satan_srv said:
I thought that was the funny part! :biggrin:
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Who's city has gone smokeless?
- Thread starter SilverStone05
- Start date
I thought that was the funny part! :biggrin:
I think they should ban alcohol. Nothing is more dangerous than alcohol. It can also cause people to do things they normally wont do 
My city has not banned smoking in privately owned places of public accomodation. So I'm wondering if any of these cities have done so have also outlawed other forms of free association involving what they think are "unhealthy" lifestyles like gay bars or strip joints?
- Joined
- 10 November 2002
- Messages
- 1,124
John@microsoft, I completely agree with your viewpoint. I could not have stated if any better. I just wouldn't do well in Seattle. There are enough of the Seattle types here already; I would absolutely be miserable living out on the left coast. Thankfully, Maryland & Virginia, where I split my time, are relatively more tolerant of smoking. (Virginia being a little more tolerant that Maryland.) The liberals are way more fanatical about wanting to control others than the conservatives. (Reminds me of the eminent domain issue.)
I don't like fast cars, they are dangerous - uh, what I meant is, the government should ban any car that can do speeds in excess of 75 miles per hour in the interest of saving motorist lives, protecting the environment, and reducing oil dependency! Does any state other than Montana have speed limits in excess of 75 miles per hour? I think not. Therefore, in the interest of public safety, the government should ban cars that will do speeds in excess of 75 miles per hour everywhere except Montana. The rest of the states can then place economic sanctions on Montana until Montana comes around to this point of view and stops allowing the endangerment of Montanans lives. The states can exercise their new "interpretation" of eminent domain and confiscate all the NSXs and other fast cars in the name of the public good. They could sell them to the recycler, eliminating all those polluting high-horsepower vehicles while adding the proceeds to the public coffers. Then we could gradually phase in electronic governors over 5 years to reduce the speed limit on the remaining motor vehicles to 55 miles per hour. In ten years, all motor vehicles, including boats, should be required to be hybrids. Think of how many lives and how much oil we will save! We really need to demonstrate more committment to public safety and environmental protection and less dependence on oil.
Sorry, but liberals are waaaaaay worse than conservatives about wanting others to conform to their point of view, and using government to achieve the outcome they want. Conservatives are more libertarian and tolerant.
The so-called second-hand-smoke issue is junk science; it's a red herring for the anti-smoking zealots. It's the first-hand smoke that'll kill you.
Can I get a light from you? Thanks!
I don't like fast cars, they are dangerous - uh, what I meant is, the government should ban any car that can do speeds in excess of 75 miles per hour in the interest of saving motorist lives, protecting the environment, and reducing oil dependency! Does any state other than Montana have speed limits in excess of 75 miles per hour? I think not. Therefore, in the interest of public safety, the government should ban cars that will do speeds in excess of 75 miles per hour everywhere except Montana. The rest of the states can then place economic sanctions on Montana until Montana comes around to this point of view and stops allowing the endangerment of Montanans lives. The states can exercise their new "interpretation" of eminent domain and confiscate all the NSXs and other fast cars in the name of the public good. They could sell them to the recycler, eliminating all those polluting high-horsepower vehicles while adding the proceeds to the public coffers. Then we could gradually phase in electronic governors over 5 years to reduce the speed limit on the remaining motor vehicles to 55 miles per hour. In ten years, all motor vehicles, including boats, should be required to be hybrids. Think of how many lives and how much oil we will save! We really need to demonstrate more committment to public safety and environmental protection and less dependence on oil.
Sorry, but liberals are waaaaaay worse than conservatives about wanting others to conform to their point of view, and using government to achieve the outcome they want. Conservatives are more libertarian and tolerant.
The so-called second-hand-smoke issue is junk science; it's a red herring for the anti-smoking zealots. It's the first-hand smoke that'll kill you.
Can I get a light from you? Thanks!
Jett said:
AGREED!
Jett said:
The idea that second hand smoke isn't harmful is inaccurate.
As a "perk" for choosing the increased opportunity to develop cancer, or emphazyma the first hand smoker gets the benefit of a filter- second hand smoke inhalers do not. The filter does remove a percentage of the carcinogenic properties of the smoke. The second hand smoker gets all the unfiltered carcinogenic properties.
For non smokers who are only occasionally exposed to smoke this is not a huge issue- but if you are a person who works in the food service industry- perhaps working in or behind a bar on a daily basis- there can be adverse health effects.
I am not affected as such, so I really don't care-
However- there are some issues I DO care about-
Lets get back to the initial point of the post here- Smokers choose to smell like smoke-
I don't want to smell like smoke. I don't want my expensive clothing to smell like smoke.
I also don't want my clothes burnt by some drunken person who is so toasted they can't keep the cherry of their cigarette off other peoples clothing.
All these things can happen on any given night "out".
I respect your right to choose to smoke, but why is it so bad for me to ask not to be exposed to it in public places if I have chosen NOT to smoke?
Jett said:
NO.
Philip
- Joined
- 10 November 2002
- Messages
- 1,124
I very much respect your right to NOT smoke, but you treat this as an all-or-nothing issue. How about a little "tolerance" and, say, be "pro-choice" about smoking. Smoking, like drinking, is legal, despite the proven problems with both. So it seems reasonable that certain places might be allowed to choose to not permit smoking in their establishments, to suit their clientele (you). Other places could "choose" to permit smoking, to suit their clientele. (me) It seems to me that my position offers you options while your position offers me restrictions.
I find it troubling that you seem to define all bars, restaurants, stadiums, etc. as "public places" when in fact bars and restaurants are private establishments. So by that logic, is any place you go other than a private home a "public place"? Private homes apparently aren't safe from the liberals either, since John@microsoft reports that his neighbor gave him grief over smoking, not based on John actually being seen smoking (gasp!) but the fact that his Seattleite neighbor assumed that if he smelled cigarette smoke (gasp! again) then John must have been the perp.
I find it troubling that you seem to define all bars, restaurants, stadiums, etc. as "public places" when in fact bars and restaurants are private establishments. So by that logic, is any place you go other than a private home a "public place"? Private homes apparently aren't safe from the liberals either, since John@microsoft reports that his neighbor gave him grief over smoking, not based on John actually being seen smoking (gasp!) but the fact that his Seattleite neighbor assumed that if he smelled cigarette smoke (gasp! again) then John must have been the perp.
Jett said:
I find it amusing that you choose quibble over what I was or wasn't defining as a "public place" when I suggested that I don't like my clothes to smell like smoke, and asked for a little courtesy
That was all I suggested - but here is a little chaser for you.
To answer your issues-
I don't define public vs non public places- I go where I go. Right now if I go to a bar, or a club I accept the fact that by end of night I will likely end up smelling like an ashtray. It is the price I pay, I accept that.
This is one of the many reasons I have revised my drinking behaviors as of late.
I solved the issue by modifying my own behavior to address the actual issue.
Just a question: Why not quit smoking? It seems like such a simple answer to this difficulty. You won't be repressed by the evil liberals that seek to supplant your government in order to betray you, and the side effect is living longer.
Oh- BTW- I understand, and was agreeing in my post with regards to your rant about Liberals radically seeking conformity (see: AGREED!) As a card carrying conservative- I honestly don't care what you do, and appreciate you shouldering the tax burden applied while you enjoy your extended ritualistic suicide- so can we drop that now?
None of that was given as an issue in my last post.
The point of my post was that it would be nice if I could go out to a "public house" and not come home smelling like your habit. I was saying I would appreciate a little neighborly courtesy.
I understand- you don't want to be courteous. How silly of me to ask.
:biggrin:
Last edited:
- Joined
- 10 November 2002
- Messages
- 1,124
So I take it that insofar as a little "tolerance" the answer is "No! You should be required by LAW to conform to what pleases ME!" I point back to John's excellent post, and I quote "...its called pure selfishness. The ultimate form, whereas one is so self-absorbed as to think that others need to change their behaviors to suit them."
Then you have the nerve to call me discourteous? You must be kidding! Reminds me of a story: I was once smoking a cigarette outside (not outside a doorway, but way outside, like in the middle of a very large open area) and a lady came up to me and asked me if I minded not smoking? I replied that yes, I minded. She started getting kind of nasty and I told her "Listen lady, I am OUTSIDE. If you don't like it, go back inside. Then she accused me of being rude. Go figure. Call me crazy, but I think she was the one being rude, and that you are the one who isn't showing very much courtesy. I am pointing out that we both should be able to be accomodated here, but you are demanding that I conform to you! Yet somehow I am not being "courteous"? Incredible.
By your own logic, why don't you just give up drinking? Seems simple enough...you could avoid all those drunken, stumbling smokers who smell up and burn holes in your "expensive clothing" entirely simply by avoiding drinking establishments! You could avoid the risks associated with drinking and driving. And if alcohol were banned, a lot less innocent people would be killed by drunken drivers. I smoke because it's legal and I choose to, which I presume is the same reason you drink. I don't think either cigarettes or alcohol exactly have the moral high ground, but I think the police would agree that drinking causes more social problems than smoking. So whose chosen vice is worse for society? It has to be drinking, hands down. But although I don't drink, I'm not on a crusade to compel by force of law that you conform to me. (Hmmm, maybe I SHOULD become a temperance zealot.)
Are you sure you are a conservative? I think your card is expired...
Then you have the nerve to call me discourteous? You must be kidding! Reminds me of a story: I was once smoking a cigarette outside (not outside a doorway, but way outside, like in the middle of a very large open area) and a lady came up to me and asked me if I minded not smoking? I replied that yes, I minded. She started getting kind of nasty and I told her "Listen lady, I am OUTSIDE. If you don't like it, go back inside. Then she accused me of being rude. Go figure. Call me crazy, but I think she was the one being rude, and that you are the one who isn't showing very much courtesy. I am pointing out that we both should be able to be accomodated here, but you are demanding that I conform to you! Yet somehow I am not being "courteous"? Incredible.
By your own logic, why don't you just give up drinking? Seems simple enough...you could avoid all those drunken, stumbling smokers who smell up and burn holes in your "expensive clothing" entirely simply by avoiding drinking establishments! You could avoid the risks associated with drinking and driving. And if alcohol were banned, a lot less innocent people would be killed by drunken drivers. I smoke because it's legal and I choose to, which I presume is the same reason you drink. I don't think either cigarettes or alcohol exactly have the moral high ground, but I think the police would agree that drinking causes more social problems than smoking. So whose chosen vice is worse for society? It has to be drinking, hands down. But although I don't drink, I'm not on a crusade to compel by force of law that you conform to me. (Hmmm, maybe I SHOULD become a temperance zealot.)
Are you sure you are a conservative? I think your card is expired...
Last edited:
H-carWizKid said:
Wiz, in the spirit of courtesy, I will not smoke another cigarette until you take your next drink. Further I shall not get closer than 4 ft from a stripper, will stay under 75 mph in Montana, and promise to not invade Korea or bomb Iranian "power plants". I will even forswear the "menu" :biggrin: at La Haicienda in Wells, NV, which is heart healthy, STD safe and will not make your expensive clothes smell bad.
With so very much at stake I am sure you will do the right thing.
- Joined
- 10 November 2002
- Messages
- 1,124
Just because you assert that it is so doesn't make it true. The Majority of voters have NOT spoken on this topic in many states. The Government did just ban smoking all on it's own in most cases...it was put to a vote in very few places, with California being the one notable exception that comes to mind.
Last edited:
Jett said:
Hummm...Washington state voted too...there are Aprox 40 mil smokers in the US and over 300 mil persons overall....so even if it was decided by state senates and city/county governments looks like they are representing the majority well.
mindretch said:
I don't know where your bargain comes from, so go ahead and light up.
As for my end- I promise not to drive after I drink- a promise I actually made to myself long ago. A Taxi is my friend. As a perk- they generally don't allow smoking in those either.
I have said that I realize that I will smell like smoke at the end of that night due to folks like yourself, but then I am expecting that. I know it comes with the territory.
Smoke em if you got em then- like I said I have pretty much removed myself from that environment so the smoking generally doesn't effect me, and the problem ultimately terminates itself doesn't it?
As for the bombing, our elected government will do what is necessary- I will support it.
Just like I support the smoking bans...
The speeding? I have always supported safe speeds on the highway, and limiting the spirited runs to the track. Good for you on pledging self control. The life you save might be mine.
The whoring? Well that is on your conscience my friend. I personally wouldn't pay for sex no matter what the sales pitch is, but I guess it is a good thing that there is a place where fellows who need to buy a lay can get it done without worrying about crapping out... Good luck with your transaction.:biggrin:
Similar threads
