O/T: Never Thought I'd See It

In article <[email protected]>, Jack Stein
<[email protected]> wrote:

> My solution would be to let the restaurant owner decide if he wants to
> ban smoking or allow smoking. I think about 75% don't smoke so you
> would think a restaurant owner would be around that would cater to the
> non smoker IF enough people really cared.

I smoked for a long time, quit about 7-8 years ago. I really notice the
smoke, but don't bitch about it.

I agree with you. Let the market decide.

The businesses that catered to smokers would attract that business, and
vice-versa.

--
Kiva - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/lender/david87375440

On Jun 1, 10:57=A0am, Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
> > a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
> > kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
> > A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.
>
> Wow, did the slapper get a big round of applause before they carted her o=
ff?
>
> --
> Free bad advice available here.
> To reply, eat the taco.http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Probably. A few dozen people saw it, but there were no witnesses.. <G>

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Why are you people so bound and determined to create a new income source
for
> organized crime?

Come on! That's pretty simplistic don't you think? As long as there's any
type of society, there's always going to be criminal elements trying to make
illegal profits out of it.

On Jun 1, 8:53=A0am, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.
>
> > When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
> > with a no smoking section was a real challenge.
>
> > Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
> > Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
> > banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.
>
> > Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
> > toward the heartland.
>
> > The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
> > either.
>
> Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.
>
> They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching fumes =
as
> they do. =A0They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air whe=
n
> they fly. =A0True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but the=
re
> are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or coughing, a=
ll
> being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. =A0They also be=
am
> happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the b=
ack
> of the seat in front of them. =A0And, of course, they are so inured to th=
eir
> child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might be
> irritating to others. =A0Smoke free though...
>
> I don't eat out much anymore.
>
> dadiOH

There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

If this happened around here, I would be contributing to the slapper's
defense fund.

On Jun 1, 10:20=A0am, "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 1, 8:53 am, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.
>
> > > When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
> > > with a no smoking section was a real challenge.
>
> > > Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
> > > Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
> > > banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.
>
> > > Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
> > > toward the heartland.
>
> > > The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
> > > either.
>
> > Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.
>
> > They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching fume=
s
> > as
> > they do. They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air when
> > they fly. True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but ther=
e
> > are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or coughing,
> > all
> > being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. They also bea=
m
> > happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the
> > back
> > of the seat in front of them. And, of course, they are so inured to the=
ir
> > child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might be
> > irritating to others. Smoke free though...
>
> > I don't eat out much anymore.
>
> > dadiOH
>
> There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
> a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
> kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
> A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.
>
> If this happened around here, I would be contributing to the slapper's
> defense fund.
>
> When kid was younger he would pull that trick and when I said no he would
> start asking me why he couldn't have what ever. =A0I would quietly tell h=
im
> about undone chores, spent allowance and responsibility. This of course
> never worked and he would whine louder, =A0I would again explain louder, =
not
> shouting just loud voice. =A0After a couple of sessions of this and the
> embarrassment of having everyone looking at him he quite asking after the
> first no

Once upon a time, about 25 years ago (the kid is 30 now), my son
pitched a fit in a store because we refused to buy him a toy (any toy
- didn't matter). After a short tantrum, I spun the kid around and
gave him a swat on the butt and marched him out of the store as my
wife put our stuff back on the shelves - shopping trip over. Another
woman looked at me in horror and I'm probably lucky she didn't call
the cops. Even then the leftist weenies were nuts about "child
abuse".

>
>> If smoking *only* affected the individuals doing so, then what they
>> smoke would be their business only. But, it's not true and never will
>> be. Society always shoulders the lion's share of the inevitable
>> health care costs that smoker's bring onto themselves.
>
> So if those folks had never smoked they would never get sick? I'm part of
> society and I've been shouldering other people's burdens for better than
> 50 years...
>
> Young/unwed mothers
>
> Baby daddys that won't spend a dime to support baby(s)
>

Clipped for brevity...

Yeah!, and y'know what really pisses me off? Having to shoulder the burden
of heath care for old people. Do you realize that they are responsible for
something like 95% heath care costs? Somebody ought to teach the heath care
industry about "return on invetsment".

(I'm only 95% kidding)

-Steve

Upscale wrote:
> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> It may cost the restaurant some money, but it is possible to have a
>> vent system that would draw the smoke out and keep it from the
>> non-smokers. But even then there are non-smokers that would complain
>> no matter what the situation.
>
> They had those separated and filtered smoking rooms in Ontario, but
> they were eventually outlawed and it's now illegal.
>
> Let's face it. Smoking is and has been one of the most costly (lives
> *and* money) blights in human history. Whether one is a smoker or
> anti-smoking Nazi, the cost to civilization at large is absolutely
> enormous. On a guess, I'd wager that smoking has killed more people
> than all the wars combined and cost more health care money than all
> the bankruptcies (current and past) combined.

Oh, come now. I'm not adverse to a bit of hyperbole to make a point but -
with respect - that statement is just absurd.
_______________________

> If smoking *only* affected the individuals doing so, then what they
> smoke would be their business only. But, it's not true and never will
> be. Society always shoulders the lion's share of the inevitable
> health care costs that smoker's bring onto themselves.

So if those folks had never smoked they would never get sick? I'm part of
society and I've been shouldering other people's burdens for better than 50
years...

Young/unwed mothers

Baby daddys that won't spend a dime to support baby(s)

The guy/girl that stubs a toe at work and sees it as an opportunity for
a lifetime of disability payments

Methadone clinics for junkies

"Immigrants" that use hospital emergency rooms to get a splinter pulled
out.

Et cetera ad nauseam, you get the idea. I've been smoking for 60 years and
I've never cost society a plugged nickel except for the GI Bill after Korea.
Yes, I may get lung cancer or emphesyma. Might have gotten either if I'd
never puffed nary a fag. If I do get either, it isn't going to cost society
any more than if I was a non smoker and had heart disease or Alzheimers or
any of the many, many things to which people inevitably succumb.

You want blights, try alcohol. Try cars.

dadiOH

On Jun 3, 8:07=A0am, "Ed Edelenbos" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
[blather]
> > Jack
> > Go Penns!
> >http://jbstein.com
>
> Sounds to me as though you got short changed on your education. =A0It's n=
ot
> too late.
>
> Ed

Don't feed the troll. Ed.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

> Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a
> sign on
> the door with the smoking policy.

Think that is called a "No Smoking" sign.

Lew

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> dadiOH wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in
>>>> this country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that
>>>> people once had.
>>>
>>> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your
>>> lungs out, it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it
>>> bothers me when I'm going about my business.
>>>
>>> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
>>> odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
>>> me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
>>> business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
>>> long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
>>> do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
>>> restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
>>> same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?
>>
>> My solution is that the restaurant - or other business owner -
>> should be able to decide what rules he wants in his/her
>> establishment. It is *not* the business of the government, became so
>> because of the mind set of the Smoke Nazis that the world should
>> conform to *their* view of how it should be.
>
> Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a sign on
> the door with the smoking policy.
>

The current government policy is to mask the fact that they have been
complicit in peddling death to the citizens. When the government finds a
product that is unsafe, it is their job to make a law that outlaws it. They
have known about the (explicit) dangers of tobacco for a long time. The
only reason it has not been outlawed so far is that the tobacco lobby has
been successful at paying off enough politicians.

Second hand smoke DOES, not might, affect the health of those subjected to
it. It's fact. Get over it. The Smoke Nazis, those who feel like they
still have a "right" to smoke anywhere are the ones in the wrong.

Ed

"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>
>>> sweet sawdust wrote:
>>>
>>>> Try not to annoy anyone and try not be too easy to annoy.
>>>>
>>>> I was smoking in a field one day talking to some friends. Couple comes
>>>> over
>>>> to the group and stands upwind of me to avoid the smoke. They decide
>>>> to
>>>> move down wind and I move to keep the smoke out of their area.They move
>>>> down
>>>> wind of me again and complain about me smoking upwind of them. Non
>>>> smokers very often go out of their way to be annoyed.
>>> I don't smoke but go out of my way to avoid non-smokers. I guess I
>>> should say avid, fanatical, hysterical pia non-smokers. You know, the
>>> ones that seem to have taken over Amerika.
>>>
>>> These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
>>> football stadium, and guess what, no smoking. For a number of years,
>>> you had to go INSIDE at a Pirate game to smoke, no smoking in the
>>> outdoor stands. It's not about smoking, it's about controlling others
>>> lives. The first 4 states to ban smoking in public restaurants, bars,
>>> pool halls were red socialist states, aka, blue states (not counting
>>> Utah). This is no accident, the socialist bastards want to control your
>>> entire life.
>>>
>>> Whiny non-smokers whine about every damned thing, too hot, too cold, too
>>> much sun, not enough sun and so on and on and on. That's why I try to
>>> avoid non smoking bars (we have both in PA) It keeps the chronic
>>> whiners out of my face, so I only go to smoking bars, even though I
>>> don't smoke.
>>>
>
>> Well said. It's too bad you don't live near AZ -- would love to sit
>> on
>> the porch and shoot the breeze with you.
>
> Well I'm VERY opinionated, and every single one of them is "liberal", or
> as Obama Ben Laden would stereotype me, far right wing... I'm thinking of
> moving to Russia, land of flat tax and growing freedoms... Pravda thinks
> the USSA has gone too far Marxist... Hard to disagree.
>
> --
> Jack
> Go Penns!
> http://jbstein.com

Sounds to me as though you got short changed on your education. It's not
too late.

Ed

Upscale wrote:
> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in
>> this country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that
>> people once had.
>
> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your
> lungs out, it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it
> bothers me when I'm going about my business.
>
> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
> odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
> me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
> business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
> long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
> do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
> restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
> same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?

Let the market decide.

Smoke-free restaurants and smoking restaurants. Or separate sections in the
same restaurant.

This simple solution is, however, insufficient for the True Believer (see
the book by the same name by Eric Hoffer).

People mind their own business when it's worth minding. When it's not, they
take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by minding someone else's
business.

These folks are, nevertheless, a source of some amusement. Whenever some
granny-lady starts whacking me with her umbrella and screeching in a voice
that has not endeared her to any number of husbands: "You godless communist,
you can't smoke here!," I simply reply: "It's all right, madam, I'm French."

Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:


> Not sure whats next, but the hand-wringers have a never ending list of
> things they want the government to force YOU to do. They're too
> freaking simple to understand sooner or later, THEY will be included
> in one of the lists.

Whatever it is, you can be sure it will benefit some profitable
enterprise and, likewise, the pol that created the legislation.

nb

Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:


> These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
> football stadium, and guess what, no smoking.

It has become pretty silly, hasn't it. One of the most absurd
anti-smoking laws is no smoking on the beach. What's next? No
breathing under water?

nb

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:


> You'll probably enjoy the following:
> <http://assets.comics.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/80000/4000/500/284583/284583.full.gif>

I hadda 1 bicycle kills symbol painted on my van, but I only winged
him.

nb

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.
>
> When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
> with a no smoking section was a real challenge.
>
> Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
> Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
> banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.
>
> Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
> toward the heartland.
>
> The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
> either.
>
> Yes, I'm a nicotine addict.
>
> I quit smoking in 1978, but once an addict, always an addict.
>
> Lew
>
>
The revenge of the flower children. Marijuana is legal but Dad has to
sneak around to smoke his pipe.

--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA

Before Xerox, five carbons were the
maximum extension of anybody's ego.

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:14:54 -0500, Upscale wrote:

> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in this
>> country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that people
> once
>> had.
>
> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your lungs out,
> it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it bothers me when I'm
> going about my business.
>
> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the odour of
> cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making me physically
> sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my business what you smoke,
> what you eat or what you do in your life as long as it doesn't have an
> effect on my life. But when it does, how do you think it should be handled?
> My going out and eating in a restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going
> out and eating in the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's
> your solution?

It may cost the restaurant some money, but it is possible to have a vent
system that would draw the smoke out and keep it from the non-smokers. But
even then there are non-smokers that would complain no matter what the
situation. When smoking was allowed in restaurant's, there was many times
that I seen the non-smoking area filled, so a non-smoker couple would take
a place in the smoking area and sit there and complain about the smoke the
whole time. When a group of people want something, they will do anything
to get what they want, so matter how many lies it takes.

Paul T.

--
The only dumb question, is the one not asked

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Jack Stein
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> My solution would be to let the restaurant owner decide if he wants
>>> to ban smoking or allow smoking. I think about 75% don't smoke so
>>> you would think a restaurant owner would be around that would cater
>>> to the non smoker IF enough people really cared.
>>
>> I smoked for a long time, quit about 7-8 years ago. I really notice
>> the smoke, but don't bitch about it.
>>
>> I agree with you. Let the market decide.
>>
>> The businesses that catered to smokers would attract that business,
>> and vice-versa.
>>
>
> Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a
> restaurant owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club".
> To a reasonable person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots
> of restaurants in Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would
> be walking into if you entered this person's establishment. To a
> reasonable person. Reality? Full force of the law came down on this
> guy's head. How dare he think that he could run HIS business as he
> saw fit?!

But just think what could have happened if they had allowed it...

The club is a rousing success, filled with patrons happily puffing away.
One of them opens the door to leave and at that very moment an innocent
non-smoker is passing by. WHAM! That innocent inhales - ACTUALLY INHALES -
a whiff of the transient smoke and now has to live with the certain
knowledge that his/her life has been shortened and may end painfully and
slowly from lung cancer.

Arizona - and California, Washington, New York, Florida, et al - knows best.
So does big brother.

dadiOH

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "cm" wrote:
>
>> Lew,
>>
>> Good for you kicking the habit. I quit when I was 13.
>> 32 years ago!
>
> Thank you.
>
> Actually it was the 2nd time I quit.
>
> 1st time quit for 2-3 years then went on a brewery trip and in a weak
> moment had a cigar.
>
> That was it for another 6-7 years.
>
> No direct experience with drugs other than nicotine, but I'm convinced
> that nicotine is the most addictive drug on the planet.
>

Mark Twain said he could quit anytime. He'd done it often.

Twain was quite proud of the fact that the only thing that could overcome
his iron will to remain tobacco-free was his determination to overcome his
iron will.

Oh, and he didn't smoke when he was asleep.

One of his best lines:

"The differences between a James Fennimore Cooper Indian and the Indian that
stands in front of the cigar store are not many."

Robatoy wrote:
> There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
> a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
> kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
> A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

Wow, did the slapper get a big round of applause before they carted her off?

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

J. Clarke wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights
>>>> in this country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing
>>>> that people once had.
>>>
>>> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your
>>> lungs out, it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it
>>> bothers me when I'm going about my business.
>>>
>>> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
>>> odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
>>> me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
>>> business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
>>> long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
>>> do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
>>> restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in
>>> the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your
>>> solution?
>>
>> Let the market decide.
>>
>> Smoke-free restaurants and smoking restaurants. Or separate sections
>> in the same restaurant.
>>
>> This simple solution is, however, insufficient for the True Believer
>> (see the book by the same name by Eric Hoffer).
>>
>> People mind their own business when it's worth minding. When it's
>> not, they take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by
>> minding someone else's business.
>>
>> These folks are, nevertheless, a source of some amusement. Whenever
>> some granny-lady starts whacking me with her umbrella and screeching
>> in a voice that has not endeared her to any number of husbands: "You
>> godless communist, you can't smoke here!," I simply reply: "It's all
>> right, madam, I'm French."
>
> Next time, try, "Being French, it is incumbent upon me to ask you this
> question, madam. Do you screw."

Not a good idea, the harridan might say, "Sure, let's". :)

dadiOH

Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a
> restaurant owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club".
> To a reasonable person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots
> of restaurants in Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would
> be walking into if you entered this person's establishment. To a
> reasonable person. Reality? Full force of the law came down on this
> guy's head. How dare he think that he could run HIS business as he
> saw fit?!

Once upon a time, a fried-chicken joint in Kentucky applied for a Service
Mark ("Ford has a better idea" "Coke's the real thing") from the
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. Several groups objected the the
issuance of the service mark and a notice was placed in the Federal Register
regarding the form and times for commentary.

In my view, the service mark "Jack's Fried Chicken, where a breast in the
mouth is as good as a thigh in the hand" would have been a self-correcting
problem. Either Jack would have made a fortune or somebody would have burnt
his place to the ground.

But noooo! We had to have notices in the Federal Register, meetings
hearings, documents in triplicates, writs by the wagon full, twelve lawyers
singing, notaries public without number.

Oh well.

"cm" wrote:

> Lew,
>
> Good for you kicking the habit. I quit when I was 13.
> 32 years ago!

Thank you.

Actually it was the 2nd time I quit.

1st time quit for 2-3 years then went on a brewery trip and in a weak
moment had a cigar.

That was it for another 6-7 years.

No direct experience with drugs other than nicotine, but I'm convinced
that nicotine is the most addictive drug on the planet.

Lew

Jack Stein wrote:

> sweet sawdust wrote:
>
>> Try not to annoy anyone and try not be too easy to annoy.
>>
>> I was smoking in a field one day talking to some friends. Couple comes
>> over
>> to the group and stands upwind of me to avoid the smoke. They decide to
>> move down wind and I move to keep the smoke out of their area.They move
>> down
>> wind of me again and complain about me smoking upwind of them. Non
>> smokers very often go out of their way to be annoyed.
>
> I don't smoke but go out of my way to avoid non-smokers. I guess I
> should say avid, fanatical, hysterical pia non-smokers. You know, the
> ones that seem to have taken over Amerika.
>
> These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
> football stadium, and guess what, no smoking. For a number of years,
> you had to go INSIDE at a Pirate game to smoke, no smoking in the
> outdoor stands. It's not about smoking, it's about controlling others
> lives. The first 4 states to ban smoking in public restaurants, bars,
> pool halls were red socialist states, aka, blue states (not counting
> Utah). This is no accident, the socialist bastards want to control your
> entire life.
>
> Whiny non-smokers whine about every damned thing, too hot, too cold, too
> much sun, not enough sun and so on and on and on. That's why I try to
> avoid non smoking bars (we have both in PA) It keeps the chronic
> whiners out of my face, so I only go to smoking bars, even though I
> don't smoke.
>


Well said. It's too bad you don't live near AZ -- would love to sit on
the porch and shoot the breeze with you.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jack Stein wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>> Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
>>> football stadium, and guess what, no smoking.
>>
>> It has become pretty silly, hasn't it. One of the most absurd
>> anti-smoking laws is no smoking on the beach. What's next? No
>> breathing under water?
>
> Not sure whats next, but the hand-wringers have a never ending list of
> things they want the government to force YOU to do. They're too
> freaking simple to understand sooner or later, THEY will be included in
> one of the lists.
>

You'll probably enjoy the following:
<http://assets.comics.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/80000/4000/500/284583/284583.full.gif>
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Upscale wrote:
> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in
>> this country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that
>> people once had.
>
> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your
> lungs out, it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it
> bothers me when I'm going about my business.
>
> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
> odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
> me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
> business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
> long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
> do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
> restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
> same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?

My solution is that the restaurant - or other business owner - should be
able to decide what rules he wants in his/her establishment. It is *not*
the business of the government, became so because of the mind set of the
Smoke Nazis that the world should conform to *their* view of how it should
be.

dadiOH

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Jun 1, 8:53 am, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> > Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.
>>
>> > When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
>> > with a no smoking section was a real challenge.
>>
>> > Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
>> > Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
>> > banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.
>>
>> > Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are
>> > progressing toward the heartland.
>>
>> > The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
>> > either.
>>
>> Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.
>>
>> They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching
>> fumes
> as
>> they do.  They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air
>> whe
> n
>> they fly.  True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but
>> the
> re
>> are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or
>> coughing, a
> ll
>> being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated.  They also
>> be
> am
>> happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at
>> the b
> ack
>> of the seat in front of them.  And, of course, they are so inured to
>> th
> eir
>> child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might
>> be irritating to others.  Smoke free though...
>>
>> I don't eat out much anymore.
>>
>> dadiOH
>
> There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
> a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
> kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
> A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.
>
> If this happened around here, I would be contributing to the slapper's
> defense fund.

Sign me up for that fund! :)

Jack Stein wrote:
>
> I'm thinking of moving to Russia, land of flat tax and growing
> freedoms...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Lew

Steve Turner wrote:

> HeyBub wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a
>>> restaurant owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club".
>>> To a reasonable person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots
>>> of restaurants in Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would
>>> be walking into if you entered this person's establishment. To a
>>> reasonable person. Reality? Full force of the law came down on this
>>> guy's head. How dare he think that he could run HIS business as he
>>> saw fit?!
>>
>> Wonder what would happen if you advertised for something (a job, selling
>> chia plants, tutoring, offering a kitten for adoption, etc.) and said in
>> your ad "smokers only need apply?" That is, who would get their panties
>> in a wad if you discriminated against non-smokers?
>
> Yeah, but was anybody preventing a "well behaved" non-smoker from
> walking into that smoking club and having a good time in spite of the
> smoke? I doubt there was there a sign on the door of the club that said
> "Non-smokers not allowed", so I don't see now they could have shut it
> down because of discrimination.
>

Nope, there was no requirement that people entering that club had to
smoke, just that they could.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> It may cost the restaurant some money, but it is possible to have a vent
> system that would draw the smoke out and keep it from the non-smokers. But
> even then there are non-smokers that would complain no matter what the
> situation.

They had those separated and filtered smoking rooms in Ontario, but they
were eventually outlawed and it's now illegal.

Let's face it. Smoking is and has been one of the most costly (lives *and*
money) blights in human history. Whether one is a smoker or anti-smoking
Nazi, the cost to civilization at large is absolutely enormous. On a guess,
I'd wager that smoking has killed more people than all the wars combined and
cost more health care money than all the bankruptcies (current and past)
combined.

If smoking *only* affected the individuals doing so, then what they smoke
would be their business only. But, it's not true and never will be. Society
always shoulders the lion's share of the inevitable health care costs that
smoker's bring onto themselves.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
> a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
> kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
> A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

And I've watched what amounts to the reverse. Mother and son doing some
shopping in the supermarket. The kid was pretty big, I figure about 10 years
old. He wanted his mother to buy him things as they were walking around and
she was refusing. He was punching, kicking and slapping her because he'd put
something in the shopping cart and she'd put it back on the shelf.

They weren't speaking English so there wasn't much I could say. I was sorely
tempted to slap the kid silly, but I didn't really feel like spending time
in jail.

"PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in this
> country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that people
once
> had.

Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your lungs out,
it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it bothers me when I'm
going about my business.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the odour of
cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making me physically
sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my business what you smoke,
what you eat or what you do in your life as long as it doesn't have an
effect on my life. But when it does, how do you think it should be handled?
My going out and eating in a restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going
out and eating in the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's
your solution?

Dave Balderstone wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Jack Stein
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My solution would be to let the restaurant owner decide if he wants to
>> ban smoking or allow smoking. I think about 75% don't smoke so you
>> would think a restaurant owner would be around that would cater to the
>> non smoker IF enough people really cared.
>
> I smoked for a long time, quit about 7-8 years ago. I really notice the
> smoke, but don't bitch about it.
>
> I agree with you. Let the market decide.
>
> The businesses that catered to smokers would attract that business, and
> vice-versa.
>

Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a restaurant
owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club". To a reasonable
person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots of restaurants in
Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would be walking into if you
entered this person's establishment. To a reasonable person. Reality?
Full force of the law came down on this guy's head. How dare he think that
he could run HIS business as he saw fit?!


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.
>
> When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
> with a no smoking section was a real challenge.
>
> Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
> Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
> banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.
>
> Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
> toward the heartland.
>
> The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
> either.

Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.

They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching fumes as
they do. They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air when
they fly. True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but there
are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or coughing, all
being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. They also beam
happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the back
of the seat in front of them. And, of course, they are so inured to their
child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might be
irritating to others. Smoke free though...

I don't eat out much anymore.

dadiOH

In news:[email protected],
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> dropped this bit of wisdom:
> Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.
>=20
> When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
> with a no smoking section was a real challenge.
>=20
> Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
> Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
> banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.
>=20
> Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
> toward the heartland.
>=20
> The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
> either.
>=20
> Yes, I'm a nicotine addict.
>=20
> I quit smoking in 1978, but once an addict, always an addict.
>=20
> Lew

I quit a lot of time, my most recent was 1 year ago.

Every time I quit I restarted with stronger nicotine. Matinee to =
Players to Export A to Dumaurier and finally to Cigars. I even tried =
Players Navy Cut but they seemed to pass with the 50's.

I still miss my after dinner Cigar.

P D Q

PHT wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:53:26 -0400, dadiOH wrote:
>
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.
>>>
>>> When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
>>> with a no smoking section was a real challenge.
>>>
>>> Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
>>> Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
>>> banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.
>>>
>>> Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are
>>> progressing toward the heartland.
>>>
>>> The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
>>> either.
>>
>> Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.
>>
>> They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching
>> fumes as they do. They also have to indure (as do all of us) less
>> fresh air when they fly. True, there is no smoke in all that
>> recirculated air but there are whatever germs the passengers are
>> exhaling or sneezing or coughing, all being recirculated...and
>> recirculated...and recirculated. They also beam happily at their
>> small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the back of the
>> seat in front of them. And, of course, they are so inured to their
>> child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might
>> be irritating to others. Smoke free though...
>>
>> I don't eat out much anymore.
>>
>> dadiOH
>
> You are saying it like it is there. Good for you.
> They are also the types that go down the road talking on their cells
> phones without a thought of the danger they are putting other drivers
> in by not paying full attention to their driving. Also, the ones the
> opposes any law that would ban cell phones while driving.
> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in
> this country. It's getting so that many right are disappearing that
> people once had.

Personally I'd like to see legislation that allows you to do _anything_ you
feel like in the way of personal mayhem to _any_ person seen talking on a
cell phone while driving. Only caveats--you must be able to prove that you
saw them talking on a cell phone while driving and you have to get _only_
the person who was talking on the phone. Never gonna happen but it's
something to fantasize about.

dadiOH wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
>> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in
>>> this country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that
>>> people once had.
>>
>> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your
>> lungs out, it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it
>> bothers me when I'm going about my business.
>>
>> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
>> odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
>> me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
>> business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
>> long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
>> do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
>> restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
>> same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?
>
> My solution is that the restaurant - or other business owner -
> should be able to decide what rules he wants in his/her
> establishment. It is *not* the business of the government, became so
> because of the mind set of the Smoke Nazis that the world should
> conform to *their* view of how it should be.

Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a sign on
the door with the smoking policy.

Ed Edelenbos wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> dadiOH wrote:
>>> Upscale wrote:
>>>> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights
>>>>> in this country. It's getting so that many rights are
>>>>> disappearing that people once had.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your
>>>> lungs out, it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it
>>>> bothers me when I'm going about my business.
>>>>
>>>> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
>>>> odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
>>>> me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
>>>> business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life
>>>> as long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does,
>>>> how do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
>>>> restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in
>>>> the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your
>>>> solution?
>>>
>>> My solution is that the restaurant - or other business owner -
>>> should be able to decide what rules he wants in his/her
>>> establishment. It is *not* the business of the government, became
>>> so because of the mind set of the Smoke Nazis that the world should
>>> conform to *their* view of how it should be.
>>
>> Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a
>> sign on the door with the smoking policy.
>>
>
> The current government policy is to mask the fact that they have been
> complicit in peddling death to the citizens. When the government
> finds a product that is unsafe, it is their job to make a law that
> outlaws it.

No, it is not, it is at most the government's job to provide to the citizens
the information they need to make an informed decision.

> They have known about the (explicit) dangers of tobacco
> for a long time. The only reason it has not been outlawed so far is
> that the tobacco lobby has been successful at paying off enough
> politicians.

You seem to be ignoring the brilliant success of Prohibition and the War on
Drugs, both of which have done wonders for the income of organized crime and
diddly squat about keeping the prohibited substance out of the hands of the
citizens who want it. Now you want yet another ban. Do you work for the
Mafia or something?

> Second hand smoke DOES, not might, affect the health of those
> subjected to it. It's fact. Get over it. The Smoke Nazis, those
> who feel like they still have a "right" to smoke anywhere are the
> ones in the wrong.

If you don't want to inhale "second hand smoke" then don't go into a place
that has a sign on the door that says "smokers welcome".

HeyBub wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
>> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in
>>> this country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that
>>> people once had.
>>
>> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your
>> lungs out, it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it
>> bothers me when I'm going about my business.
>>
>> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
>> odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
>> me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
>> business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
>> long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
>> do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
>> restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
>> same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?
>
> Let the market decide.
>
> Smoke-free restaurants and smoking restaurants. Or separate sections
> in the same restaurant.
>
> This simple solution is, however, insufficient for the True Believer
> (see the book by the same name by Eric Hoffer).
>
> People mind their own business when it's worth minding. When it's
> not, they take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by
> minding someone else's business.
>
> These folks are, nevertheless, a source of some amusement. Whenever
> some granny-lady starts whacking me with her umbrella and screeching
> in a voice that has not endeared her to any number of husbands: "You
> godless communist, you can't smoke here!," I simply reply: "It's all
> right, madam, I'm French."

Next time, try, "Being French, it is incumbent upon me to ask you this
question, madam. Do you screw."

With any luck she'll pop a blood vessel and the world will be a better
place.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a
>> sign on
>> the door with the smoking policy.
>
> Think that is called a "No Smoking" sign.

Nope, that's the government _setting_ the smoking policy.

If someone wants to hang a sign on the door that says "smokers of pipes,
cigars, cigarettes, and tiparillos are welcome in this establishment and
anybody who doesn't want to be exposed to smoke is asked to take their
business elsewhere instead of coming in here and whining about it" they
should be able to.

The result of the current laws is that there are already smokeasies open in
some cities.

Why are you people so bound and determined to create a new income source for
organized crime?

dadiOH wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> Upscale wrote:
>>>> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights
>>>>> in this country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing
>>>>> that people once had.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your
>>>> lungs out, it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it
>>>> bothers me when I'm going about my business.
>>>>
>>>> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
>>>> odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
>>>> me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
>>>> business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life
>>>> as long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does,
>>>> how do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
>>>> restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in
>>>> the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your
>>>> solution?
>>>
>>> Let the market decide.
>>>
>>> Smoke-free restaurants and smoking restaurants. Or separate sections
>>> in the same restaurant.
>>>
>>> This simple solution is, however, insufficient for the True Believer
>>> (see the book by the same name by Eric Hoffer).
>>>
>>> People mind their own business when it's worth minding. When it's
>>> not, they take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by
>>> minding someone else's business.
>>>
>>> These folks are, nevertheless, a source of some amusement. Whenever
>>> some granny-lady starts whacking me with her umbrella and screeching
>>> in a voice that has not endeared her to any number of husbands: "You
>>> godless communist, you can't smoke here!," I simply reply: "It's all
>>> right, madam, I'm French."
>>
>> Next time, try, "Being French, it is incumbent upon me to ask you
>> this question, madam. Do you screw."
>
> Not a good idea, the harridan might say, "Sure, let's". :)

Then you get to say "only if I can smoke after".

sweet sawdust wrote:

> Try not to annoy anyone and try not be too easy to annoy.
>
> I was smoking in a field one day talking to some friends. Couple comes over
> to the group and stands upwind of me to avoid the smoke. They decide to
> move down wind and I move to keep the smoke out of their area.They move down
> wind of me again and complain about me smoking upwind of them. Non smokers
> very often go out of their way to be annoyed.

I don't smoke but go out of my way to avoid non-smokers. I guess I
should say avid, fanatical, hysterical pia non-smokers. You know, the
ones that seem to have taken over Amerika.

These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
football stadium, and guess what, no smoking. For a number of years,
you had to go INSIDE at a Pirate game to smoke, no smoking in the
outdoor stands. It's not about smoking, it's about controlling others
lives. The first 4 states to ban smoking in public restaurants, bars,
pool halls were red socialist states, aka, blue states (not counting
Utah). This is no accident, the socialist bastards want to control your
entire life.

Whiny non-smokers whine about every damned thing, too hot, too cold, too
much sun, not enough sun and so on and on and on. That's why I try to
avoid non smoking bars (we have both in PA) It keeps the chronic
whiners out of my face, so I only go to smoking bars, even though I
don't smoke.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

Upscale wrote:

>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in this
>> country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that people
> once
>> had.
>
> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your lungs out,
> it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it bothers me when I'm
> going about my business.
You going

> out and eating in the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's
> your solution?

My solution would be to let the restaurant owner decide if he wants to
ban smoking or allow smoking. I think about 75% don't smoke so you
would think a restaurant owner would be around that would cater to the
non smoker IF enough people really cared.

On the other hand, I don't smoke nut would stay far away from the non
smoking restaurant to avoid the chronic bitcher's that are so annoyed by
others smoking habits. For public buildings owned by the government, I
guess a public referendum would be nice.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

Ed Edelenbos wrote:

> Second hand smoke DOES, not might, affect the health of those subjected
> to it. It's fact. Get over it. The Smoke Nazis, those who feel like
> they still have a "right" to smoke anywhere are the ones in the wrong.

This is bogus. Studies have shown that if you work in a smoke filled
environment, a bar for instance, it is equivalent to smoking 6
cigarettes A YEAR.

If you smoke 2 packs a day for 40 to 60 years, their is a CHANCE you
will get lung cancer or emphysema. I know this because I grew up when
EVERYBODY smoked and it generally took this long for anyone to get these
diseases, smoker or not, and plenty didn't, and don't get them now. To
me, the studies that show no link to second hand smoke make sense, the
other stuff is pure bullshit.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

These are just two quick ones I've found. The World Health Organization
also did a HUGE study over a long period and couldn't find any evidence
either, even though plenty have tried like hell to skew the statistics.

The good news is if you are worried about second hand smoke, the
worrying will surely be more deadly than the smoke, and my guess is if
you are wringing your hands over second hand smoke, you are wringing
your hands over a TON of stuff, global warming would be a guess, and
probably won't last all that long anyway...

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

[email protected] wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:

>> These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
>> football stadium, and guess what, no smoking.
>
> It has become pretty silly, hasn't it. One of the most absurd
> anti-smoking laws is no smoking on the beach. What's next? No
> breathing under water?

Not sure whats next, but the hand-wringers have a never ending list of
things they want the government to force YOU to do. They're too
freaking simple to understand sooner or later, THEY will be included in
one of the lists.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> sweet sawdust wrote:
>>
>>> Try not to annoy anyone and try not be too easy to annoy.
>>>
>>> I was smoking in a field one day talking to some friends. Couple comes
>>> over
>>> to the group and stands upwind of me to avoid the smoke. They decide to
>>> move down wind and I move to keep the smoke out of their area.They move
>>> down
>>> wind of me again and complain about me smoking upwind of them. Non
>>> smokers very often go out of their way to be annoyed.
>> I don't smoke but go out of my way to avoid non-smokers. I guess I
>> should say avid, fanatical, hysterical pia non-smokers. You know, the
>> ones that seem to have taken over Amerika.
>>
>> These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
>> football stadium, and guess what, no smoking. For a number of years,
>> you had to go INSIDE at a Pirate game to smoke, no smoking in the
>> outdoor stands. It's not about smoking, it's about controlling others
>> lives. The first 4 states to ban smoking in public restaurants, bars,
>> pool halls were red socialist states, aka, blue states (not counting
>> Utah). This is no accident, the socialist bastards want to control your
>> entire life.
>>
>> Whiny non-smokers whine about every damned thing, too hot, too cold, too
>> much sun, not enough sun and so on and on and on. That's why I try to
>> avoid non smoking bars (we have both in PA) It keeps the chronic
>> whiners out of my face, so I only go to smoking bars, even though I
>> don't smoke.
>>

> Well said. It's too bad you don't live near AZ -- would love to sit on
> the porch and shoot the breeze with you.

Well I'm VERY opinionated, and every single one of them is "liberal", or
as Obama Ben Laden would stereotype me, far right wing... I'm thinking
of moving to Russia, land of flat tax and growing freedoms... Pravda
thinks the USSA has gone too far Marxist... Hard to disagree.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:41:45 -0400, "Ed Edelenbos" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> dadiOH wrote:
>>> Upscale wrote:
>>>> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in
>>>>> this country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that
>>>>> people once had.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your
>>>> lungs out, it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it
>>>> bothers me when I'm going about my business.
>>>>
>>>> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
>>>> odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
>>>> me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
>>>> business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
>>>> long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
>>>> do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
>>>> restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
>>>> same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?
>>>
>>> My solution is that the restaurant - or other business owner -
>>> should be able to decide what rules he wants in his/her
>>> establishment. It is *not* the business of the government, became so
>>> because of the mind set of the Smoke Nazis that the world should
>>> conform to *their* view of how it should be.
>>
>> Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a sign on
>> the door with the smoking policy.
>>
>
>The current government policy is to mask the fact that they have been
>complicit in peddling death to the citizens. When the government finds a
>product that is unsafe, it is their job to make a law that outlaws it. They
>have known about the (explicit) dangers of tobacco for a long time. The
>only reason it has not been outlawed so far is that the tobacco lobby has
>been successful at paying off enough politicians.
>
>Second hand smoke DOES, not might, affect the health of those subjected to
>it. It's fact. Get over it. The Smoke Nazis, those who feel like they
>still have a "right" to smoke anywhere are the ones in the wrong.
>
>Ed

It's not the tobacco lobby so much as the government's dependence on
the tobacco taxes

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jun 1, 8:53 am, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.
>
> > When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
> > with a no smoking section was a real challenge.
>
> > Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
> > Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
> > banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.
>
> > Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
> > toward the heartland.
>
> > The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
> > either.
>
> Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.
>
> They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching fumes
> as
> they do. They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air when
> they fly. True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but there
> are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or coughing,
> all
> being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. They also beam
> happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the
> back
> of the seat in front of them. And, of course, they are so inured to their
> child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might be
> irritating to others. Smoke free though...
>
> I don't eat out much anymore.
>
> dadiOH

There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

If this happened around here, I would be contributing to the slapper's
defense fund.

When kid was younger he would pull that trick and when I said no he would
start asking me why he couldn't have what ever. I would quietly tell him
about undone chores, spent allowance and responsibility. This of course
never worked and he would whine louder, I would again explain louder, not
shouting just loud voice. After a couple of sessions of this and the
embarrassment of having everyone looking at him he quite asking after the
first no

Lew,

Good for you kicking the habit. I quit when I was 13.
32 years ago!


cm


"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.
>
> When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant with a
> no smoking section was a real challenge.
>
> Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like Camarillo
> have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is banned and now
> there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.
>
> Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
> toward the heartland.
>
> The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
> either.
>
> Yes, I'm a nicotine addict.
>
> I quit smoking in 1978, but once an addict, always an addict.
>
> Lew
>
>

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:53:26 -0400, dadiOH wrote:

> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.
>>
>> When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
>> with a no smoking section was a real challenge.
>>
>> Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
>> Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
>> banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.
>>
>> Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
>> toward the heartland.
>>
>> The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
>> either.
>
> Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.
>
> They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching fumes as
> they do. They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air when
> they fly. True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but there
> are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or coughing, all
> being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. They also beam
> happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the back
> of the seat in front of them. And, of course, they are so inured to their
> child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might be
> irritating to others. Smoke free though...
>
> I don't eat out much anymore.
>
> dadiOH

You are saying it like it is there. Good for you.
They are also the types that go down the road talking on their cells
phones without a thought of the danger they are putting other drivers in
by not paying full attention to their driving. Also, the ones the opposes
any law that would ban cell phones while driving.
I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in this
country. It's getting so that many right are disappearing that people once
had.

Paul T.

--
The only dumb question, is the one not asked

HeyBub wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a
>> restaurant owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club".
>> To a reasonable person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots
>> of restaurants in Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would
>> be walking into if you entered this person's establishment. To a
>> reasonable person. Reality? Full force of the law came down on this
>> guy's head. How dare he think that he could run HIS business as he
>> saw fit?!
>
> Wonder what would happen if you advertised for something (a job, selling
> chia plants, tutoring, offering a kitten for adoption, etc.) and said in
> your ad "smokers only need apply?" That is, who would get their panties in a
> wad if you discriminated against non-smokers?

Yeah, but was anybody preventing a "well behaved" non-smoker from
walking into that smoking club and having a good time in spite of the
smoke? I doubt there was there a sign on the door of the club that said
"Non-smokers not allowed", so I don't see now they could have shut it
down because of discrimination.

--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a
> restaurant owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club".
> To a reasonable person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots
> of restaurants in Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would
> be walking into if you entered this person's establishment. To a
> reasonable person. Reality? Full force of the law came down on this
> guy's head. How dare he think that he could run HIS business as he
> saw fit?!

Wonder what would happen if you advertised for something (a job, selling
chia plants, tutoring, offering a kitten for adoption, etc.) and said in
your ad "smokers only need apply?" That is, who would get their panties in a
wad if you discriminated against non-smokers?

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in this
>> country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that people
> once
>> had.
>
> Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your lungs
> out,
> it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it bothers me when I'm
> going about my business.
>
> I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the odour
> of
> cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making me physically
> sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my business what you smoke,
> what you eat or what you do in your life as long as it doesn't have an
> effect on my life. But when it does, how do you think it should be
> handled?
> My going out and eating in a restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You
> going
> out and eating in the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's
> your solution?
>
>
Common courtesy

Try not to annoy anyone and try not be too easy to annoy.

I was smoking in a field one day talking to some friends. Couple comes over
to the group and stands upwind of me to avoid the smoke. They decide to
move down wind and I move to keep the smoke out of their area.They move down
wind of me again and complain about me smoking upwind of them. Non smokers
very often go out of their way to be annoyed.

Upscale wrote:
> "PHT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>It may cost the restaurant some money, but it is possible to have a vent
>>system that would draw the smoke out and keep it from the non-smokers. But
>>even then there are non-smokers that would complain no matter what the
>>situation.
>
>
> They had those separated and filtered smoking rooms in Ontario, but they
> were eventually outlawed and it's now illegal.
>

The same here in Erie County. A number of years ago the county passed a
law that all restaurants, bars, etc. must provide a separate area for
smokers and non-smokers. The areas had to be completely separated
(walled off) from each other. The business owner's scrambled to hire
contractors to get their building in compliance with the new law.

About a year later the county changed the law making it illegal to smoke
in any of these businesses.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

If this happened around here, I would be contributing to the slapper's
defense fund.


Last year I saw a similar incident in a local grocery store except the
mother could not control the child. The kid had to be 9-10 years old. I
walked up to the mother and asked if she would like for me to take care of
the problem. She said if you can, yes. I looked at the kid and said I can,
and then walked over to the boy and simply said we are going to take this
out side where we will not be bothering any one, I suggest you straighten up
now. He shut up. I did this for a single mom neighbor about 10 years ago
also.
The trick is to make a suggestion but not explain the details, let the child
imagine what could happen. ;~)