In his oh-so-tactful way, Mell compares smoking to tailpipe emissions and fireplaces. I'll say it again, Mell's rudeness gets in the way of his positions and builds resentment rather than respect.
The facts are that cities are banning smoking indoor public places and the state probably will soon. Smoker's rights end when they starting forcing others to smoke.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
No, People's (including smokers) rights end when they are not allowed to vote on certain referenda and have legislation shoved down their throats in a sneaky backhanded way (like in Winfield). It's hard for some people to see more than one side to an issue. How would you feel if someone decided you could no longer fire someone just to advance a family members career? Wouldn't you like to have some say in the matter?
AS for Mell, I acknowledge that if you invest yourself into the role of Mayor in Arkansas City, it can be a challenge to pull it down a notch afterwards.
New Mayor should mean new agenda and a new prolific voice for the council. I am eager to hear Mayor Warren's voice articulating the vision and priorities.
Mell, thanks for serving and giving it the whole betsy!
im a none smoker and i think the city and government should stay out of it. if i dont like then i dont have to go into places that allow it. business owners should be allowed to set the rule for their places.
Mel needs to check his facts because he sounds like an idiot, and he is representing the town when he speaks out in public. Burning wood may release some hazardous chemicals, but not nearly in the concentration of secondhand cigarette smoke. Besides, when was the last time you went to a cafe and someone had a roaring campfire at the next table? I surely would hate for Mell not to be able to hang out and "wind down" after a hard days work at the neighborhood bar if a smoking law passed. I will vote for a ban if it is put to a vote.
Charles, I hope Mell has been to visit you during the last year. He was quite an embarrasement a while back and I hope you and others can help him.
Off topic, but I am having trouble making sense out of the article on the man in the river, and was hoping you could help.
It says the man was seen in the Walnut river at Walnut park, and then says the search went all the way to the South Summit bridge, which is the Arkansas River. He couldn't get to the South Summit bridge by jumping in at Walnut park. Unless of course the river was flowing backwards last night.
Am I missing something?
I don't know if all of Mel's info is true, but I personally have a harder time breathing from wood smoke than someones cigarette smoke. When the city started doing all the burning(I am not griping about it), I had to stay indoors and venture out only when needed and still could smell it inside my home.
I don't intend this to be as hateful towards anyone, but isn't the wood burning just as much a problem to the public that can't tolerate it as is cig smoking to some? Should we out law public burning just because some people can't breath in it? Just a thought.
How many times have you been in a restaurant and had people burning wood at the next table?
Okay, I see the correction on the river jumper. Thanks for clearing that up. Too bad you don't have anyone to go over and, oh I don't know, EDIT stuff before it hits. haha
I don't recall constant burning of the magnitude we had after the last big storm--it is occasional--cigarette smoking is constant and almost everywhere you go. Ever sucked in a lung-ful as you entered a building where others had been smoking outside the door (it wasn't your choice to partake of that smoke, but you had to breathe)? Or sat in a "smoke-free" section in a restaurant which happened to be in the same vicinity as the "smoking" section, or there was little or no ventilation? It's hard to enjoy a meal while smelling someone else's "enjoyment". Sorry, smokers, I'm for the ban.
Mell would have to come to my church to visit me. I don't mind participating in reasonable discussion on the web log but I haven't the time right now to engage in city business.
I leave that to you all who have a larger stake (I suppose) in those issues. I hope Mell has enjoyed his time of service to the citizens.
Somewhere in the future when he gets a chance to step away from the high energy of holding the office, it will have great (or greater) meaning to him.
A favorite quote: "A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone." - Henry David Thoreau
At what point does a non-smoker have rights? I'm a reformed smoker, i quit 5 years ago. I am steadfast against a smoking ban of ANY form for public places. Just because it is public does not mean you HAVE to go there. If Bricks wants to be a smoking allowed establishment, then let it. If I or someone else who doesn't smoke does not want to be around smoking, then I can make my impression with my dollars, by not spending them there. I get sick and tired of people telling smokers to go outside.
We have too much of a nanny government as it is. Quit trying to tell others what to do and start tryin to live better yourself.
The facts presented were very misleading. Mell's pointer were very obvious as it makes no sense to believe the government types who want to pass one over on you. Make sure you have your eyes wide open on this because the minority of smokernazis want to cheat you out of due process.
It's fine if you're against it. It's fine if you're for it. Let's let the people vote. You guys know who votes in this town. About 1000 people and it'll probably go about 60-40.
if you didnt like it then dont go to that place. nobody forced you to go into there so you can only blame yourself
While you are about it, how about moving the city burn pit away from town. There are a lot of elderly and emphysema sufferers (mostly smokers) in town. The burn pit is so close to town that sometimes ashes fall on summit street.
With all of the cheap land available, why couldn't it be moved 3 or 4 miles away where it wouldn't be a health problem?
Shouldn't the city be concerned about the pollution they cause to the residents?
Funny thing, people wanting more and more rights taken away, whether they are a smoker or nonsmoker. Maybe next they might want to ban babies and children from restaurants because they are annoying the costumers with the bawling and screaming.
I am for a ban, but I like Wichita or Derby's rules more than Winfield's.
Isn't it weird how upset Mell gets when he does not agree with something - like the smoking ban, or Lowes developments, etc. I am not sure if he is spoiled or just passionate or what.
Don't you have the right not to go to that eating establishment??? Each business owner needs to make that decision for themselves!
Isn’t it weird that Mel caught that developer lying about going to Winfield first and called them on it. Isn’t weird that when Mel saw the state funded propaganda about second hand smoke causing SID’s he called them on it?
He’s obviously very spoiled.
"Don't you have the right not to go to that eating establishment??? Each business owner needs to make that decision for themselves!"
So, what you are saying is that smokers have more rights than non-smokers. Because smokers don't mind breathing cancer causing chemicals all day, they can eat at any restaurant in town, but because I value clean air, I can only eat at the ones that don't allow smoking. Does that seem fair? I bet every smoker in town eats at restaurants or fast food places that don't allow smoking. If they can wait to smoke until they're in the car headed home from McDonalds or Wendy's, why not from Daisy Mae's or Bricks?
I am all for letting the booze hounds that hang out at the bars all night, like our former Mayor, kill themselves with cigarette smoke, but the restaurants should not allow it.
So what you are saying is that the owner of the establishment who paid the taxes, paid the rent paid the payroll then paid and paid some more has to bow to the want of some arrogant self righteous character off the streets?
The business owners should have those same right poster 7:41!!!
"So, what you are saying is that smokers have more rights than non-smokers. "
Is it or is it not already a "right" of the people to choose whether or not to smoke in a public place. Once the (local, state or federal) government places a public smoking ban they are taking away a right of the citizen. If this comes to a vote of the people, a majority of citizens will not aurgue a public smoking ban if it is "voted" in. People simply do not want to be under complete control of the government. With that being said, I will be happily voting YES on a public smoking ban. I just do not want to be told what to do anymore then I am by the government!
"How many times have you been in a restaurant and had people burning wood at the next table?"
I am in my home more then a restaurant and can still smell smoke from the burn pit almost on a daily basis in my home. Plenty of days I would like to open my windows, but have to run the air instead.
You should bring a lawsuit against the city and tell them it's because Kuhn says wood burning is bad for you.
Can we just have one photo showing BO smoking ?
If he comes to Winfield maybe he can be caught smoking outside.
Post a Comment