My parents are both smokers... and I dont smoke... saras parents are smokers and she doesnt smoke.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: And its funny how the pro-lifers are the same ones who support the death penalty and of course smoking anywhere they want. So who’s life is the valuable one? A mother who smokes around her child is knowingly hurting her child and most likely damning it.

sorry man , no sympathy on that one "embryos dont commit Treason , Rape , or Murder"

death penalty for "embryo or vicious criminals" - you choose! which one deserves to die....
for us pro-lifers the CHOICE IS CLEAR (i've never had an embryo attack me muchless attampt to rape or murder me , nor have i ever heard of an embryo accussed or tried for treason) sorry no comparison.

The City of Dallas instituted a smoking ban, all the restaurants and bars said that they'd go out of business as a result. The result? Business is up, people seem to have the same need to eat and drink regardless of smoking bans.

Big whoop over nothing...

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: sorry man , no sympathy on that one "embryos dont commit Treason , Rape , or Murder" death penalty for "embryo or vicious criminals" - you choose! which one deserves to die.... for us pro-lifers the CHOICE IS CLEAR (i've never had an embryo attack me muchless attampt to rape or murder me , nor have i ever heard of an embryo accussed or tried for treason) sorry no comparison.

Exactly no comparison... so just like my argument doesn’t stand neither does yours.

Anyone else hear that New Jersey wants to ban smoking while driving? I guess they are getting tired of some smokers using the roads as their own private ash trays.

All the smokers are up set about in this situation is that, the rest of society has decided we don’t want to smell their smoke and that they can no longer feed their addiction in the places we buy cloths and food.

There is always out side! takes all of 5 min to walk there. You can walk out side and smoke, I cant go out side and eat my potatoes.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: My parents are both smokers... and I dont smoke... saras parents are smokers and she doesnt smoke.

Look , I deeply respect the fact the neither of you smoke. congradulations you do deserve that much.
however , the fact that neither of you smoke doesn't establish wheather you 2 are the exception or the rule.

having said that , these laws (intended good) are saying that people such as yourselves are the rule and as such you deserve a law that favors 1 person over another , gives 1 person more protection over another , give 1 person more freedom over another. These types of laws are not supportive of a democracy they are anti-democratic.

i do not think you should have to be subjected to 2nd hand smoke but at the same time i dont think you have the right to run into a burning house and complain about lung damage. same way with bars and taverns if there are smokers inside competing to see who can empty a pack in 5mins first "don't go in" its not like your being force to enter .

[This message has been edited by JRM-2M6 (edited 08-02-2005).]

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: Look , I deeply respect the fact the neither of you smoke. congradulations you do deserve that much. however , the fact that neither of you smoke doesn't establish wheather you 2 are the exception or the rule. having said that , these laws (intended good) are saying that people such as yourselves are the rule and as such you deserve a law that favors 1 person over another , gives 1 person more protection over another , give 1 person more freedom over another. These types of laws are not supportive of a democracy they are anti-democratic. i do not think you should have to be subjected to 2nd hand smoke but at the same time i dont think you have the right to run into a burning house and complain about lung damage. same way with bars and taverns if there are smokers inside competing to see who can empty a pack in 5mins first "don't go in" its not like your being force to enter .

But the law isn’t taking away any rights... smoking isn’t a right its a privilege, a privilege afforded to you by the constitution (life liberty and all that jazz). But that same constitution says I have the privilege to breath fresh air.

Is it that much of a hassle to ask the smoking public to go out side the building when they want to breath in smoke... something that obviously over half the people don’t want to do. If they were courteous like some smokers, they would naturally leave the building...but most don’t and just like there are speed limits to help curb the dangerous assholes from speeding down a family street with kids, these anti smoking laws are trying to curb the amount of dangerous smoke be kept out of places where families with kids will come.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: Well then we agree, as Ive already said ill bend on bars and Taverns...

good discussion and no harm done "thanx for being civil and fair"

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: good discussion and no harm done "thanx for being civil and fair"

"im glad we had this talk"

quote Originally posted by dezie36: Id like to see proof of that... actual statistics. As I don’t see why smokers would be more apt to drive while drunk just cause they couldn’t smoke in the bar... and if that’s your excuse as a drunk driver... well more reason to put you behind bars!

okay understand for the moment that this reply was not based in fact or statistics (although i would like to see some myself) i was playing with thought .

here is the thought :
1 - non-smokers were not going to the bar - avoiding the smoke
2 - smokers go to the bar wheather they can smoke or not
3 - if business is up after a ban - its posible that its because both non-smokers and smokers are going to the bar.
4 - if 1 drink contains alcohol and you drink it , you are intoxicated (legal limits vary)
5 - if more people are going to the bar and drinking , unless they are all walking home insted of driving, i would have to suspect that more intoxicated drivers are the result of the smoking ban.

it was just a thought i chose to play with - not a supported fact on my part...

Pehaps we should ban eating red meat...it causes more bowel cancer than anything else.. I would be quite happy to see alcohol banned in its' entirety...it causes more damage than smoking does, I am sure.And, let's not forget one thing...Government allowed the tobacco Companies to promote smoking for many many years...and pocketed billions of dollars doing it....Educate people not to smoke...don't legislate.They educated the population many years ago, and since...that smoking was "cool"...they didn't force them.Educate now to the effect that smoking is bad..don't force it.And...I wonder how many of the moaners in this thread have benefitted in one way or another, from the vast amount of taxes levied through their addiction?And how many will moan equally as loudly, when the tax revenue from the Smokers' eventually dries up...and they have to pay more of their own income to make up the shortfall? And smokers in Europe contribute far more by way of taxes to the health system...and so surely, they are entitled to more treatment? You pay more for it, you get more entitlement.I do think that secondhand smoke is offensive to non-smokers..but I just don't buy this theory that it kills people.It is a very small amount, in comparison to the waste products that are in the air from motor vehicles and aeroplanes and industry..but nobody is up in arms about that now, are they? Exhaust gases are so dense now, in high density population, they are a far greater threat to people's health...but I bet none of you compaining about smoking, would even DREAM of giving up your car for your neighbour who doesn't drive.You would consider him to be a lunatic, if he demanded legislation to prevent you from driving...wouldn't you? "I want to be able to walk on a Public highway without the danger of being knocked down by some lunatic driving an internal combustion engine, pouring carbon monoxide into my fresh air....so stop him doing it.."
And oh, I gave up smoking last January, and it has had a considerable affect on my health...detrimental effect...so now I am going to sue the tobacco companies for making me smoke in the first place, and then the added problem that, if I give it up, I become ill too.
Giving up smoking, has contributed to obesity in no small measure, by the way...(no pun intended).
Going back to the alcohol bit...I am tired of treading in other peoples' vomit in public places...I am tired of the accidents caused by drinkers...I am tired of my hopital ER being overrun by 80% of the patients being injured due to alcohol-induced "accidents" and assaults.I am tired of drunken people wanting to smash my face in because I walk on the same pavement as them...I am tired of hearing wives/girlfriends being battered by drunken partners...and most of all, I am tired of hearing "oh, but I had been drinking" as an excuse.
If I had my way, anybody seeking treatment for alcohol related accidents in ER's ie had alcohol in their blood, would be charged an immediate fee for ER treatment.If it was proved that they had not been the instigator of the accident, they would receive a full rebate.Anybody driving with any trace of alcohol in their bloodstream would be automatically banned from driving for life.Anybody causing harm to another person as a result of alcohol, would automatically go to prison for 4 weeks minimum.
Now. Who thinks alcohol is more deserving of action, than smoking?
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 08-02-2005).]

Well, first of all you make too many assumptions about where I stand on many issues and you began going astry when talking about serving alcohol to 13 year olds, I just continued down the path.

Tell me, Dez, name me ONE RIGHT that you have lost since Bush became President. Just one. One thing that you, specifically, cannot do NOW that you could do before that you feel is your RIGHT to do. It's OK, I'll wait. What, can't think of any? Why am I not surprised. Now, on to the issue at hand.

This over 50% you talk about is mythical. Yes, no doubt that 56% or whatever voted for the law, I believe that. The TRUTH, however, is that less than 10% of that number actually give a crap one way or the other. Those 5% that are "offended" by second hand smoke initiated the process to get the law introduced and placed on the ballot. When it was voted on, 56% said "OK" but out of that, over 40% would have been just fine if the law had never passed. This was not a burning issue but for a very few anti-smoking activists.

I have no problems with the Federal Government saying that nobody can smoke in a Federal building. It's their building, their rules. I have no problems with state, local, or any other government entity saying you can't smoke in THEIR building. Again, their building, their rules. I have no problem with YOU saying I can't smoke in your house, or your place of business, as long as it's stated clearly. Where I have a problem is when a government agency comes into MY building and tells me that I, nor anyone else, can smoke in that building if I want to. Not that I normally would do that, but it's not their place to tell me what I can, or cannot allow, when dealing with a LEGAL SUBSTANCE in my private property. That's the issue here and all of the other nonsense pales in comparison.

This is a classic example of the government interfering in private business. Your example of it being "1989" is simply silly. It's not 1989, it's 2005. Buy a calendar. If the smoke in a bar or restaurant is offensive to you, then DON'T GO THERE. If you think it's offensive to enough people open a non-smoking bar or restaurant and the public will beat a path to your door BY CHOICE, NOT BY LEGAL DECREE.

As with others, I'm very dubious about the harmful effects to the vast majority of adults of OCCASIONAL exposure to second hand smoke. Is it pleasant? Not for those that don't like it. Does it harm their health. I don't believe it does and I don't believe you can show any studies that show that occasional second hand smoke is harmful. Kids in a smoking home? Probably, at least with the studies I've seen, but that's hardly occasional exposure so not applicable to a bar or restaurant.

In my opinion, and if you can prove otherwise then you google it up and prove me wrong, if you and I sit down at adjoining booths and we each have a steak, and I light up a cigar and smoke it, subjecting you to second hand smoke, you will leave the restaurant annoyed but physically none the worse for wear. It does not have any longterm effects on your health or well being. The simple fact, this law was instituted because YOU DON'T LIKE IT, not for a health issue.

The anti-smoking crowd is getting rabid, IMHO. As anyone that goes in knows, Wal Mart does not allow smoking in the store. Fine by me, their building, their rules. Anyone that knows me knows that I like to chew on unlit cigars. You may not like it, you may not like the way it looks, but it doesn't harm you in any way whatsoever. I walk into a Wal Mart about 3 years ago (about the last time I was in one) and the "greeter" said "sir, you can't bring that cigar in here". I say why not? She says because we don't allow smoking. I say it's not lit. She says it doesn't matter. I tell her I'm going in because I don't see a sign that says "no tobacco" only "no smoking" and if I light the SOB she can personally throw me out and walk by her. I get about 30 feet in the store and security (that was at customer service) comes up and asks what the problem is. I say I have no problem, I need some floppy discs. He says you'll have to lose the cigar. I tell him if he wants me to lose it correctly state on the sign that the store is "no tobacco" instead of "no smoking" and until that happens he can kiss my rear. I left the friendly grandma greeter in apopleptic shock and the security guy following me around the store.

It's not that you or anyone else thinks it's a "public health" issue, it's that you and the other tobacco rabid yahoos don't like it. Tough. Get over it. But you can at least admit it for what it is, you're trying to stop me from doing something that does no harm to you and is perfectly legal and you're trying to enforce your will on PRIVATE PROPERTY through FORCE OF LAW. That is wrong.

Fine, you don't like it. I happen to not like body piercings on the face except in the earlobes. It is offensive to me. When I see some people that have 20 pounds of crap hanging from their lips, it makes me physically ill. We do, in fact, have a Pizza Hut here where one of the waitresses has three large studs in her lower lip. She makes me sick when I look at her, to be honest. I'm not trying to get a law passed that she can't wear them in the restaurant. I'm not even talking to the manager about what it does to me. I just don't eat there anymore. Problem solved.

Too bad others can't solve their problems the same way instead of making a law that stops everyone else from doing anything they don't like.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by dezie36: Typical J to go in all different directions to try and confuse the topic… but that’s fine. Lets cover all of your points. Dezie

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Tell me, Dez, name me ONE RIGHT that you have lost since Bush became President. Just one. One thing that you, specifically, cannot do NOW that you could do before that you feel is your RIGHT to do. It's OK, I'll wait. What, can't think of any? Why am I not surprised. Now, on to the issue at hand.

The right to import gun barrels!

The right to not be unreasonably declared an enemy combattant, held before a secret military tribunal, and executed 24 hours later. ( )

How about the Fourth Amendment - the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"?

But I digress.... the main reason that town is suffering financial losses to their restaurants and bars is simple - everyone's going next door where there is no ban.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: everyone's going next door where there is no ban.

Bingo! mission control, the hammer has just landed on the head of the nail and the issue is now flush with reality....

in short (as a capitalist) I Agree!

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Well, first of all you make too many assumptions about where I stand on many issues and you began going astry when talking about serving alcohol to 13 year olds, I just continued down the path. Tell me, Dez, name me ONE RIGHT that you have lost since Bush became President. Just one. One thing that you, specifically, cannot do NOW that you could do before that you feel is your RIGHT to do. It's OK, I'll wait. What, can't think of any? Why am I not surprised. Now, on to the issue at hand. This over 50% you talk about is mythical. Yes, no doubt that 56% or whatever voted for the law, I believe that. The TRUTH, however, is that less than 10% of that number actually give a crap one way or the other. Those 5% that are "offended" by second hand smoke initiated the process to get the law introduced and placed on the ballot. When it was voted on, 56% said "OK" but out of that, over 40% would have been just fine if the law had never passed. This was not a burning issue but for a very few anti-smoking activists. I have no problems with the Federal Government saying that nobody can smoke in a Federal building. It's their building, their rules. I have no problems with state, local, or any other government entity saying you can't smoke in THEIR building. Again, their building, their rules. I have no problem with YOU saying I can't smoke in your house, or your place of business, as long as it's stated clearly. Where I have a problem is when a government agency comes into MY building and tells me that I, nor anyone else, can smoke in that building if I want to. Not that I normally would do that, but it's not their place to tell me what I can, or cannot allow, when dealing with a LEGAL SUBSTANCE in my private property. That's the issue here and all of the other nonsense pales in comparison. This is a classic example of the government interfering in private business. Your example of it being "1989" is simply silly. It's not 1989, it's 2005. Buy a calendar. If the smoke in a bar or restaurant is offensive to you, then DON'T GO THERE. If you think it's offensive to enough people open a non-smoking bar or restaurant and the public will beat a path to your door BY CHOICE, NOT BY LEGAL DECREE. As with others, I'm very dubious about the harmful effects to the vast majority of adults of OCCASIONAL exposure to second hand smoke. Is it pleasant? Not for those that don't like it. Does it harm their health. I don't believe it does and I don't believe you can show any studies that show that occasional second hand smoke is harmful. Kids in a smoking home? Probably, at least with the studies I've seen, but that's hardly occasional exposure so not applicable to a bar or restaurant. In my opinion, and if you can prove otherwise then you google it up and prove me wrong, if you and I sit down at adjoining booths and we each have a steak, and I light up a cigar and smoke it, subjecting you to second hand smoke, you will leave the restaurant annoyed but physically none the worse for wear. It does not have any longterm effects on your health or well being. The simple fact, this law was instituted because YOU DON'T LIKE IT, not for a health issue. The anti-smoking crowd is getting rabid, IMHO. As anyone that goes in knows, Wal Mart does not allow smoking in the store. Fine by me, their building, their rules. Anyone that knows me knows that I like to chew on unlit cigars. You may not like it, you may not like the way it looks, but it doesn't harm you in any way whatsoever. I walk into a Wal Mart about 3 years ago (about the last time I was in one) and the "greeter" said "sir, you can't bring that cigar in here". I say why not? She says because we don't allow smoking. I say it's not lit. She says it doesn't matter. I tell her I'm going in because I don't see a sign that says "no tobacco" only "no smoking" and if I light the SOB she can personally throw me out and walk by her. I get about 30 feet in the store and security (that was at customer service) comes up and asks what the problem is. I say I have no problem, I need some floppy discs. He says you'll have to lose the cigar. I tell him if he wants me to lose it correctly state on the sign that the store is "no tobacco" instead of "no smoking" and until that happens he can kiss my rear. I left the friendly grandma greeter in apopleptic shock and the security guy following me around the store. It's not that you or anyone else thinks it's a "public health" issue, it's that you and the other tobacco rabid yahoos don't like it. Tough. Get over it. But you can at least admit it for what it is, you're trying to stop me from doing something that does no harm to you and is perfectly legal and you're trying to enforce your will on PRIVATE PROPERTY through FORCE OF LAW. That is wrong. Fine, you don't like it. I happen to not like body piercings on the face except in the earlobes. It is offensive to me. When I see some people that have 20 pounds of crap hanging from their lips, it makes me physically ill. We do, in fact, have a Pizza Hut here where one of the waitresses has three large studs in her lower lip. She makes me sick when I look at her, to be honest. I'm not trying to get a law passed that she can't wear them in the restaurant. I'm not even talking to the manager about what it does to me. I just don't eat there anymore. Problem solved. Too bad others can't solve their problems the same way instead of making a law that stops everyone else from doing anything they don't like. John Stricker

Very nicely said, John!!

I'm a non-smoker. My mother has smoked 1-2 packs per day since she was 14, and at age 78 she goes roller skating twice per week.

Cigarette smoke does not bother me.

The studies which have been cited as "proving" that second-hand smoke is bad for you are not very sound studies, and to explain why I'm going to quote the website "Number Watch".

quote Originally posted on Number Watch: The obituarists were out in force following the announcement of the death of “The epidemiologist who first demonstrated the link between smoking and lung cancer.” Fulsome accounts were recorded by The Times, The Telegraph , the BBC and most other media outlets. At least some of them had the decency to mention the existence of Austin Bradford Hill, who has of late been largely written out of history. Not many people have the opportunity in life to determine the direction of a new science. On the passing of Hill, Doll was poised to do just that. He had taken part in the first (and possibly the last) rigorous study of the effects of smoking. Hill had laid down the robust criteria that would have to be met for an epidemiological study to provide convincing evidence, which was in effect his bequest to Doll. Doll stood alone and authoritatively at the crossroads of a new science. Unfortunately for human society he chose the left hand path, kicked over the traces and embraced standards of statistical significance far below those prescribed by his mentor. This all came to a head in the book The causes of cancer, co-authored with Richard Peto, which was all based on the logical fallacy of begging the question. He was certainly entitled to the soubriquet of Father of Modern Epidemiology. If he had not granted his imprimatur to the lax standards adopted by that profession the world would be a very different place. The anti-tobacco PC campaign, based on gross statistical frauds by the EPA and CDC, would never have gained momentum. The recurrent health scares, promoted by the likes of the Harvard Nurses Health Study, would have been dismissed for the froth that they are. Newspapers would have been reduced to reporting actual facts about human health. Was there ever a greater betrayal of a mentor by his protégé than Doll attaching his name to the Orwellian travesty of the Hill criteria produced by the anti-tobacco zealots of the BMA?

And read the page here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/big_liars.htm
and here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm

It all centers on "relative risk" (the second URL I've provided above). If a group of nonsmoking people, A, whic consists of people who are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke has a 10% greater chance of contracting lung cancer than group B, composed of a non-smokers who are NOT exposed to secondhand smoke, then Group A's "relative risk" is 1.1

But as the second URL states, a relative risk less than 2 is basically irrelevant. "Group A" would have to have a 100% greater chance of contracting cancer than Group B to have a relative risk of 2--and those kinds of numbers just are not there in these studies...and a relative risk of 2 is still pushing it, statistically speaking.

Are you statistically more likely to die of lung cancer if you're exposed to secondhand smoke? The way the studies are set up, yes, you are...but the studies don't control for other factors. I, for example, am a LOT more worried about the brake dust I've inhaled, doing my own brake jobs, than I am about secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke has been deified into this horrible monster that will destroy us all if we are not vigilant...but it's an illusory spectre, not a serious problem.

So how does this relate to the thread topic?

The referendum banning smoking in "public places" has succeeded only because secondhand smoke has been so thoroughly demonized. And John correctly points out that it has nothing to do with health issues, but control; and where his arguments--logical as they are--fall down is in the fact that the people who wish to ban smoking don't CARE about the facts; they don't CARE about the particulars. All they care about is eliminating an activity they personally don't like.

In any case, the notion that a person who goes into a business establishment somehow has a "right" to breathe clean air mystifies me. The non-smoker has a "right" to clean air but the smoker only has a "privelege" to smoke? Can someone show me in the US Constitution where it is enumerated that citizens of the US have a "right" to clean air? Is that somewhere next to the "right" to abortions?

I will not dispute that city hall, the post office, the police and fire stations, the libraries, and other such spaces are "public"; but a bar, a restaurant, a store, a nightclub, these are all private establishments. They are owned by individuals, occupied by individuals; the businesses which exist in those spaces are privately held to one extent or another. Although they are places where people congregate, and where anyone is typically allowed entry, they are not "public" spaces.

However, this kind of development is typical of the direction goverment is heading. With the Kelo vs. City of New London decision, our government has demonstrated its willingness to ignore basic civil rights in favor of a nanny state, one which even decides for us when we're going to sell our homes.

Ed

quote Originally posted by Black88GT: But who is the gov't to tell a private business what they can do? .

I do not think it was the government, but a PUBLIC majority vote.

Long live democracy!

Gene

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: Bingo! mission control, the hammer has just landed on the head of the nail and the issue is now flush with reality.... in short (as a capitalist) I Agree!

So why would they approve the ban in just one town? That's the stupidest thing _evar_

Ryan,

1) So, you were importing gun barrels before but something the Bush administration has done has taken that away from you? (BTW, you'll have to show me "gun barrell importation" in the bill of rights)

2) You've been declared an enemy combatant and executed? You sure type a lot for a dead man

3) Some federal agency has come and snuck in and searched your home? When did that happen?

The question I asked was "Tell me, Dez, name me ONE RIGHT that you have lost since Bush became President. Just one. One thing that you, specifically, cannot do NOW that you could do before that you feel is your RIGHT to do."

Nice try, but not what I asked and not even accurate on your made up loss of rights.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: The right to import gun barrels! The right to not be unreasonably declared an enemy combattant, held before a secret military tribunal, and executed 24 hours later. ( ) How about the Fourth Amendment - the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? But I digress.... the main reason that town is suffering financial losses to their restaurants and bars is simple - everyone's going next door where there is no ban.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: So why would they approve the ban in just one town? That's the stupidest thing _evar_

1 town , obveiously did not have an influance on the neighboring communities
just like 1 state is not able to force other states to abide by laws passed by their legislatures

so your right "law become null" as far as economic forces goes.

[This message has been edited by JRM-2M6 (edited 08-02-2005).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: ... and until that happens he can kiss my rear. I left the friendly grandma greeter in apopleptic shock and the security guy following me around the store.

Such a tough guy. Too bad Jane Fonda wasn't in the store. Maybe you could've spit in her face while you were at it.

This is the same arrogant attitude that non-smokers have had to put up with for the last couple of hundred years. However, the screw is now finally turning the other way. Oh, it's so sweet. Payback is a real b*tch, isn't it?

If the people in that town want to ban smoking in public places, it's their choice. The townspeople are exercising their free will. They can live with the consequences.

About 1.5 years ago, the state of Florida enacted a ban on smoking in the workplace (specifically inside buildings). I think it was a godsend. Naturally, smokers whined about it. Screw 'em! They don't have the right to inflict lung cancer and heart disease upon me while I work! They can stand outside by the back door while they feed their drug addiction.

Releasing toxic chemicals into the air is not a right. It's pollution.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: The question I asked was "Tell me, Dez, name me ONE RIGHT that you have lost since Bush became President. Just one. One thing that you, specifically, cannot do NOW that you could do before that you feel is your RIGHT to do."

I all I have to say is the patriot act... I may not have lost any specific rights (myself)... but if I borrow a book like "Mein Kampf " from the library, I may start being watched by the FBI... and all I was doing was a report on Hitler.

OH so you like antagonizing people? They ask you nicely to just put away your cigar and you give them a hard time? To what end? Just to be an ass?

Ok well what’s fair is fair.

Now I did this to prove a point,
1. My piercings in no way can ever be proven to harm another person and if it did because of my ethics I would remove them
2. When I go home out of respect for my parents I remove my lip ring
3. When ever requested I remove it
4. If it were banned by the people I would gladly abide and remove it.

Edit: and before you say it, yes I got Sara’s approval before I posted her pic.

[This message has been edited by dezie36 (edited 08-03-2005).]

quote Originally posted by dezie36: John... I hate to say this (actually I love it)... but it almost sounds like you don’t like laws that govern... your body and what you do to it... could it be... I think your starting to slide left.

LMAO

But I gotta wonder how this could be construed as a conservative / liberal debate. I suspect that, more often than not, this goes to a referendum because no politician (democrat, republican, or otherwise) will support either side cuz he doesnt wanna lose votes next time he runs for office.

Rhode Island only recently became smoke free in all public places. Certainly, if this were a liberal issue, the ban would have gone into effect many years ago!! It probably would have been in the Rhode Island Constitution!!

------------------
"Those two. Theyre ruining this war - for all of us!" - Major Margaret "Hot Lips" Houlihan, RN

ya I agree I dotn think its a lib/con issue... my mom who still smokes would never vote in favor of banning smoking... my dad probably wouldnt either... and my sister who is a right wing nut would vote so fast shes set the booth on fire.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: ya I agree I dotn think its a lib/con issue... my mom who still smokes would never vote in favor of banning smoking... my dad probably wouldnt either... and my sister who is a right wing nut would vote so fast shes set the booth on fire.

I am smoker

I try to go out of my way not to subject others to my smoke. I know that I am not an example of all smokers, but, I do feel the continual push to remove even more places where I can smoke. "legally"
the biggest problem i have as a smoker is my conscious awareness of child around me. when i visit a restraunt , i immediately look for the smoking section "where i belong". and it really burns my nerve when the waitress seats a family (w/children) right at the dividing line between smoking and non-smoking or when a non-smoker has plenty of seating clear on the other side of the room but sits right next to me (the dividing line between the sections) and complains about my smoke. if the place is really busy, even if they dont shutdown the smoking section, i choose not to smoke for the visit.

now i figure this to be fair, I do my dam'dest to not intrude on others with my habit. and in return i would like for the non-smokers not to intrude any further on my freedom to destroy every lung cell i have.

so plese , dont go trying to change or create legal restriction , it gets applied to every smoker , regardless if they are curtious with their habit or not.
many smokers agree with you and understand how important it is to keep their habit to themselves, even gladly obey the current laws . But if non-smoker continue to expands the limitation on where smokers can smoke, your gonna loose the support of many law biding smokers who for the most part agree with you on current restrictions.... smokers are not demanding the removal of current laws , just that you guys meet us half way before you ask for more restriction on our habit.....

------------------
James M.
AkA
JRM-2M6

†

[This message has been edited by JRM-2M6 (edited 08-03-2005).]

My only beef is sit down restaurants... the problem is most smokers that I’ve come into experience with are the opposite of you.

Most of them are like, I’m free to do as I wish and light up... some have even blown smoke in my face.
I was seated next to the smoking section and there were no other openings in the non smoking section and since it was where the group had chosen to eat... I was stuck (social rules and all), and the guy on the other side of the divider finished his meal and pulled out big nasty pipe and I saw this and asked if he would mind if he didn’t light up, I explained that I really don’t like the smell (I didn’t go into depth that it would most likely make my throw up)... while he was lighting he in so many words said Buzz off (he was more colorful then that) and blew the smoke right at me.

I left, I didn’t throw up in front of my friends (almost did). And I just waited for my friends.

If there is food, just be kind and don’t light up... some of us dont want to eat to that smell.... also even tho most malls and stores have band it, don’t smoke in stores... there’s not enough ventilation and you’ll just make the products others wish to buy smell bad.

If smokers would follow these common curtsies, we wouldn’t have the need for passing laws... but the fact is most don’t, and so we are forced as fellow citizens to change the law to make our self’s more comfortable... and if smokers don’t like the current laws... they have the same ability to move as I do to not eat at a restaurant that allows smoking... they can also push to have the law changed and come next election day see if it changes.

But I applaud you for being curtsies... I wish more were like you.

Big deal. About the only places in CA that you CAN smoke are your personal car and home. Our restaurants and bars haven't tanked, they're doing just fine. Somehow, the smokers and business owners got over it.

I was a smoker as well and I quit quite a while ago and it looks like it was at a good time with all the banning situations indoors. It is a selfish habit and there are alot of smokers that just don't give a crap that not only is second hand smoke bad for others but non-smokers just don't want to smell it! I can't stand the smell of it now myself. Remember this: Smokers are a dying breed.......Literally!

So, in other words, the answer is "none". you have personally lost no rights since Bush has been in office.

No, I don't like antagonizing people, what I like is if they are putting restrictions on what I can do on their private property to post them properly and abide by them fairly. If someone can walk around Wal Mart with a dip of snuff in their cheek and nobody says a word then I'm not losing the Cigar. Neither of us affect in the least any other person in the store.

Now you're saying that if a majority of the people voted that facial piercings were not allowed, and there way no public health or safety reason for it, you would "gladly remove it"? I call BS on that one. I've read too much of your complaining here about the "rights" you've lost to know that you'd "gladly" remove it. And, again, you missed the point I was making. I don't want you, or her, to remove it. It doesn't harm me, I just don't like it. That's OK, I don't have to. I just CHOOSE not to eat there because I don't care for it. I'm not complaing to the manager or owner. I'm not complaining to her. She can keep her job and work in happy happy joy joy dangling metal bliss and I can just eat somewhere else. That's no problem for me, there are plenty of good restaurants around.

Now as far as your remark on me now wanting to be controlled, I just have one thing to say about that .................DUH.

You assume you know me and what I believe and you don't know anything. I live a very conservative lifestyle, have conservative beliefs and a faith in God. OK, you knew that. I don't think you have to have the same thing. There was a comment in this thread on abortion and that's one of the few things that I have a conservative political belief in as well. Capital punishment? Not particularly. I support it IF and ONLY IF it would be used properly, but it isn't being used properly so there's no reason to have it. Gay Marriage? I don't think that's proper morally or ethically but the only reason I oppose it is because of a clause in the constitution that forces each state to recognize another's marriages, divorces, etc. IOW, if Michigan, for instance, decides to allow gay marriage and a couple gets married there, then moves ot KS, KS has to recognize that as a legal marriage even though KS may not allow gay marriage. This takes away an individual state's right to determine what's acceptable in that state.

Roe vs. Wade........I oppose the ruling for the same reason. Before RvW, abortion was NOT banned in the US. There were, IIRC, 23 states that allowed it. What the ruling did was to say that an INDIVIDUAL STATE could not ban abortion. That's complete and utter BS. It's an infringement of state's rights and self determination guaranteed them under the constitution. Let each state determine if they want to allow abortion, etc. and if your state isn't the way you like it MOVE. You continually harp on a "majority" of people want to ban the public smoking, well, a majority of the people want to not allow abortion on demand. Look at the polls. A majority of people wanted to keep blacks from voting. A majority of people voted to ban alcohol nationwide during prohibition. None of those "majority" decisions worked out that well, did they? That's why we're not a pure democracy, we're a Democratically Elected Representative Republic. They are NOT the same thing, not even remotely.

My POLITICAL views are much more Libertarian and with a belief in a strict adherence to the constitution. I thank God for the wisdom of the founding fathers making it very, very hard to amend our constitution. What that means is that I do NOT support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, for instance. To me, a state should be allowed to determine if they want to allow or ban it. Nope, I don't like the idea of a gay couple running off to Michigan, for instance (if they allowed it) and coming back to KS after they're married. I don't suppose that in the '50's a lot of people were too happy about people going to Nevada to get quickie marriages and divorces either. I don't approve of any laws that attempt to restrict my right to keep and bear firearms. I don't like laws that allow unreasonable search and seizure. You say the Patriot Act does that, I say you can't give me one single example of it being abused. OTOH, I can show you numerous examples of private property seizure under the War on Drugs that were just flat wrong (although many fewer today) and private property seizure by government for improper reasons (eminent domain). All of that is just wrong when held up to constitutional scrutiny. Period. End of story. If I like some of the freedoms provided you in the constitution that I deem harmful to society (like you and your girlfriend living together) or not, I don't and would never try to LEGALLY oppose you doing that because I have no constitutional basis to do so.

In my mind, there are two lines to look at. One is quite personal and based on my private and personal beliefs, values, and morals. The other is legal. What is allowed constitutionally. The constitution is not a complex document. Get a copy and read it. I have a couple and keep one in my desk drawer. When I get caught up in an argument of right and wrong and who gets to do what, I have to consider does the constitution allow the federal government to limit that activity. If not, then I just have to learn to live with it, as I do in the case of your body piercings.

I hope some of that makes sense to you.

John Stricker

PS: I don't care if you post her picture and this is the second or third time you've posted something "before you say it". You're the one that has to live with her, not me.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: I all I have to say is the patriot act... I may not have lost any specific rights (myself)... but if I borrow a book like "Mein Kampf " from the library, I may start being watched by the FBI... and all I was doing was a report on Hitler. OH so you like antagonizing people? They ask you nicely to just put away your cigar and you give them a hard time? To what end? Just to be an ass? Ok well what’s fair is fair. Now I did this to prove a point, 1. My piercings in no way can ever be proven to harm another person and if it did because of my ethics I would remove them 2. When I go home out of respect for my parents I remove my lip ring 3. When ever requested I remove it 4. If it were banned by the people I would gladly abide and remove it. Edit: and before you say it, yes I got Sara’s approval before I posted her pic.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: And because your in the minority, expect to lose any voted law against you.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: For you INFO in Lansing there are no non-Smoking bars... if I want to go to a club, or a bar I have to smell the smoke...

Do these two statements belong together ? Think Dezie think.

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: I am smoker I try to go out of my way not to subject others to my smoke. I know that I am not an example of all smokers, but, I do feel the continual push to remove even more places where I can smoke. "legally" the biggest problem i have as a smoker is my conscious awareness of child around me. when i visit a restraunt , i immediately look for the smoking section "where i belong". and it really burns my nerve when the waitress seats a family (w/children) right at the dividing line between smoking and non-smoking or when a non-smoker has plenty of seating clear on the other side of the room but sits right next to me (the dividing line between the sections) and complains about my smoke. if the place is really busy, even if they dont shutdown the smoking section, i choose not to smoke for the visit. now i figure this to be fair, I do my dam'dest to not intrude on others with my habit. and in return i would like for the non-smokers not to intrude any further on my freedom to destroy every lung cell i have. so plese , dont go trying to change or create legal restriction , it gets applied to every smoker , regardless if they are curtious with their habit or not. many smokers agree with you and understand how important it is to keep their habit to themselves, even gladly obey the current laws . But if non-smoker continue to expands the limitation on where smokers can smoke, your gonna loose the support of many law biding smokers who for the most part agree with you on current restrictions.... smokers are not demanding the removal of current laws , just that you guys meet us half way before you ask for more restriction on our habit.....

Very well said. I've stayed out of this thread because I would just lose my temper and control over too much BS that has been said in this thread. I haven't asked for more rights over the years, just meet me, as a smoker, half way.

There are some great "myths" in this thread that nonsmokers are adiment about believing.......
Smoking causes asthma.........BS. Smoking can trigger an asthma attack and smoking can truly hinder an asthma attack

Second-hand smoke causes lung cancer....BS. No one has truly proved that first-hand smoking causes cancer! Smog has been linked to more people with cancer from second-hand smoke than from cigarettes.

Smoking is a direct bad influence on kids....BS. More kids from parents that smoke will actually turn out to be nonsmokers. They've seen what it can do to a person.

There are probably worse things in the restaurant's food and environment than the minute second-hand smoke a nonsmoker is subjected too.

Well, I guess I'll keep repeating it since people keep missing the point.

I am TOTALLY AGAINST cigarette smoking in PUBLIC places.

I am against smoking in general.

HOWEVER, restaurants are NOT public places. I might need to say it a few times here since it keeps getting missed.

RESTAURANTS ARE NOT PUBLIC PLACES.
RESTAURANTS ARE NOT PUBLIC PLACES.
RESTAURANTS ARE NOT PUBLIC PLACES.

They are PRIVATELY OWNED places that they are free to open to the public at whatever times and conditions they decide because they are PRIVATELY owned.

So THEY have the rights because THEY paid for it.

I hate cigarette smoke in restaurants. But it is their place. So my choice is just not to go.
Same thing at a baseball game. Or football game. Private teams. If they allow smoking and someone sits by me, my tough luck.

Again, I don't WISH it to be that way. If all that mattered was MY personal choice, I would ban smoking everywhere. But all that matters isn't me. So the one that PAYS wins in this one.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Do these two statements belong together ? Think Dezie think.

Well ya... It just means I have to wait till it comes to the polls... and when it does Ill vote for the ban... and if it passes... well then Ill be happy.