ho ho ho.... now you done it.

Case in point:
Brandon Mayfield is a Portland, Oregon resident who is a convert to Islam and an attorney. Mayfield was wrongly accused by the government of involvement in the Madrid bombing as a result of evidence, including mistaken fingerprint identification, that fell apart after the FBI re-examined its case following its arrest and detention on Mayfield on a material witness warrant. Attorney General Gonzales acknowledged before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Section 218 of the Patriot Act was implicated in the secret search of Mayfield’s house. FBI admitted that it entered Mayfield’s house without a warrant based on criminal probable cause and copied four computer drives, digitally photographed sever documents, seized ten DNA samples and took approximately 335 digital photographs of Brandon Mayfield’s home.

Good thing he wasn't put before a secret military tribunal! He could be dead! (seriously!)

The patriot act is supposed to be used against terrorism right? Here's some misuses:

On March 23, 2005, the Department of Justice charged David Banach of Parsippany, New Jersey under the Patriot Act for shining a laser beam on an airplane using a hand held device. Banach, age 38, faces a statutory maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the offense, even though the FBI admitted that the incident had no connection to terrorism. Banach claimed that he was using the device to look at stars with his seven year-old daughter from the deck of his home.

[note: Being an amateur astronomer, I myself have used such devices. They're green lasers that work like pointing devices in the sky, they're really a useful tool when you want to point something out to someone. I can see how you could accidentally blind a pilot with one. I don't know their reach, but it's probably a couple miles.]

The Justice Department used the Patriot Act against a lovesick 20-year-old woman from Orange County, CA, who planted threatening notes aboard a Hawaii-bound cruise ship on which she was traveling with her family. The woman, who said she made the threats to try to return home to her boyfriend, was sentenced to two years in federal prison because of a provision in the Patriot Act targeting threats of terrorism against mass transportation systems.

Okay, I don't know what the note said. If anyone else does, let me know. For now I'll assume it said, "I'll kill everyone if you don't take me back!"

Now this is just the tip of the iceberg. Everything is done secretly under classified status. Freedom of information act does not apply.

I understand why you WANT to, because I "want to" in that sense, too.

But what you are saying is that you are willing to use the power of government (via voting) to impose your will on what happens within the walls of a privately owned location that they paid for and you did not? That even though someone else paid for it, you want to have the right to tell the payor what he/she can do?

That is what you are doing. You are comfortable with setting that precident? Your conscious is fine with that? I just want you to say it straight out. Then I'll file away that principle you have decided for when it applies to other situations.

Now if its a privete club thats a different story... open a cigar club and make it a privete club... but let any one walk in and join.

But again if the goverment can regulate food, drink and safty of a building for a privete business open to the public... well then they can regulate wether or not you can smoke in these buildings.

Where we differ is since it is OPEN to the public, how much control does the OWNER have to give up.

Certainly an OWNER, if making a place open to the public, needs to make it open to THE PUBLIC. That is where the anti-discrimination issue comes in. No problem there.

Certainly an OWNER, if making a place open to the public, has a responsibility to make it a safe place. That is where codes come in, food preparation standards, etc. come in. No problem there.

Cigarette smoking doesn't fall into those categories. You can't in any scientific honesty use the second hand smoke scenario in a restaurant as a public safety issue. It is a MAJOR annoyance, but not a public health issue. I am a scientist AND anti-smoking, and I can't use the second hand smoke issue in my favor on this one.

So you have to come up with a DIFFERENT principle for government control of a privately owned place. What are you going to use? Well, the government can regulate if something ANNOYS the public?

So, again, I get that it is OPEN to the public. The principle here is that just because something is OPEN to the public, it doesn't mean the government can then take TOTAL control. Just issues of discrimination and safety.

No, it's probably not a public safety issue. IMHO, I think it falls more under the category of OSHA regulations. That would SUCK to have to work in a smoke filled room for 10 hour days. I'd imagine it's no better than smoking a pack or two.

And John... your right I wouldnt happily remove the metal from my lip... but I would, I might ***** about it for a couple of weeks... and once the hole closed up Id have gotten over it.
Kind of like most of the smokers in these towns.

A mechanic can't smoke in his shop due to flammable material. A waitress DOESN'T HAVE TO work at that restaurant.

Once again, where is the proof that second hand smoke will cut the waitress's life short?

Please, take your time finding the proof on the second-hand smoke. I want to see a medical study from a reputable site.........Not some "Stop Smoking Campaign" site.

My question is why can the government tell a citizen what he can't do over a subtance that is legal to use on HIS property. NO No nO this is wrong all the way around the issue. The next move would be for the government to do a study and find out when the best time for everyone to have sex is and then averyone will be phucking up at the same time.

I work around a traffic hazard in my daily work and you don't see the government closing down every highway we need to work on just because. Your point is mute!!

I think every business man that takes a loss over this law should sue the **** out of the municipality that instated it and make them pay for the losses that can be proven.

Now that I've had the last word on this issue I'm gonna set back and whatch yall piss and moan over it.

Dez -
yes they are open to the public , but that doesn't mean you have the right to be there.
you are an invited guest who has the right to decline the invited. I realize you dont want your choices limited anymore than smokers do.
but honestly , unless its a government own/publicly owned business , no body should tell the owner ,who puts his/her own money at risk, how to run their business. the only thing we as consumers put at risk by going into anyone elses house , business , car , etc is our convenience.
what we do not have a right to , while on other peoples property is convenience, the property owner is the one with the advantage of rights. If we as guests,customers,etc wear out our welcome and the owner asks us to leave our right to be there is legally revoked and until we leave we would be trespassers.

while i agree, as i said earlier, a smoker smoking where they are legitimately legal to do so is right by law . yes i think smokers should be mindfull of their surroundings and how effects others, so should non-smokers. however , just as i have no legal right to puff away in your house "if you invited me over" you and non-smokers do not have the right to run into a business and demand the owner/management to run it according to your convenience.

this little battle has grown due to 1 fact. smokers "generally" agreed with the initial movement to limit smoking in many businesses, building, and workplaces. But as we smokers have yeilded and tried to adjust for your convenience , we have gotten no credit for our compassion and co-operation. insted it has been treated by non-smoker as if they as a majority have successfull engaged the enemy , got them on the run , and no is chasing them down because if you dont snuff-them-out they will return. "ask for current laws to be observed and likewise thankfully respect those who do observe the law" when you see someone smoking "legally" in an area designated for smoking, do not stigmatise them for smoking if your sitting at the dividing line "they didn't seat you there nor did they intentionally target you" . when you go into a restraunt with friends and they choose to sit that close to smokers , knowing how it effects you, i would ask why your friends would do that to you. seems to me they chose to sit close to smoke filled air ....

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

Since you can't see it in print, I want to say it just so you are sure. I'm just having a discussion here. I'm not picking on you.

Bar tenders would have a legitimate concern because of the number of hours in a concentrated smoke environment.

Waitresses working in a restaurant that allows smoking would not have a legitimate concern due to the larger volume of the restaurant and the dilutional effect of the cigarette smoke in a large room, and the smaller number of people smoking.

Part of the problem I have is the approach to the issue you are taking:

1. I personally don't like cigarette smoke
2. A privately owned business allows it
3. I want to go there and they won't control it the way I want
4. Since it is privately owned, I don't personally have a say so that gets me my way.
5. I'll try to get the government to force the private owner to do what I want.
6. I don't have any legitimate reason to do so.
7. I'll then try to manipulate any reason to make it a government issue. In this case, trying to latch on to the OSHA, safety issue.
8. That isn't my REAL concern (which is outlined in number 1.), but I'll try to make worker safety the concern in order to achieve my initial goal.

Again, I ask you. Is that the precedent for how to handle a situation you want to set? Really? Because if YOU do it for something YOU want, then others are going to feel it is ok to do it when they want.

This is the second time you've said that people have been taken before a military tribunal and summarily executed. Sources and references for that, please? I haven't heard of anyone being executed following a military tribunal since all this has happened and I don't think you can show that one has happened.

Now, on to THIS example. "including mistaken fingerprint identification, that fell apart after the FBI re-examined its case following its arrest and detention on Mayfield on a material witness warrant" So how is this an abuse of the Patriot Act? I remember this case. Until the fingerprint issue (which they already had on file, that's what CAUSED the mistake) was corrected, right up to that point, the FBI and Homeland Security had PROBABLE CAUSE to pursue this person. Were they wrong? Yes. Was he arrested? Yes. Has he been released? Yes.

Sucks to be him and I wish it wouldn't have happened but mistakes DO happen, but that doesn't make it an abuse of the Patriot Act.

This case happened AFTER there were several instances in New Jersey in the Teterboro airport area of such cases happening. It was theorized that some one or group was trying to blind pilots to crash aircraft and possibly in an organized fashion. I can guarantee you that for him to be caught, it wasn't that he was an amateur astronomer using the device. He repeatedly used it, granted probably as a prank, and was caught. I hope he does go to prison and the full force of the law comes down on him. You might call it abuse, I call it using every tool at law enforcements disposal to get jerks off the street that are trying to kill people.

So there are threatening notes left aboard a cruise ship saying that the ship and all it's passengers are in jeopardy and you don't think that applies? What planet do you live on? If I was on that cruise I'd hope to God they lock the spoiled brat up until she can collect social security, and I'm dead serious on that. With the current world climate, anyone that does something like this deserves whatever she gets.

If it's just the tip of the iceberg maybe you can actually find some abuses next time, you haven't found any yet.

John Stricker

All I want is to eat a meal out with friends and family with out wanting to vomit from the smell in the place.. but I guess that's to ****ing much to ask.

Your right they don't close down the highway when its being work on, but they enforce a slower speed limit, they double your traffic fines. The reason they dint close down the highway is people have to go to work, school, church whatever. So they make the work environment safer for you as a road worker... so why cant the waitress have a safer work environment?
or maybe we should just get rid of the lower speed limits in work zones.

What we people are mad about is the simple fact that the government is taking away the right for business owners to choose.

It should be the business owners choice to make his restaurant non smoking. NOT the Governments.

------------------
85GT 5spd MSD Everything,4.9 With Nitrous. www.captfiero.com

How about an American Heart Assosciation study?

Now this is interesting:
"Secondhand smoke meets the criteria to be classified as a potential cancer-causing agent by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for health and safety regulations in the workplace. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), another federal agency, also recommends that secondhand smoke be considered a potential occupational carcinogen. Because there are no known safe levels, they recommend that exposures to secondhand smoke be reduced to the lowest possible levels."

btw- I'm just encouraging debate....... I personally don't care if they ban smoking or not, it doesn't affect me. Spending time in a smoke filled room probably won't shorten my life as much as spraying brake rotors with cleaner. But I do feel sorry for those who work in restaurants/bars/whatever, who aren't smokers, and have to put up with it. I have friends that are waiters. From a personal standpoint, it sucks going into a bar for an hour and having everything reek after that.

the problem is not the smoker
Q: how many of the smokers have you seen in the non-smoking section?
Q: How many smokers do you seen actually breaking current laws?
Q: how many non-smokers are still complaining no matter how many laws are crammed up the smokers azz?

if they are not breaking the law YES! YOUR ASKING TOO F'ING MUCH. you are tresspassing on the limited rights and freedoms you have already imposed on them and yet you want more.

but lets say that smoker no longer can smoke unless they do it in 1 designated room in their own home, how long will it be before you and other non-smoker demand they bath and change close before going into public. because of the offensive and health risk of the smell.

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

†

This is how the world works... The right wants abortion banded because they feel its wrong, and hide behind the fetus as a reason for this fight... the right doesnt want to allow gay marraige because they think its wrong so they hide behind the sanctity of marraige argument...

If im wrong and thats not the way the world works please tell me.

Again I wouldnt even be in this argument if the majority of smokers would just be kind and not light up around food.

And we didnt choose to sit at the boarder between smoking and non, we were sat there as it was the first open seat and we were had to take that seat as we were waiting for a movie.
But thats not the issue, the issue is that any amount of carcinogens can cause cancer even if your only exposed to it once.

So if this is the only way to enjoy a burger with out having to smell smoke, then so be it... you dont like it have it changed... if you want abortion banned in your area have a proposal written up and let the masses vote on it next election.

This is america, and we have the right to change things we dont like through democratic means... love it or leave it.

So next time you go to your favorite restaurant and you want to vomit, ask the waitress if you can speak to the owner of the resaurant. Voice your issue with him. Then he can agree or disagree with you. Most restaurant owners aren't banning smoking in their establishment because they make money off of smokers too. Most people don't whine like you do because a nonsmoker will not sit in a smoking area of a restaurant. They're happy with the way the restaurant set up it's nonsmoking area.

I haven't asked the government to take away your nonsmoking section because it infringes on your rights. Why are you asking the government to take away my smoking section and trying to infringe on my rights? Cigarettes are legal. It is my RIGHT to buy cigarettes as long as they are legal. It is my RIGHT to smoke those cigarettes. It's not a privlege.

POTENTIAL cancer-causing agent. They won't even come out and say it is.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), another federal agency, also recommends that secondhand smoke be considered a potential occupational carcinogen. Because there are no known safe levels, they recommend that exposures to secondhand smoke be reduced to the lowest possible levels."

Again, POTENTIAL occupational carcinogen. There are no known safe levels. They don't know yet what are the dangerous levels.

Believe me, I am NOT defending smoking. I HATE smoking. But I am an objective scientist. These statements ARE NOT saying that the levels in a restaurant are going to cause lung cancer or are even likely to. They do not know yet.

And dezie, you state, "ALL I WANT is to eat a meal out with friends and family with out wanting to vomit from the smell in the place..."

Actually, that is not true. What you WANT is to be able to choose WHICHEVER restaurant you want to be able to do that in, whether the private owner of that restaurant wants to provide you with that kind of environment or not. And if the private restaurant owner ISN'T willling to provide you that kind of an environment, you want the government to force the owner to do so.

Because if "all you wanted was to eat a meal out...with out wanting to vomit from the smell", you would just choose a different restaurant that provided that kind of environment.

So it REALLY gets down to you want YOUR way over what some private restaurant owner wants. Only THEY paid for the restaurant.

And I'll say it again. I HATE cigarette smoke. So I just have had to avoid certain restaurants, that everything else about them I would really like, but I won't go there because they allow cigarette smokers.

I never said that people have been..... I'm just saying that there's nothing stopping them from doing whatever they want. Due process doesn't exist in a secret military tribunal. Emphasis on secret. Sources? References? Okay, I'll trade them for the transcript of the '18 minute gap' of Nixon's famous tapes

What I PERSONALLY don't like about the patriot act, is the fact that in the event you get pinpointed...... (maybe you accidentally clicked a banner ad, and it redirects you to alquaidarocksmyjihad.com) You can have all kinds of crap happen to you, and you may not even know it. Your ISP can get NSL'd to get information about you, your computer...... Maybe then they see you wrote an email to a friend saying you "hate Bush", now they have probable cause to secretly, without you knowing break into your home, and copy your hard drive, photograph everything, take DNA (??!?!?!) samples.........................

All this could have happened last year...Thank GOD a judge ruled the NSL's unconstitutional. These 'sneak and peek', warrant-less searches are still a violation of the 4th amendment.

Actually, your wrong on most of your statements. My rights are controlled with where I can carry a weapon not because it is a public nuisance or harmful to the public. My right to carry a gun into a school are controlled so that I don't cause public disorder....Same way with your drinking statement....It's to control public disorder.

BTW, according to the laws of South Dakota and my concealed weapons permit.........I can carry my gun into a bank. I can 't brandish it because it will cause public disorder, but I can walk into any building except a courthouse or a school, pull out my gun and show it to anyone I want, as long as I'm not pointing it at anyone in a harmful fashion.

Secondhand smoke has not been proven to be a health hazard to the general public.

tar, nicotine, Hydrogen Cyanide, Carbon Monoxide, and the other 597 other approved additives in the smoke are perfectly safe for every one to breath in.

Your agrument is flawless... I bow to you.

voting with my wallet isnt working... so when it comes time that its on the ballets, ill do a real vote.

Are bodies are able to handle certain chemicals. It just depends upon the amount of the exposure over time.

Example-you mentioned carbon monoxide. Our bodies can handle a certain amount of carbon monoxide with no long term harm, as long as it is not too much too fast. I'll give an absurd example to make a point. Water is toxic to humans-IF there is too much over too short a time.

And regarding it is your "right" to buy stuff in a free market...yes, if the terms are agreed upon. And you can't agree to the terms.

The seller wants to sell you food while you are sitting at a table next to another person who wants to be smoking while you are there.
You don't agree to those terms.

In a "free market", you would go elsewhere because you can't agree to the terms.

But you don't want a free market.

You want the government to come in and FORCE the person to meet YOUR terms.

Believe me, I wish the same thing you wish. I wish the restaurant owner would sell his food to me with a no smoking guarantee. But he has refused. We have just taken different courses of action. Mine has been to continue to allow a free market, and move on.

Your choice is to use government to get rid of a free market and make it a government regulated market that is more to your liking.

You said, "This is america, and we have the right to change things we don't like through democratic means..." Next, you'll tell me, "This is america. It is a free country." Well, not the way you are deciding to have it run. You are taking a course of allowing the government to supercede private ownership rights, instead of the original intention of the country--which was for the government to PROTECT private ownership rights.

But I don't fault you for missing that. Because you have lived your whole life in a time where the government has been corrupting the system and changing it.

Maybe Ill just do that.
Ill piss many of my friends off, and my parents... but I want a free market so I guess ill just have to ban tobacco so I can have my choice of restaurants with out smelling smoke... I don’t want to compromise on the number of places I can go, so ill push to take cigarettes off the market.

In reality I don’t want them taken off the market… I like the ability to use cigarettes and alcohol for reasoning on why non chemical drugs should be legalized…. And you’ve never seen my mother go through withdrawals… its not pretty.

You don't want a FREE market. You want a dezie-directed market. The free market available isn't to your liking, so you want government to change it to your preference. While doing so, you put your preference over the choice of the person who paid for the business.

"...I don't want to compromise on the number of places I can go..." That is the real issue. You are being selfish. A person buys a restaurant, makes the payments, takes the risk, etc., but YOU want some control over that person's decisions. Because it compromises your desires.

I don't care if you push to have it outlawed out right. That would mean that you would be taking someone else's freedom to do so away, because of what you want. I would just be curious to know the justification for you getting to decide what millions of people do would be. And would just caution you that whatever justification you establish could then potentially be used to take away a freedom that you like.

Ah Dezie, I think maybe you’ve stumbled upon something quite relevant! This is what the real problem is - Smokers have a desperate desire to be seen and noticed. As in, “Hey, look at me, I’m so damn friggen cool.” Not being able to smoke in public places would severely cramp their style. Gone would be the many opportunities to impress pre-pubescent teens and the mentally deficient.

It’s unfortunate that smokers couldn’t have latched on to a social crutch that didn’t necessarily have to involve everyone around them. I don’t wish to be reminded of the Marlboro Man’s self-esteem issues every time I inhale. Let him fidget with his widget while he’s in a public building. At least then I wouldn’t have to smell his burning insecurities.

But by the same token so should alcohol, and most perception drugs.... and while were at it we can ban red meat, and starchy foods, salt... Caffeine... oh and cheese too it has opiates in it.

There is a justification to out law all of that.

I don’t want to out law it.. In fact I want to legalize other things... but then what am I as a non-smoker to do when all the restaurants in my town (and all the towns around me) have smoking sections?
And don’t tell me to choose not to eat there, IF I’m out and I want to go eat out, why should I have to change my choice of restaurant... why cant they be the ones who have to choose... why is it I who must?

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

Smokers are not allowed to choose to have a "Smoking Only" restaurant.

Becouse YOU are in charge of your OWN health.
Make your choices acordingly.

Example:
People who wear perfume in a restaurant sicken me.
Do I get the government to ban perfume in a restaurant?
No.
I choose a "perfume free" place to eat.
My comfort is MY responsability!

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

Oh, I do believe I've struck a nerve. I've picked up more negative ratings so far in this one thread than probably any other I've ever been involved with here.

Smokers are such overly sensitive souls...

Of COURSE cigarette smoking is unhealthy. That is your justification for a law? You answered it yourself. That isn't enough. You listed several other unhealthy things, too. You realize we can't use unhealthy as a justification because then you would have to outlaw a bunch of other things.

"why should I have to change my choice of restaurant...why is it I who must?"

dezie. I've tried to say it about 15 times already. The restaurant owner BOUGHT the right to make the choice. YOU didn't. If YOU want the right, then YOU buy the restaurant. Buy ALL the restaurants in your area. Then YOU get to be the one to choose. And then YOU can tell all the smokers that say, "It's a free market. I should have the right to smoke in a restaurant. Why should I have to change?": hey, I paid for this restaurant. Because I paid, I get to decide.

I was in Green Bay Monday. We decided to go to Prime Quarter. I asked to be seated as far from the smoking section as possible, and asked where it would be. They showed me and it was acceptable. So we decided to eat there. If they wouldn't have shown me an acceptable spot, I would have left and found another restaurant. And by the way, the ribeye I ate was WAY more harmful to me than any amount of second hand smoke would have been.

I have gone to Outback Steakhouse occasionally. They have put me in a "non-smoking" section that was a booth in which the wall of the booth was the border of the smoking section and literally all the separated me from the smoking section was the booth wall that is 5 feet high. I told them that they could call it a non-smoking section if they wanted, but sitting right next to a smoker separated by a small piece of wood wasn't my idea of a non-smoking section. That was all they had in the "non-smoking" section. So it was unacceptable and we left. We were inconvenienced. We had to go find somewhere else to eat. It was annoying. BUT, it is their restaurant. And people that stupidly decide to smoke were more important to them than me, so I left. I don't like it. But, oh well. We live in a country with a lot of people. We all can't have our way.

BUT, I WILL NOT TRY TO GET THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE MY WILL ON BUSINESS OWNERS WHO PAID FOR THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR DECISIONS.

So you know what I get to say to myself? Hey, lobe, if you want to be able to have non-smoking at Outback whenever you want, THEN BUY AN OUTBACK FRANCHISE. Then you can do whatever you feel like with it. So I'm not just saying it to you. I'm saying it to myself, too.

And Boondawg, I hate the over-perfumed effect, too. (but haven't been willing to make a law against it.)

Most times I find myself on the otherside of some of your opinions,

P.S. And yes, we are!......

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

You want them back? Carry on wanting the Governments to decide to take away Peoples' ability or right to make their own minds up, about using things, and doing things, you don't like but ARE legal, and you may just awaken a few spectres from the past!!!
By the way, am I the only teetotaller on this Forum? I notice everybody avoids referring to my points about which is worse for your health, in an earlier post..Hmmm...maybe one day I will be a majority, and drinking will be recognised as the evil it can become...far worse than having smoke blown at you....

------------------
fierofetish.PFF'S self-confessed Snowbird!!

Responsibility: the solution for our World's Dilemmas..

Hello!!!!!!!! I told you what YOU can do. You should express your views to the owner of the restaurant you want to dine in, but you find it not to your like because of the food, but because of the smoke in the air. If the restaurant owner agrees with you about what HE should do about HIS restaurant, he'll change it to nonsmoking. If not, you can deal with the smoke of his other patrons or eat at home.

I rarely eat at a nonsmoking restaurant. Not because the food isn't good, but because my wife and I can't enjoy a cigarette after the meal. This smoke free restaurant isn't smoke free because of some government imposed law, it's because the restaurant owner wanted to cater to the patrons of HIS choosing. Sorry that the restaurant owners in your area all would like to make money off of the smoking population, too.

The restaurant owner that made his restaurant smoke free lost my business. He doesn't care too much because HE made that choice. The restaurant owners in your area lose yuor business because they choose to allow smokers to patronize their establishment. He lost your business because of the choice that HE made.

I'm a very courteous smoker..........until I listen to someone like you trying to press your issues on me in "my smoking area". When that happens, I get downright nasty and a jerk.

I do agree with you.

But as long as "The Powers That Be" keep drinking, It's dangers to socity will continue to be ignored.

That's why I "Revenge Drink"!
To piss-off the rich.