tend to bother other customers. One or two people DO seem to have different names on these comments, don't they?
7/28/2009
Journal Reader says....
Mercy! I thought that it would be an interesting diversion this morning to read some of the comments about stories posted recently on the Journal website. I'm somewhat surprised. Isn't it possible to leave a comment stating your opinion on an issue without attacking other posters? I've read posts wherein other posters are called idiots, asinine,losers, the list goes on. What happened to civility and being able to voice one's opinion using simple good manners?
7/28/2009
Kim says....
HAWK:That is my point,Dave did not go on a 'rampage',he replied to comments directed at him,thats not a 'rampage' as you once again try to have your cake and eat it too,so to speak.Neither did you,...you responded,Dave responded,there was no rampage by either of you. I'll let it rest now,and you can go on the passive aggresive mode that you are very good at..You either were both wrong or both right,in exersizing freedom of speech..I will say you have won my respect.Kim
7/28/2009
Hawk says....
Kim; I also appreciate your comment ,however I would like to ask when did I go on a "rampage" against 3-4 posters? If you are referring to you, Teri,Marla and Jennifer all I said was I did not ever call the 333 line and don,t go around with my nose in the air, I never responed to Jennifer. I don't believe I have gone on a rampage with you but you sure did alot of name calling, I never called anyone names. When I asked Dave those questions about his wife, which by the way was kind of foolish on my part, he said "no and thank you", "anything else, bring it on", so I did. The Obama thing was that Dave said to me, "I did'nt vote for Obama Hawk, Sheila did". I responed by saying " I never said you voted for Obama, go back and read it and thank a teacher if you were able to". That's why these things get so screwed up is that people read them so fast and by the time they get to the end , they are pissed.Anyway, I can live with the ban,if it was brought to a vote the ban would have passed anyway and it is what it is. Good luck to you.
7/27/2009
Kim says....
HAWK!I appreciate your latest comments,however,I went back and read Dave's comments and opinion and it echos mine,You,Hawk,started the dialect against Dave with the 'clinton didn't inhale'crack,of course he was refering to weed,as all knows,he responded,you told him to 'keep the change',a clear reference to Obama winning,he responded that he didn't vote for him,so didn't ask for the lousy change we are getting,you asked him many questions about his wife,he responded,what is your problem?You were trying to step in on the sheila-Dave debate and it's quite clear.So you did take a side. I believe,Obama does have a nation wide effect on this 'war' on smoking,obesity,maybe even seniors,(Health care cuts planned,with Medicare)He has taken a strong stance against smoking,maybe you missed his speech.But smoking bans are going into effect across the country,(even world).I am a little disappointed not to see a comment from Dave here today,maybe he sees the futility in the cronkite nonsense.Dave also commented to Sheila's comment to Him,when you interceded.I do think you are a good person and these banters really get spirited.I did read your and daves comments,I think you should rethink it,three in a row might have been putting thoughts together while in a hurry.But you are somewhat of a master at little nuances that dig in pretty good to get your point across.All the best.
7/27/2009
Julie says....
Sheila:Your are driven by an insane obsession,..no one cares if you smoke,puff away!You just don't need to blow your stench and poison all over me,nor,may you tell me where I may patronize,nor can you drive drunk or drug impaired,nor can you strip naked and dance in your parking lot without consequences,you silly person.If you don't want to obey city ordinance,smoking is just one,..cleanliness,not price gouging,watering drinks down,etc.You may not have a public bar,or eatery.It's the way it is.Smoking is the newest but it is what it is.Are your drinking glassess filthy?Bacteria infest you bar cloth?Do you wash your hands?You are the radical trying to create your own little world.Get yourself a cave.Just don't poison the public in any way.Thank You.
7/27/2009
Hawk says....
Kim, when the petitions came out against the ban I signed one and at the time I signed it I thought it was the right thing to do because the local gov't was taking away a persons and business owners rights. I am not pro-ban or anti-ban, but now it does'nt bother me one way or the other, I can live with it and go on from here. No, I do not know Sheila other than she is from out of town. I don't go to bars anymore and have'nt for over 5-6 yrs, I go to the liquor store to buy my beer, cheaper, but I usually just keep it on hand for friends and family, very seldom drink it anymore, at 66 your system can just take so much at that age.In my day tho', I was a little "wacko" as you said. O.K., I'm dropping the Cronkite issue with Dave, you and others, it's not going anywhere and it is not the issue on this blog or who said what about inhaling. I hope people read more carefully on some of these comments before they comment back as you might do on some of Daves comments to me, there is 3 in a row on here that he really, in my opinion, went off on me, then read mine. Good luck to you.
7/27/2009
Sheila says....
"Just don't go to places that allow smoking." When a person uses commen sense, the control freaks go CRAZY. You can tell who the ones are that work for the paid, pro ban group. They WILL NOT support a ban on selling nicotine products. This would wipe out their grants, including the grants to pay for the ads on the radio and in the paper. If this WAS about smoking and health the issue would be to stop the SELLING, NOT the using. And for a veteran to suggest that HE has the RIGHT to tell every other veteran and member of a VFW what their rights are, is just too amazing! I'm beginning to think that the folks who say they want to stop people from smoking are just liars or fools. Because an indoor smoking ban DOES NOT STOP PEOPLE FROM SMOKING. It just hurts small business and demonizes smokers. As long as tobacco and nicotine are available on EVERY corner, and as long as the government BENEFITS from the selling of it, and as long as the drug company that sells nicotine replacement provides these grants, smoking will continue as usual. PLEASE STOP LYING about wanting people to stop smoking! You DON'T! (This is where the grant crowd changes the subject!)
7/27/2009
Kim says....
Hawk:you said Dave(pro ban as I am,only connection)'rampaged'when he did not,his words may have got your ire up,but he was replying to three different comments,yours and one other 'calling' him out,And shows how narrow minded you are and the smokers that won't accept defeat with dignity.YOU,Hawk,brought up the marijauna comparison with your wise a## crack to him about clinton inhaling or not.Man up.And your still insulting and condescending telling me if I am his fried good luck with that.Actually honey,I think I'm better off not knowing you.You just can't help yourself.But your are clinically delusional.I know you have noticed Dave can speak for himself.I hope he has another word for you.I love the ban!If the other responders you stirred up wants to respond is up to them,I've said my piece.Are you and Sheila friends?Sure seems like it.Hmmm,you know you just 'rampaged' against three of four posters,how dare you.You hate what you are.
7/27/2009
Hawk says....
Kim, it was Daves "remarks" against me I was referring to, not Daves response to cancersurvivor, I would never say anything against a person who has or is going thru cancer, believe me, we have had our share of it in our family. Dave said "Cronkite and cigar smokers DO NOT inhale", it's a false statement because Dave does'nt know that, I don't either, I said,"SOME" pipe smokers do inhale". Dave more or less accused me of smoking drugs when I smoke my pipe, I get a little pissed when someone accuses me of that, I have never taken illegal drugs in my life. I don't know if you know Jennifer, Marla or Teri but to those 3 , I have never called the 333 line, do not walk around with my nose in the air as one suggested. It seems a little odd all 4 of you have never been on here before and your comments about me are one right after the other, must be friends of Daves. If you are, good luck with that, if not, your better off.
7/25/2009
Life is such a beach says....
Dave, if a business wants to cater to smokers, why should smokers be relegated to outside. You clean air freaks should be the ones outside, that way you could inhale all the clean air you wanted to.
7/25/2009
Herr Kommissar says....
Wow! Tensions are high on this issue. Prior to the ban, there were bars in Salina who's owners decided to run smoke free establishments. I'd like to know how many of you people who are applauding the smoking ban patronized these smoke free businesses. Business owners have a RIGHT to run their business to attract the kinds of customers they want. Government, local, state, or federal has no business telling them who they have to cater to. It isn't whether or not smokers have the right to smoke, it is about whether or not business owners have the right to cater to people who smoke or do not smoke.
7/25/2009
Kim says....
Hawk:You sound like a typical wacko,you accuse a poster of going on a rampage because you called him out and he responded to you and sheila with counterpoints,and good ones,part of his 'rampage' was a compliment for a cancer survivor.My,my,such thin skin,how can you say his comments about inhaling and cronkite is completly false when you say in the same utterance that neither you or he know whether he did or not.Sounds to me like you are more of a nitpicking anti-ban nut than anything.Accept the ban,I love it and will spend more money at salina establishments for it.
7/25/2009
Marla says....
That HAWK character must be a major contributer to the 333 line.
7/25/2009
Teri says....
Gosh!That HAWK charactor has his nose so high in the air I have to wonder where he sticks his pipe.
7/25/2009
Jennifer says....
You smokers that insist on trying to take others down to your level are discusting!It is like whipping a good horse to death with a broken cigarrette.You have lost this debate,being losers must be a pattern with you.I go out to eat and have cocktails alot more now that I don't have to smell like you do.And that includes that clown with the pipe that tries in vain to sound studious.
7/25/2009
Vet says....
Citizen Kane; if you joined the VFW before the smoking ban was in place and they allowed smoking in the VFW when you joined you don't have squat to complain about, you knew they smoked in there when you joined. Good grief man!!
7/24/2009
Citizen Kane says....
Sheila, Now that you decided to throw VFW's into your ignorant lunitic ravings, I will use it against you! As a non-smoker and a member of a VFW, I will tell you that I have every right to complain about smokers. I pay yearly dues to the VFW, and that gives me the right to patronize that facility whenever I want and that also gives me the right to complain about all those foolish smokers who infect the facility with their rank breath. You need to grow up a bit lady! You sound just like "Political Mama" from the SJ forums!
7/24/2009
Dave says....
SHEILA:2 plus 2 equal 4.How about catering to 'BOTH smokers and non- smokers instead being so asinine,double your customers.sheesh,I can't believe you can survive at all with your 'smokers only' mentality.Think out of the box just a little,and prosper,people are getting laid off all over the country and unemployment keeps climbing daily,you have more opportunity than alot of folks,obviously you are blind to anything but your self-centered self.If they can afford to smoke and drink they will stay if you are providing good service,plus add nonsmokers with just a little initiative.The ban is here to stay,and it's spreading nation wide.I hope you can adapt without planning on me to drink up all the cheap booze from customers you lose because you are incabable of adapting.
7/24/2009
Hawk says....
Dave; I was not bragging about inhaling my pipe,I was stating a fact that pipe smokers do inhale some of the time. I'm sure your wife inhales her cigarettes 10 times more than I do on each occasion we smoke so talk to her about inhaling not me. You and I do not know if Mr. Cronkite inhaled or not when he smoked his pipe so your statement:"Cronkite and cigar smokers do not inhale" is completely false, along with other statements you have made.As for you telling Sheila to hire me to sit outside her bar, I do not need someone who gets on a rampage on a blog to find me work, especially when he does not know what he is talking about, just rambles on. No, you have'nt hit a nerve on me ....yet, but your getting close. Actually your not that close when I think about it, you do not bother me at all. Bring it on!!
7/24/2009
says....
if you abuse the freedoms of others, your freedoms are taken away from you.
7/24/2009
sheila says....
I would sure like to be in Salina to watch Dave drink enough to replace the smokers business in taverns and pool halls. Now THAT would be quite a sight! One bar reported losing $300 to $400 per night. Wonder where those people will get a job and health care. But those now empty, once filled businesses, will be smoke free, and CUSTOMER free. Hooray Dave, you win that one! And seconhandcancersurvivor, your statement that "freedom is given to those who who can handle it with care". NOT SO, freedom in this country is our birth right. Are you saying that someone else should decide whether you are smart enough, in their opinion, to deserve freedom?????????????????
7/23/2009
says....
If business's are doing so well with the smoking ban-then why didn't they decide to make that decision themselves? Aren't the business owners paying their own taxes? Don't THEY have the RIGHT to say HOW they will run THEIR business? So if the no-smoking thing is going so great-why worry about having a ban in place? Take the ban off-if business is picking up with the smoking ban then it stands to reason business will choose to stay smoke free...But I STRONGLY believe that business owners have the RIGHT to choose what type of atmosphere they wish to provide.
7/23/2009
Hawk says....
WHOA!!!! Dave settle down, my gosh, did I hit a nerve or what? There are 2 things I will tell you right now, I have never taken drugs such as marijuana or any other kind, it's foolish and really stupid to assume that someone has. You just made an "ass" out of "u" not "me". The other is I never said you voted for Obama, read it again and thank a teacher that you were able to.
7/23/2009
Dave says....
SECONDHANDSMOKECANCERSURVIVOR:Very well put,your opinion should be valued here,not to mention educational to the ignorant and rude among us.
7/23/2009
Dave says....
HAWK:I was referring to Walter Cronkite's pipe smoking,I'll bet it was tobacco,sure you inhale illegal drugs from a pipe,I wouldn't admit it tho,be careful.Your Clinton remark was about mary jane wasn't it?
7/23/2009
Dave says....
SHEILA:You are quite welcome and you WILL march to the city ban orders,I promise you.Respect others rights,I certainly can see why your struggling with your business.Hire HAWK,he will sit outside and inhale his pipe smoke.That'll show 'em.
7/23/2009
Dave says....
HAWK:I didn't vote for Obama my friend,..Sheila did,ask her.
7/23/2009
Dave says....
TO HAWK:No,and thank you.If you inhale your pipe,great,just smoke it where others aren't inhaling it.And that really isn't much to brag about.Got anything else?Bring it on.And I have already won the debate with Sheila.The ban works and is great!
7/23/2009
2ndhandsmokecancersurvivor says....
Wow. Someone needs to teach Sheila about the rights of OTHERS to sit in a business and not have to be bothered by smoke. According to her, I shouldn't go out to any public place (boy then we could see a notable change in the financial stabilities of local businesses) that allows smoking because the smoke bothers me. Sheila, should I then also avoid my evening walk where I may meet a potential smoker on the way? The fact is that smoke may not be contained to simply the smoker enjoying their cancer sticks; it becomes a risk to others in the smoker's presence. Because other harmful choices (such as fast food) are specifically only harmful to the user, these choices have not been restricted. Bar owners do not worry; I plan to join you again after avoiding the smoke infested bar scenes. I understand the concept of freedom and I support freedom as long as it is not harmful to others. For example, we are given the right to free speech, however, if you create harm to a person/business with this freedom, they have the right to sue you for monetary damages. Freedom is given to those who can handle it with care (i.e. don't harm others). This is why this smoking ban had to be put in place; smokers didn't care that they were hearting others.
7/22/2009
Sheila says....
Thanks Dave for your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. Sorry I will not follow your marching orders, and I really don't think you actually understand the freedom and property rights issues involved here. I will not tell you how to live your life and I don't care if you smoke or not. Please have the same respect for the rights of other business owners as you expect for yourself. Maybe YOU should buy a bar and then run off over half the customers. We would see just how good you really are at adapting. I'll bet you could buy a bar right now for a good price. Seize this golden opportunity!
7/22/2009
Hawk says....
Dave must have got his info on inhaling from Bill Clinton who said he did'nt inhale. I have smoked a pipe for 20 yrs and I do inhale a few times on each ocassion I smoke, so do other pipe smokers. Dave, you say your wife smokes, does she smoke at your business or does she go outside your business to smoke? Does she smoke in your home and in your vehicles? Does she smoke around people who do not smoke and also children? I don't really care but if the answers are yes your debate with Sheila just went down the Kohler convience, if the answers are no then good for you and her. Obama has nothing to do with the ban in Salina, keep it there. As a business owner and Obama running the show, I think the business owners are knee deep in do-do my friend, take your change.
7/22/2009
Pam says....
People all over the country are getting laid off,businesses closing,and nothing to do with smoking or not,if your in the booze business be grateful,you have a better chance than most,people will always drink,make the smokers comfortable in the smoking area and get rich.
7/22/2009
A concerned citizen says....
Even as an ex-smoker I disagree with this ban. I cannot stand to be around cigarette smoke. I cannot even put into words the cravings that I have to fight every time i'm around it. However, I choose my right to stay away from it, and respect the smokers rights to smoke. I think that the no smoking before 9 p.m. was working fine. Nonsmokers just need to understand that after 9 p.m., they may be exposed to it. I already see the business that has been lost by the truck stops and other 24 hour restaurants. As for the bars, I'm sure they've lost business too. I know from personal experience that most of the smoking truckers now bypass Salina. I'm sure the people that are already fighting to keep their businesses open in these rough times are really thinking about the smoking issue as they have to close their doors because their business no longer is making any money.
7/21/2009
Dave says....
Nice assumption SHEILA:I started my own business in 1986 with my fiancee,now wife that incidenally smokes.People will keep smoking and drinking no matter what.Period,end of story.The ban is best for the majority,live with it.A little business advice...the ability to adapt;is the ability to succeed and thrive'.With a proper change in mind set your business will only improve.If you put half the energy into your business as you do whining it will be a huge step towards that venture.Cronkite and cigar smokers do not inhale,people around them do...wow,what a reach.
7/21/2009
sheila says....
Dave- you DO know what they say about people making assumptions? Looks like you are particularly adept. I don't PUSH anything on anybody, like YOU are trying to do! I do not smoke around children. I personally DON'T understand WHY you are not trying to have the selling of nicotine banned! Such hypocrasy! Do you REALLY believe that not letting someone smoke at a pool hall or a VFW will cure all ills? As long as nicotine is available on EVERY corner people will smoke. They'll just do it at home. Unfortunately the State will have to give up all that revenue from the Liquor Excise Tax collections! I noticed in the 60 Minutes show last night that Walter Cronkite, my hero, was puffing his pipe. Wonder how he got to 92? And all those healthy kids! Bunk and Balderdash to ANYONE NOT promoting a ban on selling. You don't want people to stop smoking, and you don't have the courage to buy your own business.
7/20/2009
says....
well u better ban mickyydees.. it kills people to.. this is so stupid
7/19/2009
Dave says....
Hello Sheila:I suggest you practice what you preach,and stop trying to force your unhealthy habits on others,do you smoke around children?You do.And YOU!Voted for Obama,not me,so those other three fingers are pointing back in your face.Learn and live with it.More taxes to come,do you buy smokes online? Back taxes are coming if you do.You voted for change and didn't bother to ask 'what KIND of change?" Now we suffer the consequences for at least four yrs.And the insane spending will be paid back for the rest of our lives probly.Sin taxes?Sure,now obama wants to tax sin's such as drinking soda pop,sweets etc for his 'war' on health and part of his 'health' reform.As Obama said recently Sheila,'buck up".Oh well Obama's a rock star.(and wasn't even a good jr.senator)
7/19/2009
Sheila says....
Hello Dave and Beth, Obviously you are reading my ramblings. If you could get your pro ban needles unstuck, for a moment, and consider the rights of others, which you can't, you would grasp that FREEDOM does NOT mean free to do what YOU dictate or what YOU like or dislike. The fight for freedom is fighting to defend the rights of people who disagree with you. In your world of government controlled EVERYTHING (Socialism) people work for the government NOT themselves. Now YOU may like this prospect. I DO NOT! The public DOES NOT pay the property tax or electric bills or payroll in a private business. The property owner, who is responsible to HIS customers does. It is up to the customer to choose where to spend their money. If you want to go to a non smoking, or smoking place DO, if you don't DON'T. If you want to BUY a business and make it non smoking DO. Unless you are at about a 50 IQ this should be easy to figure out. Personal responsibility, THAT is freedom. Forcing YOUR opinions on others, unless you have a newspaper, is considered bad form, and rather childish. Going to the lake. Hope nobody has banned boating yet! OOOHHH it's SO dangerous and uses gasoline too!
7/18/2009
Jack says....
To INFORMED"If you feel insulted it is because you haven't came up with any logical dabate in which to support your position,and you won't.The ban is great and it is working,it's only going to get better!
7/17/2009
Samantha says....
TO FED UP!Well said!Too bad people like the uninformed 'INFORMED"just can't grasp the logic.Perhaps because they consider only themselves,I believe selfishness like that is cowardice.
7/17/2009
Jack says....
TO INFORMED INDIVIDUAL:You say before the ban non-smokers had a choice of going on the condition of whether they smoke or not,I say,with the ban,you have the same choice,only better,cause you can still smoke,you see 'informed',what you want is to make others breath smoke with the only option being to not go,that has become unacceptable in todays society,you sir/mam,will have to adapt.the ban welcomes you as long as you don't foul the breathing air of folks that don't,can't,or choose not to breath your leftover poison.WE are a society of laws and rules,only the most outcasts cannot abide. You speak of paying for others bad decisions because of dying from second hand smoke,I think the only sensible conclusion here is the bad decision we all pay for ultimatly is you choosing to smoke.
7/17/2009
Fed up says....
To all the people who talk about smoking like it is the same as drinking or eating fatty foods...its not. Yes they can kill you too but you cant force me to eat or drink something I dont want to. However, when you smoke in a public place you are forcing me to inhale your pollutants! Smoke if you want to and take years of your life but dont do it around me!
7/16/2009
Informed Individual says....
Jack -- You again miss the point -- before the smoking ban, You had choice of whether or not to go due to whether or not you liked smoke, whether or not it bothered you. My rights in public place 10ft in front of entrance not able to smoke -- this is not a taking away of freedom? I pay for the sidewalk just as you do but you limit my use of it because you dont like the smell of smoke -- as far as those individuals who die of second smoke with pre-existing health conditions -- they made the choice to be around it -- I should have to pay for their bad decision -- lack of courtesy on their part. I have yet to insult you, nor do I intend to -- those that generally resort to that either fail to provide quantitative proof to back up their position in a debate or attempt to derail the facts and position of the other person.
7/15/2009
that one girl says....
Okay...so the smell of smoke bothers me. So does the smell of car exhaust, the smell of diesel fuel, and a vehicle that burns oil. And for that matter, I find the smell of anti-freeze sickening and a transmission that is going out isn't too pleasant, either. But I also don't like the tar-like film that cigarette smoke leaves on surfaces and my skin. My eyes burn when there is smoke near. And my throat starts to feel scratchy. My freedoms...no, make that rights...are taken away when I cannot comfortably just sit and breathe.
7/14/2009
Jack says....
to INFORMED INDIVIDUAL:SOO,for you to hurry along the death of pre-existing conditions of folks with certain disabilities and less lucky than you is fine with you.You sir/mam,are silly at least,rude,and uncaring of others I hope,at most.Your spouting of stupid figures in an effort to keep forcing others to breath your foul exhalation is rebuking.You will lose this common sense issue.One more important point!YOUR freedom STOPS at the end of my nose.Mark it down,and memorize it!The car emmissions issue is another issue altogether that is being addressed constantly,read,watch news,GET INFORMED,and will be more so now that obama is in office.If you look it up,obama probably has one or two car czars.
7/14/2009
Jack says....
TO INMFORMED INDIVIDUAL:SIGH,to not be able to go into a place because of foul air,is loss of freedom,to be able to go in and STILL smoke,only where you don't cross into other peoples freedoms leaves you going wherever your little heart desires,and limits non smoking folks,try to pay attention and be fair,you will lose this battle.
7/14/2009
Informed Individual says....
Smoke-free out of the 50000 that die from 2nd smoke less than half die directly because of it -- the 50000 include those individuals who had pre-exisisting health conditions. I do understand your talking indoors -- however you do have to look at in its entirety for validity -- which most dont. It boils down to non-smokers don't like the smell and the cost to them for the ban is nothing since they do not smoke -- thus an easy fight for them to take up verus say vehical exhaust or liquor so which side is being hypocritical in their arguements about "health concerns"
7/14/2009
Informed Individual says....
Jack...Forcing one in a single area -- outdoors -- That is removal of freedom..Second how about owner of establishment having a say how to run their business -- When non-smokers have a choice whether or not to frequent the place because it is smoking -- You must mis-understand the meaning of freedom -- go look it up. This is removal of a freedom.
7/14/2009
Jack says....
to INFORMED INDIVIDUAL:No one has had their freedom taken away,we all can go to a bar,to smoke, you have to go to the smokers area,you just can't learn can you.Here's a little 'informed' fact for you...when I go to bars and have a drink.I smoke as well,and enjoy it!The ban is a great thing,I can still have my smoke and my freedoms.
7/13/2009
smoke_free says....
Informed Individual: If I ever decide to move to a large city then I'll take up the fight for vehicle emmissions. I do support many of the actions that have helped to decrease alcohol related deaths. According to MADD, One third of alcohol related deaths are a result of courts not enforcing the laws already on the books. "Repeat offenders are a significant portion of the drunk driving problem – about one-third of all DUI arrests each year are of people who have been convicted previously of driving under the influence. (Fell, 1995) These are offenders who have been given the opportunity to mend their ways, but have not. They require additional sanctions and treatment that "normal" DUI sanctions cannot provide." This non-smoker forces this public indoor smoking ban issue because I have been personally affected by smoking related deaths. "Every year in the U.S. over 392,000 people die from tobacco-caused disease, making it the leading cause of preventable death; an additional 50,000 people die from exposure to secondhand smoke. Tragically, each day approximately 1,100 kids become regular, daily smokers and between one third and one half will eventually die as a result of their addiction. What can be done to halt this public health epidemic? The American Lung Association is working at the federal, state and local level to pass laws and implement policies that will lessen the burden of tobacco on our families, communities and nation. You can help us in this effort by becoming a Lung Association e-advocate or by donating to the Lung Association." Granted, diesel is the one of the most toxic outdoor toxins, my point was the concentration of toxins in a confined area wich it the more credible and immediate threat to the Salina citizens - public indoor smoking. Sorry for diminishing your concern on diesel toxins - that was not my intent. However, from the EPA "Note that in this assessment, the potential carcinogenic risk from diesel PM is not addressed because there currently is no unit risk estimate available." (As far as propane, it burns cleaner than gasoline and diesel.) My thought at the time I was writing is that we are discussing an public indoor smoking ban. And, yes, I do read and I got my information from peer reviewed research sites - feel free to read them yourself - and check out the map on the following link. Granted, I have an opinion, but I try to present "my opinions" with peer reviewed reasearch and statistics. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/risksum.html http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.4126997/k.9C6A/Air_Quality.htm Thank you for challenging me to read more.
7/11/2009
Informed Individual says....
To free and Jack...how bout we take your freedom away and say you can't go to a bar -- since you don't smoke, or someone tells you can't rent a place since you are a non-smoker. What would you do then -- can it be done legally -- sure can.
7/10/2009
Informed Individual says....
Smoke-Free...You have not done your research on vehical exhaust or other air pollutants...You are right there is a big difference..when you are outside you actually take in more of the toxins that are in second hand smoke everyday than you actually do from second smoke inside...Go look it up. The only difference is you do not have to smell it, WHICH IS WHY NON-SMOKERS FORCE THE ISSUE -- do not say it is health, or any other reason -- because it is a lie -- If you are saying for "health and/or deaths" you need to fight against alcohol and or emissions from vehicals.
7/10/2009
smoke_free says....
Mr. Says, Let us put some common sense into this discussion. There is a significant difference between working outside in the open (or a large ventilated warehouse) with the fumes of engine versus being confined in 9600 cubic feet room with those same fumes being pumped into the room with limited or no ventilation to remove the offending fumes. YOu will notice the health effects in a confined room. This whole issue revolves around this point - smoking in a confined space affects more than just the health of the person who is smoking. Take it outside and it is less of a public health issue. You have the freedom to smoke, just do not do it in public confined space. I am amazed at the number who say it is the "government" taking away "your rights". Who do you think the "government" is? You are the government - you elected the officials to represent you. If you do not like their decisions, vote in someone with your values. Even the person I campaigned for city commision does not have my opinion on this issue, however we agree on other issues. Quit blaming the "government" for taking your "rights" away - take responsibility and let your representatives know your opinions and your values. This is a good forum to express your opinions, however your representatives need to hear from you. You are the government and if you do not agree, then tell your representative.
7/10/2009
Jack says....
you are free to smoke in your home,your yard,porch,deck,any designated smoking areas.Quit whining smokers.If you can still afford to smoke with the upcoming obama taxes,be grateful.
7/9/2009
free says....
free?? you are free to smoke outside all you want! theres your freedom
7/9/2009
Worried in like a social nation says....
let peopel be free!!!! Where is our freedom???? Do not keep pushing me to the edge. Every day I can do less and less things, here in America!!!
7/8/2009
Jack says....
TO SAYS:I guess you did'nt hear Obamas speech,you,my friend,are in denial.
7/8/2009
Sharon says....
HERR KOMMISAR!!!You played pool AND smoked?Wow,there you go multi-tasking again..
7/8/2009
says....
..smoke - free , you sound like an educated person who keeps up with facts and polls . i dont smoke and RARELY go to bars , however i do have to consume whatever the many toxins exide puts in the air and the forklifts at work and the diesel engines (dont the truckers idle all night?) how can we get bans on places we HAVE to be instead of ones of CHOICE . ah forget it , to much hassle with the 'too goods' and the 'me' generation , think ill keep living by MY choices , dont need anyone to tell me whats best for me , i ve put my life on the line in WAR time for the freedom of choice and i make those choices only to watch those who've not fault in war limit those choices . but if any of city hall reads this i can clue them in on something far more grave and concerning in a bar than smoke ...e.g. knives , bad tempers , drugs , ALCHOHOL , drunk drivers if you will ,guns , cheaters ,loud mouths , guess that that kills instantly no big deal , maybe i dont get it because i could care less if they never made a cigarette or a bar . what i do care about is big brother telling me whats good for me . hmmm?
7/8/2009
NO SMOKE NO DRINK says....
how do i petition city hall to ban propane forklifts . i dont smoke but would rather smell 2nd hand smoke than a propane forklift . wonder what the numbers are bar patrons vs. workers around forklifts ? HELP CITY HALL
7/8/2009
says....
THIS IS TO HEY HERE COMES THE END - YOU SOUND A LITTLE PREJUDICE - RIGHTN2JAU
7/8/2009
Herr Kommissar says....
Mmmm, I forgot the most important part about my party night in Clay Center. I could play pool AND smoke!
7/6/2009
Herr Kommissar says....
This past long weekend, I did something I haven't done in a while. I went out to a bar, or more precisely, a pool hall. I drank several beers, played a bunch of pool, and just down right enjoyed myself. Saw some old friends and made some new friends. Altogether, I dropped about $100.00 between buying beers for me, my old friends, the new friends, and playing pool. Thank You Clay Center!!! Especially the fine people at the Idle Hour. It was a few extra miles, but well worth it.
7/6/2009
Informed Individual says....
Shelia is partially correct...There are only estimations of deaths attributed to second hand smoke...You cannot say 100 percent that second smoke caused the lung cancer...because you take in more of the toxins every day from vehical exhaust than you do from second hand smoke.
7/6/2009
Informed Individual says....
Tom Bell..You worry about 20k for special election...Where were your worries about spending 100k of dollars on golf carts for the golf course?
7/6/2009
Informed Individual says....
Smoke_free...I have done my research on second hand smoke...You and most other smokers fight on the premise of number of deaths...3000 in non-smoking individual..did you compare that to the almost 15000 Driving while intoxicated related deaths...so is this a matter of fighting on health reasons..no it is not, it is because non-smokers do not like the smell..Period! If they were so worried about health concerns with second hand smoke, they would push for much stricter emission laws on vehicals since they do take in more of the same toxins that are in second smoke from vehical exhaust every day...did you find the facts on that also? Im not disputing the facts you stated, but however present all the facts.
7/6/2009
says....
pretty sure Salina had a smoking ban long before Obama was president. all these slippery-slope-type arguments are pretty hilarious
7/6/2009
susie says....
I saw on the news last week that the average work week is down to 33 hours. My husband is facing a 24 to 32 hour work week presently. I consider myself lucky to still get my regular 40. The shortage of income has forced us to buckle down. Among other things, that means 1) fewer evenings out and 2) less entertainment. If we don't go to the bar, we are probably at home sharing a 6-pack.
7/5/2009
Dave says....
SHEILA:I'm glad you thrive on being a loser on this issue.Your long,rambling babble(if anyone actually reads it,I didnt this time)gives reasonable people insight into how smokers get so desperate with their addictions,smokers panic when faced with the fact they may not have their nicotine and infect those who don't choose it.This is a tragic habit.I hope you win your most important battle,thats within your self and quitting smoking.
7/5/2009
here comes the end.. says....
Blah, Blah, Blah.... We are becoming an Obamanation !!!! WAKE UP AMERICA ! You wanted him, now we will all pay for it !!
7/5/2009
smoke_free says....
Shelia, I appreciate the empathy for my loss. Like I stated, we all come to this issue based on our life experiences. Mine comes from parents who smoked for over 40 years. I saw the damage done to their bodies and to their children's due to their second hand smoke. Had you read my comments, you would have realized that the "SCIENTIFIC STATISTICS" were quoted from the CDC, they were not something I made up. Feel free to go o there site and review their research. Since you seem "anti-government" I am sure you will not accept the years of research completed by the Center for Disease Control. Second hand smoke does kill. You seem to make this issue a "government" bashing; realize that the people who are in full support of this ban are the government, so are those who disagree. We live in the country where the people elect representatives to conduct the business of the people. This forum is a good example of the government speaking. Not all will like the decisions of the people - I do not agree with all the decisions made. But I still thank God that I live in a country that allows me the opportunity for you and me to express our opinions and influence the decisions that are made. I could compromise - for example: ventilation systems that remove all smoke, or smoking allowed in private clubs that pay server health insurance, allowing patio seating for smokers, or others that we could come up with for the sake of compromise. I do see the ban working in Lincoln, NE where I spend many after work hours entertaining national clientel - all who comment how nice it is to sit in a bar without dealing with the smoke. It basically comes dow to the fact that smoking is now looked upon negatively - there is nothing "cool" about it. Bottom line, the people have spoken and if smokers wish to light up, then they can do it where their smoke will not affect others.
7/5/2009
sheila says....
Sorry your parents passed. Many people have lung cancer who never smoked and grew up in smoke free families. I disagree with your statistics on deaths attributed to second hand smoke. It is simply not scientific fact. You can make assumptions all day long based on your personal perceptions. If you wish to quote SCIENTIFIC FACTS and statistics please do. There are NO deaths attributed to second hand smoke. Sorry. Are you saying that your parents died from second hand smoke or from smoking? If they died from smoking, WHY aren't you lobbying to stop the SELLING of all nicotine products? I believe that prior to the ban, you were quoting stats that said that businesses would boom after the ban. Unless you never visit the affected businesses, you are now aware that businesses are reporting 25 to 60% declines IN ONE MONTH! I hope that Salina can provide these people with good jobs and health insurance. And these empty buildings will need someone to pay property taxes on them. Perhaps the City should consider buying the bars and pool halls since they are reponsible for this loss in income? And I know ALOT of people who DO NOT like the ban for a MULTITUDE of reasons! Mainly the usurping of the rights of property owners AND their customers. I wonder how some people can live in a community and not see or hear what's going on? Must hang out with a very select crowd? Some people think that having a beer or a game of pool with friends, and a smoke if they chose, is heaven on earth. And thank you to the people on this paper's comments section, who give me advice to give up. THAT'S WHAT KEEPS ME GOING!!!!!! God bless America, my home sweet home. And BALDERDASH to those who would take away freesom and liberty! Benjamin Franklin had a bunch of good sayings about giving up liberty for security. Either ban the selling of all nicotine products or leave people alone. NO ONE has EVER forced anyone into a smokey bar. That is YOUR CHOICE! Only nincompoops go into businesses they dislike. Let the small business people cater to their customers. Let them make a living and provide their own health care. Let them support your community with their taxes.
7/4/2009
David says....
keep the ban!!It's terrific!
7/4/2009
Sharon says....
SHEILA:Give it up,the ban works,people like it and it will stay,YOU will NOT stop progress
7/4/2009
Dan says....
The bottom line is: The government wants to take care of us all because, in their eyes, we are "too dumb" to take care of ourselves. Plain and simple. The seatbelt law, smoking ban, restrictions on the type of oil a restaurant can use, etc. etc....at what point do we become responsible for ourselves?? If I don't like smoke, then I don't go to a place that allows smoking--why is that so hard to swallow? Whether those people congregate to smoke at that place or all of them smoke at their homes 3 blocks away (or whatever the distance) the volume of smoke is still floating into the air at some point. YOU have the choice. But, if you want to get down to the meat and potatoes of something like this, ask yourselves this question: How many of you out there believe that no matter what the circumstance, WE (as the taxpayer collective) should take care of those who can't/won't work, are illegal aliens, can't afford health insurance, etc.? For those of you who believe we should, this is why we have seatbelt laws, smoking bans and others of the like: no one will be the "bad guy" and let stupidity lead someone to death. Example: A motorcyclist who rides without a helmet gets into an accident. They are very badly damaged as a result but could have come away a little worse for wear if they had been wearing the RECOMMENDED safety equipment. Now, they don't have enough insurance (or any at all) to cover their expenses--who gets stuck with the bill? We do; the taxpayers. So, a few activists get together and decide they are going to petition city hall to REQUIRE that EVERYONE on a motorcycle wear the proper gear. People get mad, there's a big debate, the law passes and what for? Because as a collective no one wants to tell the motorcycle rider, "sorry, but WE aren't going to pay for YOUR choices." No, that would be too inhumane--thats not what a civilized culture does. But yet, in the same vein, we will demand that our rights not be infringed upon--but expect OTHERS to pay for OUR choices. That doesn't seem right to me. As an individual, if my neighbor, friend, family or even a stranger is hurt (in what ever manner) and I make the choice to help, then thats MY decision. I shouldn't be FORCED to pay for something because a few activists and the government say I should. As long as we continue to "coddle" and nurture this "the government owes me" type attitude...we are going to get exactly what we deserve: Big Government and locals run by activists/lobbyists. The solution: If you are over 18 years old and eligible, get off your butts and VOTE!! The argument that you don't vote because we have a corrupt/flawed system or the "actions of government" is ridiculous and circular. VOTE!! Have a voice and tell this people who "represent" us that we will not sit by quietly while they decide what is best for us, without even asking us!!!
7/4/2009
why? says....
Everyone here fights about whether smoking is or isn't a right. What you all fail to see is the fact that the government is slowly taking away our independence. What happens when we're told what to do instead of being able to make our own decisions?? Everyone cries when things go bad, but what has happened over the years has taken the ability of a citizen to choose between right and wrong. No one knows anymore, we're trained to do what we're told. I wonder what our ancestors would have said about that??? Smoking or non- smoking, we should have a choice. If you don't like smoking, don't frequent those places. However, that should be my choice. I don't smoke, but if I want to visit an establishment that allows smoking, IT'S MY CHOICE! There used to be a style of government that didn't allow choices, does anybody remember??
7/4/2009
smoke_free says....
We all come to this Salina smoking ban controversy for our own reasons and have another opinion to share. I have read in the Salina Journal about "the right" to smoke. I was taught many years ago in a high school Civics class that my "rights" become limited when I begin to interfere with the "rights" of others. When the smoker is blowing smoke in the air I breath then their "right" interferes with my ability to breath clean air therefore the smoker has lost that "right" to contaminate my air. The damage they inflict is no longer confined to their body. This smoking ban issue is about "freedom" and "rights". A smoker has the freedom to smoke, but I have the right to breath clean air. We all come to this issue with our own experiences that shape our opinion. My experience is living with the threat of dying from lung cancer. Lung cancer is a terminal cancer. My threat comes from living with parents who were chain smokers for the 18 years I lived in their house. Parents of the "greatest generation", whose own government supplied cigarettes in the C-rations for the troops in WWII. I moved my parents into my house in April 2006 so that my father could receive lung cancer treatment at the Tammy Walker Cancer Center. He passed away in August 2006. My mother passed away in July 2008 from lung disease related to her years of smoking. I saw the potential fate of my death as I watched both of my parents die from smoking related diseases. I watched my parents die trying to breath with lungs so damaged from smoking they suffocated to death. I had no "rights" while growing up in their house. I was exposed to their second hand smoke from an infant to 18 years old. Because of these experiences, I have no sympathy with smokers and I agree with Salina becoming a smoke free city. I know the possibility of my death will most likely be smoking related and yet I have never smoked. I read the second issue is the "right" of the business owner to allow smoking in a public establishment. I agree it is a privately owned establishment. I do not agree that it is a "right" to allow a public business to negatively affect the employees health and the customer's health. If it is a private establishment's "right" to allow smoking, then they should be held responsible and accept the financial liability of providing an unhealthy environment for the employees and patrons. According to the CDC, "More people die from lung cancer than any other type of cancer.". Also from the CDC: "Restaurant employees are far less likely than other workers to be protected by smoke-free workplace policies, more likely than other workers to have these policies violated where they do exist and are more likely to be exposed to high levels of secondhand smoke on the job. Only 43 percent of this population work under 100 percent smoke-free workplace policies. Only 28 percent of wait staff and 13 percent of bartenders work under such policies. As of 2002, over 6.6 million Americans worked in food preparation and service occupations. One in five workers in these occupations is a teen, 56 percent are women, almost 20 percent are Hispanic, and just under 12 percent are African American." And finally from the CDC, Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adults who have never smoked themselves. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year. With these facts, the privately owned public establishment allowing smoking should be required to accept the long term financial and health liabilities of the employee and patron. It is nice to walk into a restaurant in Salina and not have to hear "Smoking or Non-smoking?". This is a health issue, it is not a "smoker rights" or a "public establishment's right" issue. A smoker is free to smoke in their private location. This is a clean air issue. I held my parents as they died from lung cancer and lung disease due to smoking. I saw how they died and do not wish for myself or for others to die that same way. Workers and patrons should not be affected by second hand smoke in any establishment open to the public.
7/2/2009
nate says....
Our government needs the exorbitant taxes that they collect on tobacco. the less people who smoke the more they will tax the rest of us to make up for the loss in revenue. I dont smoke but I say light up we are gonna need a lot of money to keep our new car companys (gm and chrysler) in business. while we are at it how about we outlaw hamburgers and coffee. It also seems we could vastly improve the health of our citizens if we enact a law to mandate that everyone brush their teeth 3 times a day. Bad breath infringes on my right to enjoy clean air. Stick to providing services and stick your seatbelt and smoking laws somewhere else.
7/2/2009
says....
We're just tired of your rants, Sheila.
7/1/2009
sheila says....
Is "says" the local dictator? Remember, that for the moment, we are still in America, We still have a right to speak. Are you saying that I do not? I was wishing you and some of the other, few, Smokeophobics, would chill out. What are you afraid of? What can I say that bothers you? You DO want people to know what the smoking ban is causing don't you? You might want to get the head out of the sand, and take a little drive around Salina. And if you think that the property owning citizens of Salina are done fighting for their rights YOU are wrongamundo!!! (I put my NAME on my comments, how about you?)
7/1/2009
says....
I read a letter to the Journal in the June 30 paper. It was from a Sheila who was a bar owner in Hutchinson. Are you the same person? If so, give it up.
7/1/2009
says....
A hole-in-the-wall bar is not the only place to work. Heck, if I worked in a bar, chances are it would only be part time and it wouldn't be my only job. So if your bar closes, your employees will not automatically go "on welfare and on government paid health insurance."
7/1/2009
sheila says....
AND Sharon, you sure won't have to wait to get on a pool table!I'm glad SOME people are now telling the truth about this. They don't CARE if a small business closes! They don't CARE if people are put out of work and on welfare and on government paid health insurance! NOW the truth is coming out. Wonder if the City Council feels the same way? Take care of the big boys, to HELL with the little ones.
7/1/2009
Sharon says....
if little bitty bars and pool halls close because patrons have to go outside to smoke,so be it.I don't believe it will be the cause of closing,if all bars and pool halls have the same reasonable health laws,the smokers will adhere and still drink,smoke,eat,and play pool.The ban is working and it is great!
7/1/2009
Sheila says....
Lincoln, Sure it didn't hurt resturants. We can talk ALL day about resturants. It is small bars and pool halls that are the most damaged. You pro ban people REALLY know how to juggle the numbers. Liz Klein's "study", that pro banners love to quote, was challenged by a State Senator, as bogus, since she too tried to juggle in resturants with small local bars and pool halls. Tom Bell has the letter that SHE received from the Senator stating that she HAD the numbers and WHY did she slant them. Get them separated and send him the CORRECT study results! I'm glad that you are thrilled with the nightlife in Lincoln, and you feel that the usurping of the rights of small business owners is something that the State should be involved in. Shout it from the housetops, print it in the paper. Your repetitiveness just doesn't make it so. The silence from the Journal is a more interesting statement than ANY you can make!
6/30/2009
From Lincoln says....
Lincoln's doing just fine, thank you very much. The residents here love the smoke-free worksites, and bars and restaurants are open for business. Here's what has been reported about the laws in Lincoln and Omaha: Synovec said bowling center owners in Lincoln and Omaha have been pleased with the outcome of their municipal smoking bans. “I wish I would have done it a while ago,” Synovec, who has owned 30 Bowl for nearly eight years, said, “The (Lincoln and Omaha) bowling industry had a small dip, but their leagues have come back stronger than when smoking was allowed.” Other business owners have their own opinions about the smoking ban. Doug Haftings, co-owner of Franky and Oly’s Beef and Brew, has seen the affects of a smoking ban first-hand through his employment at the Dubliner Pub and Coehn and Kelly’s in Omaha. “I see it helping with the food side of the business,” Haftings said, “The Omaha food business has really increased.” Haftings appreciates that the ban affects every bar and restaurant versus the initial Omaha ban which exempted for one year keno businesses and bars that didn’t serve food. “Since it’s straight across the board, its different than what we went through initially,” Haftings said. http://www.fremonttribune.com/articles/2009/05/02/news/local/doc49fb0c077509d653672991.txt?orss=1
6/30/2009
Sheila says....
I don't feel pitiful. I feel P O'ed. If you are too stupid or too much of a control freak to stay out of smoke filled places, that's you. Most people can make up their own minds about where and how they choose to spend their recreation budget. If your choice is to live in a bubble of fear YOU are the pitiful one! If anyone does not think that others have a right to fight for what we consider our unalienable rights YOU are pitiful. Life. Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! Just because some of us "pitiful" citizen's feel we have a right to voice OUR opinion shouldn't be scaring you. I will NEVER adapt to giving up my freedom and rights. And what is SWEEPING the nation is the buying out of our politicos and media by the pharmaceutical company that sells nicotine replacement products.
6/26/2009
smoke_free says....
Shelia, as a resident of Lincoln and Salina for the last 6 years, I have seen bars come and go - they close all the time. It also happens to be a good excuse to use the smoking ban to blame it on. I do quite a bit of after hours entertaining in Lincoln during the week and I can assure you that if those businesses closed it was because they were in financial difficulties long before teh ban went into effect. There are smoking patios at almost every bar in downtown Lincoln - so keep searching your forums but understand anyone can use it as an excuse. Food4Thought - only one rebuttal with the foundation of your argument - tobacco farmering started a massive decline over a decade ago. I will bet you will find most tobacco is now imported. There has been a significant decline in the tobacco base acres here in the US.
6/26/2009
food4thought says....
Not specifically about the ban but close. What happens when the bans get adopted nation wide and tobacco taxes double yet again (basically forcing everyone to stop smoking)? Well the tobacco farmers go out of business, the tobacco companies fold and the US is largely a smoke free country. But wait, there is a flawed logic there. That also means the loss of tons of tax money from tobacco sales. Well, that loss has to be made up else where. So what's next, my money sits on that socially unredeeming alcohol. Yep that's right, your oh so precious alcohol will be taxed to death. Then those do gooder groups will go after tougher laws that govern bars, pubs and taverns. Working to make the laws tougher to comply with, forcing people out of business. Will that ever happen? Can't really say for sure, yet I feel compelled too believe it will. After all, what other form of socially accepted form of a night out can turn your car into a 2 ton killing machine?, turn other wise decent people into complete idiots capable of the dumbest of acts? The biggest point here is that these groups that push super hard for stuff like the smoking ban, are never satisfied. They will continue on with a new target. Just food for thought folks.
6/23/2009
KM says....
I don't think "rampid" is a word. I believe the word you want is "rampant." Redneck, I was directing my comment at Who...who questions why you have to be registered to sign a petition and lives here but does not vote "cause of this type of actions from government offices." I also have lived here my whole life, but when I travel and spend money elsewhere, I accept the differences present in the area I am visiting.
6/23/2009
No Smoking Fields says....
Maybe worse than smoking in bars is when some farmers set fires to their fields and burn them down, throwing tons of smoke into the atmosphere. They should leave the crop residue on the field to absorb snow melt.
6/23/2009
Marilee says....
SHEILA!You are making yourself look so pitiful now.Be graceful in defeat,smoking bans are sweeping the country and have been for years.Salina is just behind,be grateful you had extra time to infect others' bodies with your nicotine.
6/23/2009
Beth says....
Sheila,you are truly obsessed for an insane cause,you will lose this issue,it is progress like it or not.Get used to it and adapt.
6/23/2009
Julie says....
if the smoking ban causes bars to close,so be it,the bars charge enough money for a draw or a mixed drink to afford a fan,or doorway,the others are not properly managed,or ran.
6/23/2009
WebReader says....
I'm neither "for" nor "against" on the issue of smoking in public places. I don't smoke and I do not frequent businesses where smoking is allowed. That said, Mr. Bell uses the editorial "we" because that is the correct pronoun usage when writing an editorial comment for a newspaper. In addition, I do not believe that crime is "rampid" in Salina. I don't believe it has reached even rampant conditions yet.
6/23/2009
Redneck but not anal says....
KM-- I am a registered voter only I don't live in Salina. But I do spend most of my money in Salina. Smoke_free--I think the idea of allowing smoking in PRIVATE clubs is a good compromise, however this nazi type ban does not even allow for that. And it is an infringement on the rights of a privately owned business.
6/23/2009
Samantha says....
I was at a local bar this weekend,the patrons went outside to smoke,it was great,everyone enjoyed themselves,even smokers didn't mind.Get on the right side of this issue people.Keep the ban,it is working!
6/23/2009
Sheila says....
John's Billiards is CLOSED. Cheerleaders Bar reporting down 30%. Both attribute to smoking ban. Can find more, no problem. Researching Forums.
6/23/2009
KM says....
If you are not a registered voter, you cannot vote. Therefore, you have no right to complain. If you don't like the actions of those in elected positions, let your voice be heard by casting your vote. But like I said, you don't vote so you can't whine.
6/22/2009
Smoke_free says....
Shelia, feel free to print your facts about Lincoln businesses closing. However, since I live in Lincoln, NE and in Salina, KS, I know first hand your opinion is wrong. Someone else tried to use that comment as a rebuttal with me before and failed to deliver the facts. Search the articles in the Lincoln Journal, UNL Business College research and on the Nebraska Department of Revenue web site. The facts come from those sites, they are not my opinion. Gather all the signatures you wish, however it is a waste of taxpayers money - just read the results of the vote in other communities. the state of Nebraska is now smoke free due in large part to the Lincoln ban. Kansas is next, thanks to Salina. The fact is - tobacco smoke is fine in a private home, but not in public. And don't give me a restaurant is a prvate business and it affects their "rights". Once a business is open to the public, it is a public business open to public regulation. Keep it a private business with only members allowed and I have no problem with smokers.
6/22/2009
Tom Bell says....
Sheila, As Ben told you earlier, the editorial "we" is a longstanding newspaper tradition and emphasizes that the editorial writer is stating the official position of the newspaper. -- Tom Bell
6/22/2009
Tom Bell says....
Sheila, As we've told you before, the use of the editorial "we" is a longstanding newspaper tradition in editorial writing. -- Tom Bell
6/22/2009
Sheila says....
And there's that WE again. Who is we? Tom got a twin?
6/22/2009
sheila says....
Lincoln Nebraska small businesses HAVE NOT recovered. They have CLOSED. So is this the way the paper is going to cover their saying that business would BOOM after a ban. GET YOUR SIGNATURES and exercise your rights. GOOD GRIEF, a NEWSPAPER that is anti rights and anti business. AMAZING!! NOW we want a NEWSPAPER to dictate public policy and health. Truth, when you DO get it, IS stranger than fiction!!
6/22/2009
says....
I smoke. I wish I didn't. Still, I personally do not like going to cloudy places due to lack of air in my lungs. It may sound controversial, but that's how I feel about it.
6/21/2009
Who says....
Why does someone have to be a registered voter to sign a petition against the city, I ilve here and don't vote cause of this type of actions from the goverment offices. I still think that the counting should be done by a netural party. Welcome to the new United States!
6/21/2009
smoke_free says....
Fine editorial Mr. Bell since there is a lot of truth in your comments. Hopefully, those wanting to repeal the ban will look to other cities who have banned smoking. Lincoln, Nebraska is a good example. Those wishing to repeal that smoking ban found that 70 percent of the voters agreed to leave the ban in place. Lincoln has been smoke free for several years now. And when you review the collected sales tax revenues since 2004 you notice a large initial drop that recovered within 3 months. In addition, if there is a $20K taxpayer charge for a referendum, I can assure you it will be greater than 70% against the repeal. It is a health issue, not a "private business" issue.
6/21/2009
says....
Of course you put it in the same category as botulism and rat feces, because YOU DON"T LIKE IT. Its been proven over and over again that it isn't even close the public health threat, but you don't care. I just can't wait till everything you like is taken away from you. Fat, booze, barbcue, driving....Nazi here we come!
6/21/2009
tloco says....
It would seem that the push for government interference becomes larger everyday . What next , back to prohibition ? I don't see where any city , state or federal govenment should be allowed to infinge on the rights of business owners to determine how they run their establishment . If the lack of cutomers who don't want to be exposed to smoke refuse to visit the establihment it would seem the owner would ban smoking themselves . I don't see the need for government intervention .
6/21/2009
lost customer says....
Why not spend $20,000 on a special election? People of Salina should be outraged, your elected officials spend YOUR money on such foolish things, such as the overpass and the swimming hole, but let YOUR streets go to the dogs,such as south 9th, and crime be rampid. Doesn't matter to me, I quit coming to Salina to shop, eat, or stay when the taxes raised and then the ban, now the crime is even a better reason not to come. When my friends and family come this way, I tell them not to stop there for those reasons! Why should they put their lives in danger and pay more out of their pocket when there are good towns around that offer the same things?
6/21/2009


Post a comment
Your best chance of getting your comment posted:
  • No profanity
  • Be civil
  • Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.


Comment:

Poster:
captcha 2a519c06f454411f8a264363b5cfc95c
Enter text seen above:


Read our full use policy.






Email this story to a friend:

Subject:

Recipient:

Sender's email (required):

captcha 2a519c06f454411f8a264363b5cfc95c

Enter text seen above:




SALINA.COM FEATURES

NEWS

ONLINE EXTRAS

COMMUNITY
ADDITIONAL FEATURES

CLASSIFIED

BUSINESS SERVICES

READER SERVICES

 

SPECIAL SECTIONS
salina.com is an online feature of the Salina Journal
Copyright © 2008 Salina Journal and MediaSpan
Contact Us | Terms of Service