My Heart StoppeTH

[Derek2U]

I can't beleive it: NYC is 100% sure of passing a anti-smoking
bill "to protect the workers." What a total 1000% abuse of
reason & science all because this bachelor 59 yr-old Bloomberg
billionaire. NYC city council -- mostly all go out like once a week
to Olive Garden -- are gonna F-up my totally great nights out
with French & European women who love to smoke and drink
all night. I HATE THEM ALL. (just for the record I Do not smoke)
But these A-wipes & that DEMOnCRAT turned REPUBLICAN
is going to ruin LIFE as I know it. This is more serious than Losing
the Pick6 at the Wire.

[so.cal.fan]

Can't you smoke outside?
Of course, your weather is not permitting right now.
How about summer.....sidewalk cafe............French and European women like those, Derek.
I'm sure you are a charming enough guy, they will want to date you even if they can't smoke inside resturants.
Here in Calif. where I live, you can't smoke in any building.
One woman I know, works in downtown LA, she has to leave her high rise building, and stand out in the gutter with the drunks and homeless people and smoke!

[GR1@HTR]

One of my college roomates had a saying:
"If she smokes, she pokes!"

[Zaf]

Originally posted by Derek2U
great nights out
with French & European women who love to smoke and drink
all night. I HATE THEM ALL.


I guess your used to carrying a bar of soap with you.

ZAFONIC

[superfecta]

If some restaurant or business wants smoking thats their right.If you don't want to be in a smoke filled room,don't go to the business that this occurs.Don't work in such a place if it offends you.If you think its your right not to breathe in smoke,NO ITS NOT.Clean air is not a right.If you want to be in a safe evironment,stay home and cook.Everything in life has risk,it is up to each person to weigh the risk and decide if they want to partake in an activity that has risk.But most people want it their way no matter the cost.Goverment has no right to dictate personal freedoms in private places.

[Tee]

Just because certain people choose to indulge in a nasty habit that causes all sorts of health problems - those that don't wish to suck in second hand smoke should stay home?

Shouldn't be totally one way or the other.

Compromise is the key, but there is no compromising when 95% of the people in certain establishments smoke & therefore it is just not feasible to make the necessary changes that would accomodate everyone.

So what happens?

Both smokers & non-smokers end up getting pissed off!!

[sq764]

Delaware just implemented a smoking ban about 3 weeks ago.. I love it.. I went to Delaware Park the other day and it was packed as usual.. Not a scent of smoke either..

I used to feel like a hypocrite because I dipped skoal for about 11 years of my life, but quit cold turkey on February 11th of this year and haven't had one since.. (Of course due to the added beer consumption, I will likely get liver cancer instead of lip cancer!!)

[superfecta]

Originally posted by teeitup
Just because certain people choose to indulge in a nasty habit that causes all sorts of health problems - those that don't wish to suck in second hand smoke should stay home?

If you feel strongly that area is bad for you go somewhere else or stay home where you can control your surroundings.No one has to stay in a smoky room.

Shouldn't be totally one way or the other.

Many places it is that way.The business should cater to its clients needs so it will get business.

Compromise is the key, but there is no compromising when 95% of the people in certain establishments smoke & therefore it is just not feasible to make the necessary changes that would accomodate everyone.

When a majority wants something,it may not be fair but thats who usually gets their way.

So what happens?

Both smokers & non-smokers end up getting pissed off!!

[superfecta]

Originally posted by sq764
Delaware just implemented a smoking ban about 3 weeks ago.. I love it.. I went to Delaware Park the other day and it was packed as usual.. Not a scent of smoke either..

I used to feel like a hypocrite because I dipped skoal for about 11 years of my life, but quit cold turkey on February 11th of this year and haven't had one since.. (Of course due to the added beer consumption, I will likely get liver cancer instead of lip cancer!!) And if there is enough beer drinkers at the track,doesn't that make it more dangerous when the program is over and the liquored up bettors drive home?Heavy smokers aren't impaired after sucking down a couple of cartons of cigs.But it may make it easier to win money if your competition is drinking !
I go to an OTB and the smoke doesn't bother me near as much as the loud and obnoxious bettors who are socking away the booze.But no one makes me stay there and bet.If it did bother me I can go somewhere else or bet from home,its my choice.No goverment body should make them be sober and quiet for me.
But the OTB has the right as a private business to make it smoke free or drink free if they feel it will help get more clientele.

[Tee]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by superfecta

If you feel strongly that area is bad for you go somewhere else or stay home where you can control your surroundings.No one has to stay in a smoky room.

Point is I shouldn't have to go somewhere else or stay home even if the non-smoking section is 1/10th smaller than the smoking section that is dominated by the clients that smoke.

Many places it is that way.The business should cater to its clients needs so it will get business.

I am well aware that it is that way in many businesses, my local otb is a perfect example. Trust me on this one they are losing handle by us non-smokers betting/eating @ home - not exactly good for business.

Compromise is the key, but there is no compromising when 95% of the people in certain establishments smoke & therefore it is just not feasible to make the necessary changes that would accomodate everyone.

When a majority wants something,it may not be fair but thats who usually gets their way.

The majority doesn't need to want what they already have. I believe my above point supports the majority argument. When only 5% bitch & 95% don't things do not get changed. Thing is most of my friends could care less if a non smoking section is started as long as they can still smoke.

So what happens?

Both smokers & non-smokers end up getting pissed off!!

Can't please everyone!!

How about the smokers that don't like clean air go home?

Please explain how facilities that are open & accessible to the public are private?

[trying2win]

Good for the states and provinces that totally ban smoking.

For the people who still smoke, quit while you can, your health will thank you.

That's why I don't go to our local track too much anymore. They cater to much to the smokers. The best seats in the house by the big screens are for smokers. Even when you sit in the so-called non-smoking section the smoke drifts over. Then when us non-smokers come home, your clothes reek of cigarette smoke, not to mention that second hand smoke you breathed I say if you want to smoke, go outside.

Looking forward to the day when they totally ban smoking inside all our tracks here in Canada.

Now I suppose the smokers will rake me over the coals. Guess then I'll have to declare Rodney Dangerfield's famous line "I tell Ya, I don't get no respect." Then I'll probably have to go visit Rodney Dangerfield's website at www.rodney.com and have a few laughs.

Remember no swearing. People who swear a lot, display a lack of couth amd reveal a lot about their character. Most members here are first class people, but some of them use second class language at times. Tsk! Tsk!

Generally most forum members display a lot of respect here. Thank you for that. It makes the visits here more fun and pleasant. Unfortunately, some members at times don't show respect. Does this forum have RULES OF CONDUCT such as 1. Show respect to other members 2. No profanity 3. No racist comments. 4. No name calling etc? Some other websites have good rules regarding RULES OF CONDUCT and if I remember correctly, will bar members who tend to cross over the line with their lack of good manners. Maybe the Pace Advantage Administrator good enlighten us about conduct on this website.

[TenZin]

trying 2 win you sound like a total imbecile.

[so.cal.fan]

Our good buddy from Texas, smf says:
Having non-smoking sections in resturants is like having
no-peeing sections in pools! LOL:D

[Boris]

Originally posted by GR1
One of my college roomates had a saying:
"If she smokes, she pokes!"

I always looked for an anklet. CHALK.

[Lefty]

I just looked outside to make sure the world was not coming to an end. Derek, I agree with you. I don't smoke either, but if we stand idly by and let them take away the rights of a certain group of people to indulge in a LEGAL activity, then it won't be long before they'll comprimise our rights in another area.
they have already started in CA by proposing heavy taxes on softdrinks. Since I quit drinking 15 yrs ago I indulge in chain diet cola drinking.
Isn't a ballpark outside? Well, you can't smoke in a ballpark and this has even extended to city parks in some areas.
We have to face it, sooner or later your Ox will be gored too.

[Rick]

I quit smoking myself about 30 years ago but most of my friends (and my wife) have been smokers. In my experience, the more anti-smoking a person is, the more boring they are. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. Also, having been both a smoker myself and a person around smokers a lot, I think that the secondhand smoke thing is about 99.9% BS. The only time I was ever affected by it was in a very small designated smoking area in an airport with almost no ventilation.

Let the business owner decide which policy he wants to go with and people can choose which environment they want. Here in Reno they once had a non-smoking casino. The non-smokers didn't patronize it enough so it closed. Simple economics.

[trying2win]

Tenzin:

I just looked up the word IMBECILE at www.dictionary.com. Sorry, that doesn't describe me. Actually I think I'm fairly intelligent. I just have some strong opinions on some things, just like you or anyone else. I like to see people treated with dignity and respect. Also I like to see discussion groups that have RULES OF CONDUCT. If people don't abide by the rules of good conduct then they should be removed from the discussion group.

Oh Yes, I forgot to mention in my previous post about certain RULES OF CONDUCT. One of them should be NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Did you notice, I didn't lower my class by reponding with a personal attack on you?

There will be some members out there who will speak up and defend my opinions on this thread on this forum. There will be members who will also defend my opinions on this thread, but are too afraid to speak up, because they're afraid someone will criticize them for speaking out for decency. And of course there might be more members who will criticize me and be diplomatic about it. Then there also might be some more members who will criticize me with second class language. Members should be able to agree to disagree at times on some topics, but at the same time be diplomatic about it.

Now I know how some of the other members of this forum feel, when they've had personal attacks on them for their opinions. But, I expected it. No problem.

Pace Administrator--How about tightening up the RULES OF CONDUCT in this forum? Then display them somewhere on this website for all members to see, so they can abide by them.


Have a nice day, Tenzin. Hope you make lots of money at the races in the future.

[GR1@HTR]

Rick,

You make a good point. For the record, I am a non smoker and it is kinda nice going someplace that is smoke free...But in my college days when I was bartending and waiting tables, it was common knowledge that the folks working in the smoking section were going to make better tips cause generally speaking the smokers were more laid back an were better tippers. Also I heard on the radio a few months ago that there was a study that smokers were more sexually active than non smokers (if she smokes, she pokes). I guess Smokers are risk takers...They know smoking is bad for them but they don't give a rats a$$...Maybe that is why racebooks are so friendly to smokers vs other establishments cause they are a good percentage of their business...

[Rick]

GR1,

Actually there's a good reason for the correlation. It has to do with brain chemicals (dopamine). Dopamine fiends are usually a lot of fun to be around. By the way, smokers almost never get Parkinson's disease, which is caused by low levels of dopamine in the brain.

The best solution for smokers and non-smokers would be a smokeless nicotine delivery system, but nobody will support making an addictive substance healthier.

Another funny thing. There were several studies done that tried to prove that smokers were less productive at work than non-smokers. They actually proved the opposite, and were therefore suppressed. It seems that smokers are more hyperactive and therefore accomplish more on average, even taking into account time lost for smoke breaks. Sometimes you just don't get the politically correct answer.

They also tried to prove that health care costs were higher for smokers, and that didn't work either. The smokers died quicker than non-smokers when being treated for terminal illnesses and therefore cost less.

[Rick]

Here's something better for non-smokers to worry about:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

[trying2win]

Rick:

Thanks for the link to that interesting article.

Sorry, I don't believe that drivel in that article about them defending the use of tobacco products.

I personally know some smokers who died agonizing deaths, that I'm sure were caused by their prolific addiction of smoking cigarettes over the years. I even know some smokers that are still alive, but need to use an oxygen tank to breathe properly. Probably a lot of their breathing problems were caused by cigarette smoking too.

That part in the article about diesel smoke being a health hazard, probably has some validity to it. Very enlightening.

It sure is amazing when some former smokers that used to be so cavalier about smoking tobacco products, change their attitude. When they discover they have lung cancer, throat cancer, mouth cancer or emphysema, a lot of them will quit smoking immediately and become strong advocates for non smoking policies.

Again like the old cliche says..."An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

[Rick]

trying2win,

I'm not saying that smoking is a good choice for someone to make. But, it appears that pollution is a much bigger concern than secondhand smoke for sure. So, if you want to worry about getting lung cancer, get out of the city. Harrassing smokers won't make you live any longer. Personally, I much prefer cigarette smoke to stale body odor and cheap perfume, but I won't make a federal case out of it. Live and let live within reason. I even tolerate rude people talking on cell phones. Anyone who's ever been to a race track or race book knows that secondhand smoke is not the biggest health hazard there. Some of those people sound like they have terminal TB or something. Whatever it is, I hope I don't get it. Maybe if we banned all gambling it would go away. Oh, I forgot. If it's your vice it's OK. If it's somebody else's vice it must be eliminated immediately.

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine" (R. E .M. ).

Oh, I also don't believe we should tell people they can't get eat too much and have an increased risk of heart attack either. The government doesn't own their bodies; they do.

[Tom]

Originally posted by trying2win
...... Maybe the Pace Advantage Administrator good enlighten us about conduct on this website.

Don't know if PA has it in the rules or not, but I strongly support a total ban of smoking on this board!

[Rick]

Tom,

I hate it when they ask me at a motel if I want a smoking room. You NEVER want a smoking room unless you're an arsonist.

[Tom]

If someone wnat to smoke, and it doesn't interfer with my RIGHT to breath clean air in a public place, like a restaurant, but what about smoker's illusion that they have the right to throw matches and butts anywhere they please? I say fine them for littering or for being in violation of the fire code. And what do we do about chewers? Don't they have the right the enjoy a chaw and a spit at the dinner table?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
Tom,

I hate it when they ask me at a motel if I want a smoking room. You NEVER want a smoking room unless you're an arsonist.
I always ask for a handicap room - they have those big bathrooms with plenty of room for my portable putting green.

[Rick]

Tom,

Smokers have an obligation to be considerate just like everyone else. My wife smokes, but she doesn't blow smoke in people's faces, smokes outside when at non-smoker's houses, and never discards cigarette butts outside because that would be littering. As usual though, I think you'll find that 5% of the people cause 95% of the trouble. I find soda pop cans all over the recreation areas I go to, but I don't think that soda pop should be banned because of it. I do wish someone would teach people about common courtesy and why they shouldn't make a dump out of every place they go though.

[Rick]

Tom,

I suspect there are a couple of people who were smoking when they posted on this board, but I don't think it was tobacco.

[smf]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
Our good buddy from Texas, smf says:
Having non-smoking sections in resturants is like having
no-peeing sections in pools! LOL:D

As Seinfeld's George Costanza says, "it's all pipes! what's the difference?".

[trying2win]

Like motivator Les Brown used to say in his books..."Avoid toxic people." They're the kind of people who have traits such as negative thinking, a hostile-agressive personality, swearing, racist, running people down with innuendos and negative gossip. These kind of persons who habitually knock people to build up their own frail egos, suffer from low self-esteem. The truth hurts!

I sense there are a few members of this forum who fit in some of these negative categories. Those people should take a good look at themselves in the mirror and change their ways. Read Dale Carnegie's book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" for starters.

Did you ever notice the most popular people have pleasing personalities?

On the positive side, the great majority of forum members are decent, intelligent, considerate people who display a vast amount of handicapping knowledge, along with a lot of wisdom. Thank you for all those positive traits.

[sq764]

Ok, I am reading these posts and seeing that some people believe that its infringing on their rights to ban smoking in public places?? How the hell is that? Is it the chicken or the egg? If I go to the track, must I leave smelling like smoke? Now I do not..

And the obvious rebuttal by the smokers is that I can choose to not go to the track and smell like smoke.. Well, the obvious rebuttal to that is that you now can choose to not go to the track and NOT SMOKE..



(as a precursor, I have never smoked, but dipped skoal for 11 years and quit cold turkey on Feb 11th of this year, so it can be done)

[sq764]

Tom, as I mentioned earlier, I used to chew (dip) skoal for many years. I always got ugly looks as I spit into a cup.. But I wonder how smokers would have felt if I spit on them, just as they blow smoke on us..

I think I know the answer to that.

[sq764]

Rick,

Has it been proven that stale body odor and cheap perfume cause lung cancer? I must have missed that study..

[Show Me the Wire]

The key word is "PUBLIC" (sorry Andicap) that describes the type of place. This key word means no person has proprietary rights to the exclusion of someone else. Smokers have the right to smoke in PUBLIC places as well as non-smokers have the right not to smoke. Every one has the right to use public places. I am limiting my commentary to United States, because our neighbors to the north and south may have a different definition for PUBLIC.

I am not a smoker nor have I ever smoked cigarettes, I plead guilty to enjoying a cigar every now and then, so I am not biased toward smoking. Cigarette smoking is a legal activity, which gives certain people enjoyment so there is no valid reason for non-smokers to have more proprietary rights in "PUBLIC" places. Becuase you do not like an activity does not give you the right to prohibit someone else from enjoying the activity. Additionally, restaurants and such are public places because they invite the public in.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Act without intent.

[so.cal.fan]

In any event.....I'd rather sit next to a guy drinking a beer, than a guy smoking a cigarette.
If I am sitting on a bench outside in the paddock, and someone is smoking.....I move, but I don't comment to the smoker...none of my business.

[Rick]

sq764,

I have no problem with having smoking and non-smoking sections anywhere you want and strictly enforcing it. But making it against the law to smoke somewhere in a separate area is just ridiculous. If you think that someone smoking in the opposite end of a restaurant is going to cause you to get lung cancer from secondhand smoke, you're just hopelessly uninformed. Exaggerating the effects is a technique that is always used by those who want to change someone else's behavior. I don't buy the argument that someone is killing you by doing something that's annoying to you.

But, I will agree to keep all of my annoying smoker friends away from everywhere you go if you'll all keep your annoying children away from everywhere I go.

[sq764]

Rick, no one said one meal sitting across from a smoker will cause cancer, but years and years of exposure to it can, and has been proven.

And the non-smoking sections are a joke. You can physically be sitting 5 feet away from someone and they are smoking in the smoking section, so in reality non-smoking sections are a joke.

You don't have to keep your smokers away from me, the law in Delaware did it for me.. (And fortunately I don't have any children yet)

[GR1@HTR]

What is funny is at some airports they have the glass bubbles for smokers. Looks like a fish tank for smokers...

[sq764]

This is a bar that is about 2 minutes from where we live.. I don't think he cares about the smoking ban...

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2002/12/10defiantcoachhou.html

[Tom]

Who is worse?
The tabacco companies who know full well that their product kills people and continue to sell it or the various governments who sue big tabacco for tons of money they claim is owed their citizens because of all the health realted problmes caused by smoking, and use the money for every pork project under the sun except to defray health care cost to their citizens?
Greedy killers or greedy cowards?
I say coward becasaue if tabacco is as bad as the governemtns who try to ban it say it is (personally, I think it is) then why don't they go out after big tabacco with criminal charges? The very product they try to ban is still legal to grow, buy, sell, transport, chew, smoke, spit, drool, eat, whatever.
D'oh!
Sorry - forget it. There I go trying to use logic when talking about government again. Whatever am I smoking??????

[Derek2U]

Thank You Very Much. You made your point now don't become
one of those incessant yappers who dwell on one point over
and over much like guests who over stay their welcome. You
sound almost perfect so lets keep it at that way please.

[Rick]

Well, I wish people would be more tolerant and try to solve problems like this in a reasonable way instead of just outlawing everything. But that's a lot like hoping for world peace. Most people just want to win. We're becoming a nation of whiners and it gets worse every year. If that's the kind of country most people want here then I'll just go elsewhere. I certainly can't change so many people's opinions. This kind of problem was mentioned in the Federalist papers before the Constitution was written. It was called the "tyranny of the majority" and it applies to a lot of situations like this. As usual, it's just my opinion, I (and Jefferson and Hamilton) could be wrong. I'm sure I'd lose if we voted.

I might give more credibility to someone who wasn't causing any pollution themselves, but I think most of us are pretty selfish and hypocritical when it comes to complaining about what others are doing and justifying what we're doing.

[Rick]

"The EPA has reported that, if you are over 35 and are regularly exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke, the chancees of contracting fatal lung cancer from that smoke are roughly 1 in 30,000." From "True Odds - How Risk Affects Your Everyday Life", by James Walsh.

[Derek2U]

Okay Rick you are IMHO 100% right. I live in NYC which is
URBAN and I just got to say that urban life is full of compromises:
That stinking smelly Jamaican food; those backpacks on the
subway; those smelly Indian cabbies; those incessant cell phone
users ... etc etc ... So what would happen if we ALL made waves
when issues did not appeal to us or involve us. Me? I would
STOP all welfare cause hey .... it's not me and STOP all giving
to any schoos or kid programs cause (a) I'm out of school and
(b) I don't like kids. Let's all be selfish and lets all sabotage any
and all things we just don't like. I just don't want to contribute
to any thing cause hey "I don't smoke so why not ban it?"

[Rick]

Derek,

Thanks, that's one on my side out of what, 280 million? Anyway, as Billy Joel said, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints".

When I was in Arizona all of the old f***s, I mean senior citizens, were always complaining about having to pay property taxes for schools. Well, I want those kids to be well educated so they can pay for my Social Security in the future. And those people had just gotten a tax break on property taxes by having them frozen at pre-65 levels. It's never enough.

[Lindsay]

Rick wrote:

"This kind of problem was mentioned in the Federalist papers before the Constitution was written. It was called the "tyranny of the majority" and it applies to a lot of situations like this. As usual, it's just my opinion, I (and Jefferson and Hamilton) could be wrong."

Rick,

Jefferson was not one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, but he was a tobacco farmer.

[Rick]

Lindsay,

Sorry. It was Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay who wrote the Federalist papers. I don't remember Political Science very well since I took it about 25 years ago. But, my conclusion is not any different regardless of who the authors were.

[Zaf]

Originally posted by Derek2U

That stinking smelly Jamaican food; those backpacks on the
subway; those smelly Indian cabbies; those incessant cell phone
users ... etc etc ...

Hey Derek watch it with those comments, Your the one dating those "1 shower a week" French/European women. The Cab smell should be of little consequence.

ZAFONIC

[sq764]

"The EPA has reported that, if you are over 35 and are regularly exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke, the chancees of contracting fatal lung cancer from that smoke are roughly 1 in 30,000." From "True Odds - How Risk Affects Your Everyday Life", by James Walsh.




So Rick, if you could say that even half of the US population is over 45, you are talking about 'potentially' 4,500+ deaths.

Yeah, 4,500 deaths is nothing to worry about, screw it..

[Rick]

sq764,

Better stop driving too. Chance of dying in an automobile accident is 1 in 60. Don't go outside either. Chance of dying in a lightning strike is 1 in 30,000. But, you can't go home either. Chance of dying in a home accident is 1 in 130 and from indoor radon is 1 in 440. Oh, and watch what you eat. The chance of getting cancer from eating peanut butter sandwich a day is 1 in 5000. It's a dangerous world.

But the biggest risk of all is from being murdered by a smoker when you try to take away their cigarettes.

Seriously though, if you want to worry about it go ahead. We all take much bigger risks than secondhand smoke every day and never worry about it, but you're entitled to your ultimately safe world if you want it.

I'm finished arguing. You win.

[sq764]

I didn't win, all non-smokers won. I am not the one who put the law into motion, I am just a benefactor. You sound bitter towards those who agree with it.

There is irony here though. I remember being at the track once with my wife and she was playing slots and some woman was blowing smoke right at her. So my wife kindly asked her to blow it the other way and this woman said "Hey, if you don't like it, don't come here, no one is forcing you"

How true that statement is. Now the shoe is on the other foot and smokers don't like it one bit.

[Rick]

sq764,

You're right. All smokers are like the one you mentioned. Congratulations to all of the non-smokers on their big win. Now, let's start working on all of the other bad habits.

[sq764]

Rick, no one said all smokers are like that, it was an example of how people can be when they don't think..

The bottom line is that everyone has a choice now. If you are a smoker and do not like the ruling, you choose to not go to these establishments, including Delaware Park, Dover Downs and Harrington Raceway. But I was at Delaware park on Saturday and it was packed as usual. So I guess the lesson we learn here is that people's gambling habits have overtaken their smoking habits.

I am guilty of the same type of thing though. I keep seeing these incidents happening at tracks all over the country, incidents that cheat the public. But the only way it ever will change is if we all boycott these tracks, which won't happen. And I am one of those who will keep on betting, even though I know it goes on.

[Show Me the Wire]

Through banning smoking in public places, we all have lost. We should act towards one another; in the manner we want others to act towards us. I certainly do not want someone to dictate to me I can’t enjoy a legitimate leisurely pursuit in a public place. So if I stop someone from enjoying a legitimate activity, it is only fair they should be able to stop me from enjoying a legitimate activity in a public place and so on, and so on……….

The more morals and taboos there are, the more cruelty afflicts people.
The more laws and taxes there are, the more theft corrupts people.

Make no laws and the people will deal fairly with each other.

Sometimes the benefactors of a misguided laws are the true losers.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Express no desire and people will harmonize with each other.

[Rick]

sq764,

Are you saying that smoking is prohibited everywhere at Delaware Park including outside?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
sq764,

You're right. All smokers are like the one you mentioned. Congratulations to all of the non-smokers on their big win. Now, let's start working on all of the other bad habits.

What other bad habits?? (*scratch *scratch* spit* pzzzt*)

[Rick]

It's interesting how much people's opinions can be affected by incidents with other groups. I can understand how a bad experience with a smoker such as that mentioned by sq764 would cause one to be very happy to get revenge on smokers. On the other hand, I remember an incident involving a non-smoker who voluntarily sat in the smoking section and then tried to start a fight with the smokers. That incident probably makes me intolerant of self-righteous non-smokers now.

[Derek2U]

That was a very cool and insightful post. I agree with that 100%
because look at all I tolerate especially those ugly fat bitches
w/ back packs probably w/ their 4-course lunches inside. When
I encounter them on the subway or the downtown ferry I just
give them a forceful shove and I especially get happy when I
just grab a cab away from them when its raining. hehe

[Rick]

Tom,

I heard a while back that they were thinking of eliminating the peanuts on airlines. The few people who are allergic to peanuts are complaining about sitting next to people who are eating them. Another health hazard that needs to be eliminated.

[Derek2U]

I love my peanuts I bring them on the planes w/ me since they
stopped serving them. I'd give hazelnut ice cream to anyone allergic to peanuts. hehe

[Rick]

Derek,

You should be arrested for creating a public health hazard.

The only thing I'm allergic to is cheap perfume, but I will make an exception if she has supermodel looks.

[Show Me the Wire]

Derek2U:

No surprise my post struck a responsive chord in a spiritual leader, such as you.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

I see nothing wrong with the idea fat people should purchase two seats on airplanes and other forms of public transportation. Let them eat peanuts.

[so.cal.fan]

I love you guys!
You just brighten my day!

[Rick]

Reading another thread here reminded me of one of my major annoyances: stepping in dog crap. I think every dog's DNA should be sampled and we could have a dog crap patrol go around and take samples and compare them. When we find the offending owner we should lock them up for a while in a jail cell filled with dog crap. Or, we could just ban all dogs in public. Hey, I'm a cat owner so it's no problem to me.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
Tom,

I heard a while back that they were thinking of eliminating the peanuts on airlines. The few people who are allergic to peanuts are complaining about sitting next to people who are eating them. Another health hazard that needs to be eliminated.

They did it on NW. They gave me a bag of almonds! Unwittingly popped some in my mouth and bite down....yuchhh!
But then again, most airlines are doing away with ALL customer service anyway, so peanuts is just one less thing you get for all that money. (Must be a lot of those racetrack nephews that finally got fired found jobs in the airline industry)
Side note: it was the fault of greedy, incompetent airlines that 911 ever happenend in the first place. CIA problems with interpreting surveillence data aside, the airlines were totally slack and even ignored the very real possiblity. They ones that are in troulbe and the ones that have failed get no sympathy from me. They deserve to be out of business, and airline union employees across the board get no sympathy-they are, as a group, worse than welfare frauds. They are SUPPOSED to be doing something for the big buck they get paid - most are totally lazt and worthless. NW Detroit is a haven for worthless people. I hope 1,000s of them find themselves out of work, and soon.
To HELL with the lazy, non-productive people - and to HELL with society carrying them-let them starve for all I care! There are a lot streets in Detroit - let them live there. And don't let them smoke out there, either!

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
Reading another thread here reminded me of one of my major annoyances: stepping in dog crap. I think every dog's DNA should be sampled and we could have a dog crap patrol go around and take samples and compare them. When we find the offending owner we should lock them up for a while in a jail cell filled with dog crap. Or, we could just ban all dogs in public. Hey, I'm a cat owner so it's no problem to me.

And what would we call the police who do this DNA testing?
Crap Cops?
Poo Police?
Pooper Troopers?

[Rick]

Tom,

Maybe some of those unemployed airline workers could do it. We need to get the economy moving before the next election comes along.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
Tom,

Maybe some of those unemployed airline workers could do it. We need to get the economy moving before the next election comes along.

Pure genius!

[so.cal.fan]

I've always said that handicappers are by far the smartest people in the country!
Rick and Tom........would you consider coming to Calif. to balance our budget?
This is a great idea! It could put hundreds of thousands of people to work...........we could issue heavy fines to violators!
Rick:
It is against the city ordinance here in Sierra Madre for dog owners to allow dogs to poop on public or other people's property. But.....it is not enforced!!!!!!! I called the police one day to "report" a violation, and they hung up on me!
Where are Barbara Streisand, Martin Sheen and the rest of the professional protesters? This is a serious issue. damn it!
Who cares about world problems, wars, etc:
Get that dog poop cleaned up!:D :D :D

[Tom]

If Babs were to be out on the street, would that not in itself be a violation of the "no-poop" law <G>

Seriously, there are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs that need doing that anyone on welfare should be forced to do in order to get a check. There are very few people who cannot do something - those we help/ Those that can do something must be made to do it, and do it right, or be given a bus ticket to Mexico.

[Rick]

socal,

Sorry, I've done my time in California. I'd rather be FROM there. But, I do wish you all the best because my Mom still lives there and I don't want the state to run out of money to pay my University of California pension. Also, the other end of the state is a nice place to visit. I'd settle for everything from Monterey north if they want to split off from the south.

I lived in an apartment in Phoenix where dog owners could be evicted if they didn't clean up their mess. But, the manager herself was out there every morning violating the rule with her own dog so there wasn't much chance of enforcing it. Although I hate to see cigarette butts littered all over the place, they don't stay with you quite as long as a fresh dog deposit.

[sq764]

Rick, if you are from California, you should be used to the smoking ban. I remember being out in San Francisco for work about 4 years ago and even then you couldn't smoke inside.

[Rick]

sq764,

The last time I lived in California was 1990, which was before the yuppies totally took over. I still like to go there on vacation but I don't want to live there. I grew up in the Los Angeles area in the 50's and early 60's so I'm a survivor of the worst pollution anywhere of all time. The idea that secondhand smoke is even 1/1000th as dangerous is only for those who have no experience whatsoever with the worst that things can get.

I'm not at all interested in living where uninformed self-righteous people are making all of the rules.

[sq764]

Rick, ironically enough, there is a big article in our newspaper today regarding how the smoking ban is going.

2 facts they mentioned in the article I found to be interesting though:

1) A bartender breathes as much secondhand smoke in an eight-hour shift as he would if he smokes a half-pack of cigarettes

2) Bar and restaurant workers have a 50% higher chance of getting cancer than other workers.


Maybe if you had a wife or son or daughter who was a bartender, you would actually see the good that came out of this..

[Rick]

sq764,

You don't understand that you're being misled by people with an agenda who happen to be in the majority now. And you're blissfully ignorant of the relative risks of various activities. I can't help you and won't try because all decisions now are made based whatever the media decides to feed you.

[Rick]

By the way, according to my personal, unscientific survey of people I've known in my life, people who care a lot about what other people are doing are more likely to die young than those who only care about what they themselves are doing. So, if you like controlling other people, be careful.

[sq764]

I don't want to control people, I just want my clothes to smell smoke-free.. Its not a crusade, its a personal choice..

[Rick]

sq764,

I don't, for a minute, believe that this has anything to do with health risks or how your clothes smell or anything like that. It has to do with your wife being insulted by one smoker and you wanting to get revenge. My wife, who was doing nothing wrong, was once insulted by one of your kind, so I'm on the opposite side. I can't tolerate people telling me or my family what to do when they have more annoying habits themselves. People who think they're perfect themselves are typically the most imperfect but ignorant of their own shortcomings.

[sq764]

Rick, I think you are taking this a little too personal. I am absolutely imperfect (my wife reminds me everyday).. And I am not saying by any means that all smokers should be based on that one instance, quite the contrary.

I am not telling you or your family to do anything.. I don't make the laws, I just have to follow them. And ultimately, its all about choices.

I love beer, love it. But I think its appalling that at the track, they have the nerve to charge $4.50 for a beer. But you know what?? I buy it anyway... I could choose to not go, but I do anyway. I think smokers may be in the same boat now. They can choose to boycott the places or not..

[Rick]

Well, at least we agree on one bad habit (beer). But, I have to say that I'm little biased against you because you try to sell your service by advertising it on every post you make. Others on this board are specifically discouraged from doing that, so I'm wondering what is different about you and what relationship you have with the administrator.

My argument with you wasn't about the virtues of engaging in a bad habit, it was about being tolerant of others and about not exaggerating the true probabilities. Here's something to worry about though. Soon they'll be shipping radioactive waste through your town on the way to Yucca Mountain via trains and trucks and if a terrorist manages to intercept it you'll have a big problem. We're talking about thousands of shipments over a few years and if only a few of them are sabotaged we'll have a major disaster.

[sq764]

One problem with your hatred.. We offer everything free.. So I am not selling anything.

[Tom]

I used to smoke, and believe me, quitting was the best thing I ever did. And the hardest. My belief is that the tabacco company executives should be charged with murder and conspiracy. They know that thier product kills and they purposely make it addictive. And they targeted young people purposely because their older customers died off and they needed to keep a fresh market. I can see why so many people have trouble quitting. I did not just stop smoking - I went through pure hell, many times before I was finally able to stop (hypnosis). I don't see how you can be in favor of outlawing drugs and not tobacco. I say let anyone smoke who wants to, but not in public places. Hey, there are things I like to do at home that I would never do in a diner (heh heh heh). It is just tempering rights with responsiblity.

But then, I may be wrong. (*puff*puff*cough*).

[Rick]

Who said anything about hatred. Your site says "purchase". Last time I checked that doesn't mean "free". You're a salesman who's trying to use this forum to get people to buy things from you. That probably means that you don't know how to win money at horse racing yourself, but I won't argue with that. Just don't misrepresent yourself as someone who isn't promoting themselves for personal gain. It's just not true.

[sq764]

So if you sell something, that means you do not know how to do it yourself?

I guess the Daily Racing Form has no clue how to handicap or the cable company has no clue about fiber optics, or horseracing in itself is all bogus, because they are selling a product.

I kinda just lost all respect for you with that idiotic comment. Get a clue.

[Rick]

Tom,

Are you against people smoking in public places because you might be tempted to start again? That seems to be a more valid argument than the public health thing to me.

I quit smoking myself about 30 years ago. I can smoke, but not inhale a cigarette or a cigar a couple of times a year if I want to and not get addicted to it, but I wouldn't go back to having a daily habit.

The tobacco companies are certainly evil, but punishing them with lawsuits when they can pass along the costs to the victims who are addicted to their product seems to be totally unfair. I really think that increasing the price of cigarettes is punishing the wrong people.

[Rick]

sq764,

You misrepresented yourself as someone who has no business interest in having people visit your web site. That clearly is NOT true. Why would I believe you about anything else?

In horse racing, usually, those who can, do; those who can't, sell. Nobody at DRF knows how to make a living betting horses. Believe me, I know.

[sq764]

I frankly don't care what you believe about me, but for clarity, yes, we do offer ONE track 4 days a week for pay. The other 8 are free 100% of the time.

If we are going to split hairs, let me know ahead of time..

[Rick]

sq764,

OK, so "not selling anything" means selling something but not everything. And you don't make anything from advertisers that pay you for how many hits you have on your site either, right? So, PA is letting you advertise on this board when others are not allowed to do that.

[Zaf]

Boy , What a thread you started Derek.

ZAFONIC

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
[B]Tom,

Are you against people smoking in public places because you might be tempted to start again? That seems to be a more valid argument than the public health thing to me.


No, I will never go back - I am 110% confident. The hypnosis was really remarkable. I can sit next to someone smoking and not really notice the smoke or the smell. It is almost as if I am immune to the stuff. I even used to let people smoke in my office
when it up us to decide. I have not had any desire to ever to smoke again-pipe, cigiar, dope, crack, whatever <G>
An d I don't agree with the high taxes on cigarettes - the gov't has no place deciding what is a "sin" and then taxing it.
I only agree wtih the public smoking ban because it is not necessary, it is rude, and it is second-hand dangerous - my belief, right or wrong.
I also think the boards of director of all three big three auto companies are flat out murderers as well. They knowingly put death traps on the road and then settle the lawsuits with the "silence is requried to get your check" clause. Chevy pick up trucks - exploding side gas tanks - sold for 25 years!
Ford - exploding gas tanks. Chrysler - quick release seat belts. Ford - Explorer roll overs and bad tires. The very idea Ford saved money by testing not a real explorer, but somehing "close" is something that would cost any auto supplier their contracts.
I am in that business and that way of testing is just plain not acceptable.
I am all for individual rights, but I am equally for responsibility.
But hey, we all have the right to our opinions and I respect your side of the issue. Just don't try to sell any tobacco on this board <G>

[hurrikane]

the thing that really kills me about this is it's the government that issues the licenses to grow, dry, package and distribute the cigarettes. then they subsidize the industry. Then they just love to collect the taxes from the company and the people who smoke the cigarettes.
Then they turn around and sue them. What a racket!

I was at Del not too long ago. You could only smoke in a couple of places as it was. The bartender was bitching because of all the money he loses in tips because of the smoking ban. I imagine he isn't working there now. Seems to me if a resturant owner wants to allow smoking in his establishment that is a business decision he can make. Guess that's why there are so few non smoking restuarants around. Bad for business.

There are a couple of resturants here that have these turkish pipes. The whole deal is to go in and smoke. So these people would be out of busniess because some non-smoker who wouldn't even go in their establishment doesn't want people smoking inside.
Now...is this America or what?
.

[Lefty]

As I said, i'm a non-smoker but I'm not about to jump aboard the "you can't smoke anywhere" Bandwagon because it's an incursion into private property rights. There's even a movement afoot in Ca to end smoking in a private residence. The excuse? It's for the children don'tcha know.
Be careful what you wish for non-smokers...

[Rick]

Maybe I'm missing something but I still don't understand why it's necessary to ban smoking everywhere as opposed to just separating the smokers into their own areas where non-smokers need not ever go. If smoking areas were not separated from non-smoking areas in the past, why not make laws regarding adequate means for separation of the areas? If non-smokers want to prevent smokers from smoking anywhere, even in separate areas, I don't believe it's because of the effect on their health. I think it's more about revenge and controlling other people if that's the case.

[so.cal.fan]

Because Rick, it's like smf says, it is like having a NO PEE section of a pool!
Look, people should be allowed to smoke in their own homes and in outdoor areas. Reasonable people aren't questioning that.
What about spitting on sidewalks or floors of buildings? That is offensive to most people, and I think most places have laws against it.
Let's also not forget your objection to dog crap on sidewalks and areas where we have to walk! YUK.
They have to have some rules you guys or there would be just enough people who think they are too "special" to follow them, and we would all be smelling smoke at dinner or in stores, planes etc, stepping in dog crap, and slipping on spit! YIKES.

:eek:

[TenZin]

you sound like a sick perv. do you like spit in your food?

[so.cal.fan]

Tenzin:
I can't help it! I'm from Southern California! And, we are really weirdos here in Sierra Madre. Hippies and Witches (I'm one of the latter). LOL
We're all very weird out here.....don'tcha know!!!
Don't we know you from somewhere? Was it the old Yahoo board, which for your information was originated in California!


:D :D :D :p

[Show Me the Wire]

Any one listening:


Rules are the problem not the answer. Rules are meant to enforce conformity. Society is in trouble when we have to make rules because society believes it needs to legislate manners. Spitting on the floor, as well as peeing in the pool, should be addressed through manners. Parents should teach children that the aforementioned activities are socially unacceptable. Manners are not substantive enough to be legislated.

However, the smoking issue is more complex. Smoking involves manners and individual rights. Smokers must have the right to smoke in public places. However, smokers should be courteous while smoking, because of the perceived offense nature of smoking. People must understand we do not want government deciding what is and isn’t good for its population.

Our government, in the U.S., is built on the idea of individualism. Its principles are not grounded in the collective.

The Third Reich is a good example of a government knowing what is best for its population. In fact that specific government felt so strongly about what is best for its population it started programs to eliminate many bad habits and people, in order to make a perfect society.

Our society is perfect only through imperfection. Certain individuals must understand others have the same rights too. A non-smoker has the right not to smoke and smokers have the right to smoke. Society works when people are respectful and courteous to each other.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Righteous politicians all too often appear when the people are suppressed.

[TenZin]

yeah your right and so cal is wrong.

[Rick]

socal,

I think you missed what I was saying. What's wrong with having a completely separate section of a restaurant for smokers. Although in some cases in the past it hasn't been done too well, it's certainly not impossible. When I stay at motels, almost all of them have smoking and non-smoking sections. A non-smoker never needs to stay in a room that was ever occupied by a smoker. Some motels also have sections reserved for pets. If I want to bring my pet, I'll have to stay in rooms where other pets have been. Other rooms have never had pets in them, so anyone who might be allergic to them or offended by them need not stay in any room where they've ever been. The owner of the business also has the option of making all rooms non-smoking or non-pets since it's his business but most often will try to do whatever will attract the most business.

At the very least, businesses should be allowed to create private clubs where smokers are welcome and not prevented from smoking. Even that would be a reasonable solution compared with just prohibiting it everywhere.

When I'm in a restaurant, I frequently have to sit next to people with annoying misbehaving children. While I would rather sit in a different area than them, I certainly wouldn't make it illegal to bring children to a restaurant.

[Derek2U]

Rick ... in NYC the anti-smoke fanatics justify their ban on all
smoking with this arguement: Its bad for the WORKERS.
IOW, they say, smokers have rights, but the MAIN issue is
the health of the workers. Why, they ask, do bartenders &
waitresses have to inhale smoke & lessen their lifes? hehe...
they found a ploy.

[so.cal.fan]

Tinzen's comment to Show Me The Wire:
"yeah your right and so cal is wrong".

I agree.

Show Me the Wire: I believe this is from the TAO?
" Throw away holiness and wisdom, and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice, and people will do the right thing".

Rick,
I was half kidding.......but I have been listening to Fox Cable News channel too much.....I need to correct that. I see your point.
We are getting the tail end of your storm here in Sierra Madre.
We are being pelted by rain and hail and gusty winds.
As Winnie the Pooh would say, it's a blustery day. ( I mention WTP because he is a Taoist like SMTW.
Gosh, I sort of feel sorry for the poor smokers who have to stand out and try to have a smoke in the rain!

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
socal,


When I'm in a restaurant, I frequently have to sit next to people with annoying misbehaving children. While I would rather sit in a different area than them, I certainly wouldn't make it illegal to bring children to a restaurant.

I favor a total ban of children in public until the age of 21! <G>

And I agree, seperate sections for smoker/non-smokers is no problem with me.

But SCF......a NO PEE section? C'mon...it's a lot of water...who'd ever know?? <G>

[Rick]

Derek,

Yeah, but what if the smoking places only hired smokers as bartenders or someone who was willing to take the "risk". I'll bet you wouldn't have any shortage of volunteers. After all, try to tell a coal miner that working in a place with secondhand smoke is a health risk. You'd be laughed out of town or accused of having a non-acceptable sex preference.


socal,

Why do you suppose that people feel the need to make laws now about behavior that in the past was just considered bad manners? Is it because people are so ill-behaved these days? I really think that eventually even more examples of bad manners will be covered by laws like, for example, cell phone usage during performances or movies.


But really, I'm not promoting smoking or any other vice nor am I justifying people annoying other people no matter what the reason. What I'm promoting is finding a good solution to problems that let's everyone involved have the maximum freedom. Live and let live as much as possible. Let's not start outlawing everything that's annoying, otherwise all of us will lose something. Yes, even you who think you're perfect are annoying, just by thinking and acting like it.

[Tom]

In NY State, it is now illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving unless you use a hands free set up. This means your hands are free to hold onto your coffee, EggMcMuffin, morning paper, and portable razor. I think this is why they passed this law.
Oh, yeah, I think you can still smoke and drive.

[Rick]

Tom,

Yeah, it's not talking on the cell phone that's the problem. It's talking on the cell phone (or doing anything else) and totally ignoring the traffic around you.

[so.cal.fan]

What the hell is www.absurd.org, Rick?
It looks like some kind of a Mac trap for those of us on Microsoft?

[Rick]

socal,

I'm not sure what it is, just something weird and harmless that I found. It's also totally useless, which is the point I was trying to make.

[so.cal.fan]

I saw all those little "applet" things floating around and thought it might crash my PC!
Hey, I hope your weather has improved up there in No. Nev.
We had a very violent but short storm here yesterday afternoon, but it seems clear today....so far.....
I don't know if it hit Hollywood or not, need to find out, if we are going to bet there today.

[Rick]

socal,

As far as I can tell there's nothing dangerous about that site, at least not to my system. It gets even weirder if you follow the links past the first page. But I'm not going to mention any more because I think someone took it too seriously.

We get a break here in the weather today apparently but more is probably coming tomorrow night.

[sq764]

Hey Rick, I was thinking about you the other night. I dropped my wife off at her bowling league and when I came back, I saw the owner and chatted with him. I said I guess your business has taken a hit, and he said actually, its been the best thing. He said the few people that dropped out of the leagues because of the smoking ban were overshadowed by the wave of new people signing up because the whole alley was smoke free..

I must admit, even I was surprised.

[PaceAdvantage]

Rick,

I'm a little late to the conversation here. Just wanted to clarify my position on sq764 having a link to his website on his signature. Since he is a good contributor to the board, and since I didn't even notice his signature until you pointed it out, I'm going to let it slide. No, sq764 and I have no special relationship. I don't think I've ever even e-mailed the guy....

Even though I talk a good game about no free advertising, I can't really enforce every little thing. Sq764 is a good contributor...he's not coming on here and ramming his site down our throats. I will be more lenient with quality contributors.

Same thing with Dave Schwartz, Handle, Barry Meadow, and others. They all have a lot more to contribute than just "come see what I have to offer." With those types, I let stuff slide....now the guy who just joined the board, and has 5 posts telling us what a great deal he has for us....THIS kind of blatant stuff I will respond to.....

Hope this clears things up....


==PA


PS. Now, where are those new "Rules Of Conduct" which I drew up about 6-8 months ago but never officially rolled out???? LOL

[Rick]

PA,

Well, the policy doesn't really seem fair to the other advertisers since nobody else has and advertisement and link to a web site on every post they make. But, it's your board and you can do what you want. I'd rather have a separate advertising forum where all of them can post whatever they want. That way, they'd get a chance to advertise to those who want that kind of thing, and the rest of us would be spared the in-your-face messages on every post. On the other hand, maybe I should start advertising something too.


sq764,

Well, I'm glad it worked out right for the bowling alley. Of course, he didn't need a law for him to make it a non-smoking establishment if he thought it would improve business. I just moved from the Phoenix area where one of the cities, Tempe, enacted a similar ban a while back. Now, the restaurant and bar owners are all trying to work out a compromise solution because they've lost so much of their business to neighboring communities. So, I guess if you want to make something like that work, you have to make sure there's nowhere else for smokers to choose to do business.

By the way, nobody ever complains about secondhand smoke at rock concerts. (sq764, it's a joke).

[Lefty]

A few yrs ago, a small casino on the LV Strip(Silver City)made their whole casino a "no smoking Casino" They lost so much business they had to reverse the policy.

[Rick]

Lefty,

The same thing happened in Reno. I think it was the Ponderosa. Dave probably remembers it better than I do. It's not that surprising that there are more smokers among gamblers. As a matter of fact, Nevada ranks #1 in percentage of smokers. I think Utah is last. On the Nevada/Utah border you have the towns of Wendover, Utah and West Wendover, Nevada adjacent to one another. Guess which town is gaining population and which is losing.

sq764,

No, I don't think it's because people like smokers better.

[sq764]

I hate to bring a humanitarian side into this, but did anyone think of the potential lives that are saved by this? Sure, 99% of the smokers in Delaware will probably continue to smoke, but what if 5,000 or 10,000 people got frustrated about not going to these establishments and just chose to quit.. That's 5-10,000 lives saves (potentially)..

Just a thought..

[Rick]

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are more bowlers in Utah.

sq764,

Stop driving and I'll believe that you're sincere about saving lives.

[sq764]

Smoking kills people, second hand smoke can kill people.
Driving does not kill people, accidents kill people.

[Rick]

Pollution does kill people and driving more creates both more accidents and more pollution. More mass transportation is a better solution but people won't fund it or use it because convenience and cost are more important than saving lives.

I was in my local Wal Mart today and noticed that you have to be 18 to buy Superglue. Apparently some morons must be sniffing the stuff. Or maybe they're kidnapping people by gluing them somewhere. Anyway, it reminds me of someone my wife knew as a teenager who sniffed gasoline. Maybe we should make the minimum age to buy gasoline 18 too. That would help to keep some of the more dangerous drivers off the road too. See, I care about saving lives too.

Also, did you know that there's nitrous oxide (laughing gas) in whipped cream cans. In order to protect our children, I think it should be illegal for them to buy aerosol whipped cream too. It'll probably save the lives of a few more morons.

[hurrikane]

on anouther note...I see where they raised the drinking age to 25 in West Virginia

in an effort to get alcohol out of the high schools :D

[sq764]

Rick, I see where you are trying to go with this, but when was the last time you went to a bar or the track and someone shot you in the mouth with a whip cream can, or threw gasoline on you, or even shoved glue in your nose?

I know when I used to go to the track, I wouldn't come home smelling like glue or gas or whipped cream, but I would smell like smoke..

[Rick]

sq764,

Are you saying that you voluntarily went into the smoking area so that you could complain? I'm only advocating separate areas instead of a total ban.

Anyway, it's pissing off my wife now that I'm spending so much time responding to your sh** and not paying attention to her, so this is it. End of argument. You and all of the other self-righteous people WIN.

[sq764]

Not self-righteous.. I didn't make the law, I just agree with it..

Just remember, under your scenario, in addition to a special section for smokers, they should have a special section for gas sniffers and whipped cream inhalers..

[Show Me the Wire]

" Who understands does not preach; who preaches does not understand"

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Remeber before you post make the smart choice and reserve your words.

[so.cal.fan]

Show Me The Wire:
Is that sort of like "them that knows don't tell and them that tells don't know"?:D

[Show Me the Wire]

so.cal.fan

I think each phrase has a separate and distinct meaning. I perceive preaching as telling people how to act or what to do and perceive them that don't know as trying to impress others with their knowledge.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Reality is perception

[superfecta]

Originally posted by sq764
Not self-righteous.. I didn't make the law, I just agree with it..

Just remember, under your scenario, in addition to a special section for smokers, they should have a special section for gas sniffers and whipped cream inhalers.. If that what you got from the posts sq,it doesn't make sense to try and make a point with you,you didn't get it.(hint:smoking,like it or not is still legal )

[Rick]

Well, I think in order to be fair we should also outlaw barbeques and campfires. I really can't stand it when I go to a barbeque and come back smelling like smoke. And when I'm camping, other people's campfires have the same effect. Of course, I don't engage in either of those activities myself because I don't want to take any increased risk from the smoke and want to help save the lives of others.

I see the error of my ways now and apologize for not realizing that sq764's logic is flawless and impeccable.

Since I've received about 100 e-mails from this guy in the last week trying to argue about one thing or another in addition to this tedious argument here, I've decided to surrender.

[Rick]

sq764,

And no, I don't want to argue about how much you've been arguing either.

[Lefty]

sq764, yours is the same arument all liberals proffer: "we are taking away your rights to save your life." Please stop trying to protect people against themselves.
I don't think 2nd hand smoke kills people. There have been studies done that refute the fact that 2nd hand smoke kills and have been quashed by the left because it doesn't reach the conclusions they want.
This is not really about saving lives: It's the tip of the iceburg to limit private prperty rights and to tax the hell out of everything in existence even more than it's being taxed now.
And you are falling for it.

[Rick]

Lefty,

And think of the poor lawyers, whose income will be impacted if we reduce the pool of "victims" they can file lawsuits for.

I'm always amazed at how happy people are when a law is passed that benefits them at someone else's expense, then so angry at when one goes the opposite way. I call these kinds of things "lemming laws" because the mindless lemmings always go along and nod their heads in approval. But I guess it's just human nature.

Watch what's happening here in Nevada now. They have plans to increase taxes on everything except gaming, which is a sacred cow.

[sq764]

Superfecta, I know smoking is legal, but where did you find a law that inhaling whipped cream and sniffing gas is illegal? Seriously, if there is a law out there that makes these illegal, I want to know.

[sq764]

It seems that a lot of you think that this law restricts the rights of people. What about the right to go to an indoor establishment and experience a smoke-free environment?

Don't non-smokers have the right to do that? If you are against the law, of course you think that rights were lost here. But if you are for it, you can see that some rights were actually enabled.

[Show Me the Wire]

Is it really the lawyers? An elderly lady purchases a hot cup of coffee from McDonalds and holds it btween her thighs while her grandson drives the car. Unfortunately, while the car is in motion the coffee spilss on the elderly lady, what a surprise. She is so outraged she seeks out an attorney to sue McDonalds for her injuries caused by spilt hot coffee she placed between her thighs while sitting in a moving vehicle. This action by McDonalds so outraged her peers that they awarded a substantial sum to the ederly lady because McDonalds was negligent for serving hot cofee to an elderly lady, who in turn placed it between her thighs in a moving vehicle.

The lawyer was hired by the victim. The pool of victims was increased by the elderly lady's peers in her community when her peers decided to give the elderly lady and her lawyer the money. Is it really the lawyers?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Nature acts without intent

[Rick]

Well, some think we need more laws and some think we need more liberty. That's what politics is all about, and it looks like people favor more laws these days. Those familiar with the actions of the Communists during the 50's and 60's will probably not favor quite so much government control.

[sq764]

The smoking law is not a government law, its a state law.

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

Your state doesn't have a state government?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

The more I experience the less I know.

[Rick]

SMTW,

Well, the lawyers are more likely to take a case that they think will be successful since their share will usually be larger in that case. So, in the past they may not have been willing to take a case on a contingency basis that they thought was so absurd that it had no chance to win. But, once people started winning these cases based on the idea that someone else is liable for the "victim's" mistakes, we had an increased number of people contacting lawyers and also an increased number of cases being accepted by lawyers. So, it's really both. I don't necessarily blame the lawyers, since it's just a business opportunity for them. And you can't blame the "victims" for trying to score some easy money. I'd blame the juries that award unreasonable sums of money for situations that are at least partly the "victim's" fault.

It's like how people think about insurance companies. If you make a false or outlandish claim you can say that it's just taking money from the company. But, of course, everyone's insurance rates go up as a result so you're really stealing from other policyholders.

Many people think the same way about taxes. If they cheat, it's just costing the government and everyone hates the government. But, of course it really costs the rest of us in the end.

[Show Me the Wire]

Rick:

I believe you understand.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Rick]

SMTW,

It's the state of confusion. Sorry, I couldn't pass that one up.

[so.cal.fan]

sq764:

You really should move to So. California. Look, you can leave your dog outside most of the year, and go in any building......of any kind.......and NO one will be smoking.
If you smoke here you are considered an outcast of the highest order. Like, it just isn't trendy, don't you know.

[sq764]

I was just out there in Southern Cal.. You people drive too slow, I'll stay on the East Coast :-)

(But I absolutely love the sourdough bread a little Northi in San Fran..)

[Rick]

socal,

Anything people who move here from California do is called "Californication". I saw a bumper sticker that I'd like to have. It said, "Welcome to Nevada. Now go home".

[so.cal.fan]

How do you "hide" out there, Rick?
You are originally from California, are you not?
I don't think people in So. Nevada hate us. After all, we really do support Las Vegas.
Now, this is interesting, Rick. I wasn't aware they hated us in Reno. I know they hate us in Oregon.
I have a theory.........it is the Northern Californians they hate!
They are bad sports.......that is for sure..........I never go to No. Calif. I hate their racing...........:D

[Rick]

socal,

It's true that I grew up in California and had to go back there several times but I haven't lived there since 1990 which is about when the yuppies really started taking over. California politics is way too liberal for me. Nevada has always been my favorite state but is being invaded by Californians, especially in Las Vegas, which is why I don't like Las Vegas much any more.

One reason ex-Californians are so unpopular is that they pay too much for housing when they move to neighboring states, which drives up the prices for others. The locals don't appreciate paying higher prices just because someone is ignorant of the correct price.

Also, Nevada has always been a "live and let live" kind of place and most long time residents like it that way. We're really don't like adopting everyone else's idea of passing lots of laws against everything and taxing everything that moves. Nevadans favor independence, which is good for people with minority opinions. Californians favor conformity, which is perfect for people with majority opinion who want others to conform.

We have a long history of fighting the federal government when they try to interfere with us. Yucca Mountain is the latest battle, and don't be too sure that we won't win.

If it makes you feel better, they also don't like Las Vegas here. Same kind of north/south thing that you have there. In both cases it has to do with the northern minority population being outvoted by the southern majority on everything. And, of course, I don't even need to mention the difference in the quality of life.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by sq764
Superfecta, I know smoking is legal, but where did you find a law that inhaling whipped cream and sniffing gas is illegal? Seriously, if there is a law out there that makes these illegal, I want to know. is it is against the law to ingage in "huffing"which is to smell any product until you get high.Gas,whippets,glue,paint you name it.But the law is rarely enforced because the people reduced to this are poor,brain dead lowlifes and thereby not profitable or rehabilitatable.

[Rick]

superfecta,

And you won't stop it by banning any of the products that they use. These people are so far beyond help that they'll always find some otherwise harmless substance to abuse. Many of these products are not sold to those under 18 here, but I'm not sure if it's a law or just something that businesses have agreed upon.

Something similar that has come up recently in the news involves violent video games, which are supposed to be voluntarily regulated by the businesses selling them. Apparently, policies at most stores are not very well enforced and we may very well need a law to prevent children from buying these products. But, we're talking about children here and nobody believes that you should have the same rights as adults when you're a child.

[Derek2U]

When I was about 10 or so I recall entering a "break balls"
developmental stage and so, after a lot of miss deeds, I was
in a calm period & home from school 1 day reading Kahil Gabran
book at the kitchen table, looking SO PERFECT. Then, kapow,
in one sentence I saw a great argument: As KG wrote this sentence to parents: "Although Your Children Come From You,
They Are NOT Yours; they are their Unfolding Selves." hehe ...
I walked into the living room to read that aloud and my dad,
who never ever showed any temper got up & playfully grabbed
me by my throat & said .... "D ... if that thought so much as enters
your head space until your 18, I'll send you to that military school
in New Jersey." ,,,, yikes, I stopped unfolding in my usual ways.

[sq764]

Rick, you said "These people are so far beyond help that they'll always find some otherwise harmless substance to abuse."


Now isn't that passing judgement? Its ok for the government to deem 'huffing' illegal because its damaging to one's health, but if the government were to ban cigarettes, you wouldn't like it. What is the difference here?

[Tom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
[B]Is it really the lawyers? .......
The lawyer was hired by the victim. The pool of victims was increased by the elderly lady's peers in her community when her peers decided to give the elderly lady and her lawyer the money. Is it really the lawyers?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Yes. One would expect, that by virtue of the advanced educational background at least, a lawyer would be a responsibly person and conduct himelf and his practice in a reasonable fashion. this lawyer was a bottom feeder. A scum bag. He was not serving the legal system or society-he ws chasing an ambulance. There is no occupation more reprehensible, IMHO, than lawyers. There is a big difference between competent legal representation and this crap. The judge that allowed this farce to continue is also a mental midget.
Anyone stupid enough to put hot coffee between her legs in a car
deserrves whater happen - too bad it didn't spill on her head. There would have been no damages. Hope she chokes on her settlement. Literally. This is one worthless old bag. Be real nice if she got mugged cashing the check! HEHEHE

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
SMTW,

Many people think the same way about taxes. If they cheat, it's just costing the government and everyone hates the government. But, of course it really costs the rest of us in the end.

The operative words here being "in the end!" <G>

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
superfecta,

And you won't stop it by banning any of the products that they use.

If glue were outlawed, only outlaws would have glue!
That could be a sticky situation.

[sq764]

Tom, this couldn't be any worse than the guy suing the fast food chains because he got fat eating their food..

[Rick]

sq764,

As usual, you missed my point. I didn't say I supported banning anything for adults. If you want to regulate what's sold to children that's OK with me but, as I said, I don't think that would stop anyone from abusing things if they were so inclined. Banning "huffing" is like making it illegal for someone to commit suicide. I don't really care what they do to themselves.

The other point you're always missing is that I'm not pro-smoking, I'm just in favor a of person having the right to choose to engage in that activity in a separate area. It's none of your business whether it's good for their health or not. When half of the population was smoking, this issue never came up. But, once the percentage of smokers dropped below about 30%, the tyranny of the majority took over.

I figure about 20% of people are tolerant and won't try to force others to conform to their way of thinking. The other 80% are just in favor of whatever's in their self interest (read selfish). So, if 35% of people are engaging in an activity, they'll be allowed to continue. If that drops to 25% though, then they'll be outvoted by the intolerant majority since they'll only be able to muster about 45% of the votes between themselves and the tolerant people. If you look around, I think you'll see that this theory could explain a lot of other things that have happened.

[sq764]

So Rick, then why does the government make crack or PCP or pot or heroine illegal? I mean these substances are deadly, just like smoking is to the person, so why should they interfere with what a person wants to destroy themself with?

Why is it that if I go to a schoolyard and give a kid pot, its worse than giving a kid a cigarette? There is no difference, but the government has made one illegal and one not. (Yes, I know its illegal to smoke underage, but that isn't the point)

[Rick]

sq764,

I don't care if adults use drugs of any kind as long as they're not so expensive that the user commits crimes to support his habit. Notice that making cigarettes more expensive is the major strategy being used to stop smoking. Right, and that stops heroin addicts from using heroin.

And I'm tired of spending taxpayer money to lock up drug users anyway. If they're not committing other crimes then I don't want to pay to keep them in prison.

And, I didn't say that driving while intoxicated was OK either, regardless of the substance. It should be illegal to drive when sleepy, but I don't know how you'd enforce such a thing.

You already know my position on children so I won't repeat it.

[Rick]

30% of the population voted for this law:

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%257E1726%257E975904,00.html

See what I mean?

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

If you believe there is no difference between cigarettes and the list of stimulants and depressants you compared to cigarettes, I truly believe you live in the state of confusion.

The only one that I agree is deadly is heroine, if mainlined.

Also, I don't think you can quote one accepted study that unequivacally states there is a direct cuase and effect that smoking will kill you. The best the studies do is state that there is a high correlation between smoking and certain diseases that can kill.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Remember before you post make the smart choice and reserve your words.

[Rick]

I still say that making it illegal for someone to smoke in the open air in public is like making it illegal to barbeque or have a campfire in a campground. And worrying about secondhand smoke but not worrying about exhaust fumes is just purely ridiculous.

[sq764]

SMTW, please explain to me from a health standpoint, how pot is in a different category than cigarettes.

Or to be more specific, let's compare someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and someone that smokes one joint each day.

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

One is a halucinogenic and the other is not.

One is a depressant the other is not.

One impairs your judgment regarding spatial relationships and coordination, the other does not.

If you do not understand the differences between the items you listed, I understand why you take the positions you do.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Reality is based on perception.

[sq764]

Hmm, so cigarettes,or more distinctly, tobacco, used by relative newbies, does not cause light-headedness or dizziness, which, in fact, does cause coordination impairment.

I remember when I first started dipping skoal, I got so light-headed, there is no way I could drive..

And how can you says its only been one study that has proven the deadly affects of second-hand smoke? I mean are you kidding me?

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

You asked:

"And how can you says its only been one study that has proven the deadly affects of second-hand smoke? I mean are you kidding me?"

I did not infer or explicitly say the above in any of my posts and I am not kidding you.

As I stated before I understand why you take the positions you do.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

My reality is different than yours.

[sq764]

Let me clarify one thing.. I am not anti-smoker at all (contrary to Rick's belief). And I will admit that my personal satisfaction of now being able to go to the track and breathe clean air is selfishly part of my stance.

But I do not feel its an issue of rights. Its an issue of choice now.. For instance, if Delaware tomorrow said that drinking beer is against the law at public businesses, then guess what, when I want to drink beer, I would stay home.

But the reality of the situation is that most people will not deal with this that way. They will keep coming back and will adjust to the law accordingly. Sure, businesses will suffer for now, but I bet you this time next year, everything is back to normal from a business profitability standpoint.

Just like we all complain about the BC Pick 6 fiasco and the drugs and the fixes.. But guess what, the same people that complain about all that are right back at the track betting, knowing that the only true way any of this will be addressed is by boycotting the races. Is anyone prepared to do this??

[Tom]

Originally posted by sq764
Tom, this couldn't be any worse than the guy suing the fast food chains because he got fat eating their food..

If he loses this lawsuit, what is Plan B?
Sue his school board for him being so STUPID?????
They should lock him up for being an ASS.
And a fat one, at that.

[sq764]

SMTW, if you are insinuating that I am justifying marijuana or anything of the sort, you are way off..

I have plenty of friends that smoke cigarettes and plenty more that smoke pot, and I like the just the same if they didn't.


Scott

Reality is that you have no idea why I take the position I do..

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

"But I do not feel its an issue of rights. Its an issue of choice now."

This statement is the crux of my disagreement eith such laws. Why is it not a right and only a choice now? Citizens of the U.S. are entitled to the pursuit of happiness.

How do we draw the line and say what is a right and what now becomes a choice? Believe it or not some local municpalities banned people from using fire pits of any kind citing the second hand smoke argument and health issues. The basis for the ban is second hand smokes kill and people whom suffer from allergies need their health protected from allergy triggering fires.

The non-smoking activists took the next logical leap to limiting peoples' right on their own private property, because we did it for the benefit of the innocent allergy sufferers, the elderly, and the children.

By limiting any type of leagal activity in public property under the auspecious of health benefits and protecting people from their own "bad" habits limits everyones' rights. We are all losers.

Additionally, I do not understand the connection between boycotting races and the public place and rights issues, unless you are suggesting civil disobedience.

Regards,
Show me the Wire

Too much color blinds us

Regards,
Show me the Wire

[sq764]

Civil disobedience?? Try standing up for what you think is right. If you feel the law is wrong, do something about it. Don't go to the track, stay home... It will affect the businesses and therefore will affect the state taxes..

But instead, a year from now, all the smokers will have adjusted to the law, the smoker rate in Delaware will likely be lower and the governor will look like a genius..

One question for you SMTW, in states where this ban is not in place, do citizens have the right to pursue happines if happiness means going to an establishment and not being subjected to smoke?

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

Yes you do, but you also have the obligation to respect the rights of others to pursue happiness in public places. I guess the ruling behavior should be compromise, respect each others rights and do not force specific behaviors upon each other.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Too much color blinds us.

[sq764]

So how can smokers respect the rights of others if those others do not like smelling like, or having to inhale smoke? And I know the immediate thought is a separate smoking sections, but let's be real, those do not work one bit.

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

In my experiences, and I am not a smoker, I have no problem with smoking and non-smoking sections. When I attend a restaurant or any other establishment and sit in the non-smoking section, my clothes do not reek of smoke or even smell of smoke and I do not inhale smoke either.

I guess my experience with smoking and non-smoking sections has been satisfactory. It sure works for me, especially becuase of the bigger issue of personal rights.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

My reality is diffferent than yours.

[sq764]

And if there is no non-smoking section?

[Derek2U]

You sound like a total moron. Go to non-smoking restaurants.
There are plenty.

[Show Me the Wire]

Isn't the answer apparent?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Reality is based on perception>

[sq764]

Dick2u and SMTW, you both just reiterated my point, this is all about choice. Before the smoking ban, non-smokers had the choice to go to non-smoking restaurants. Now when the shoe is on the other foot, its a breach on human rights..

Kind of contradictory, isn't it?

[Derek2U]

Your boring.

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

No. Like I said I understand why you take the positions you do. If you perceive it is a choice, it is a choice. I perceive it as a right to use public places, in a public manner. I was taught in civics we have personal rights and to preserve our personal rights sometimes we have to accept behavior that we do not necessarily endorse.

To re-state the crux of my disagreement with such laws is the limiting of personal rights, which actions are extended to allow more intrusions into are personal rights, based on the tenious public safety arguments of health. I understand you do not mind these intrusions becuase you believe it is a choice and you accept someone else knows what is better for you.

I believe the choice we have to make is to compromise and respect other peoples' rights so my rights will be safe.

Regards,
Show me the Wire

My reality is different than yours.

[sq764]

SMTW, I do not accept the fact that others know what is good for me, but I am not oblivious to the fact that without some type of governmental structure, it would be total chaos.

Its a nice thought that with everyone's cooperation, we could avoid government 'intrusion' into our everyday lives, but that is unrealistic.

Let's face it, if there was no law against drunk driving, I probably would do it all the time. Does that mean its right? No way, but I would then have nothing to fear, regarding fines or jail time. Would you feel safe if, lets say, a state bumped up the DUI level to .2??

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

What does drunk driving have to do with anything we discussed.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Additionally, being intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle is a valid safety issue, as hitting a person with your vehicle at sufficient speed has been proven to have a direct cause and effect on the health of the struck individual.

Yes, to expect the government to stay out of our every day lives is unrealistic, becuase of all the people that know what is good for you.

And if some one needs a law to tell them operating a motor vehicle while they are intoxicated is not appropriate behavior, that person is irresponsible and probably needs some one else to tell them how they should behave.

You do not have to explain any further, I understand.

Regards,
Show me the Wire

Perception is reality.

[sq764]

You say: "And if some one needs a law to tell them operating a motor vehicle while they are intoxicated is not appropriate behavior, that person is irresponsible and probably needs some one else to tell them how they should behave."


That's very hypocritical, considering that people smoke pot, or smoke cigarettes or drink too much (me), or bet too much.. Its all inapropriate behavior, so are we all irresponsible idiots??

[Derek2U]

hehe ... comparing driving a ton car drunk with smoking a cig.
some peeps think a night out on the town is Olive Garden then
home by 10.

[sq764]

Wait until you are married, that IS a night out!!

[so.cal.fan]

"some peeps think a night out on the town is Olive Garden then
home by 10".


Derek2U:

That is exactly my idea of a night on the town! Smoking or non-smoking!
A day at Santa Anita and dinner at the OG is really cool stuff to us hicks here in Sierra Madre!

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:
If you quote use the whole quote and put it into context

"Driving is a privilege, not a right. Additionally, being intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle is a valid safety issue, as hitting a person with your vehicle at sufficient speed has been proven to have a direct cause and effect on the health of the struck individual."

My statement was made in the context of this quote. The point being there is a direct cause and effect relationship between health of the person struck by a motor vehicle operated by an intoxicated driver. It implies if a person does not undersatnd how intoxication mixed with the operation of a motor vehicle is dangerous to innocent people pursuing their happiness in public places, that person is irresponsible with his choices regarding the abuse of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle.

My statement has no relationship to anything else you said.

Believe me I understand, your perception is different than mine.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

My reality is different than yours.

[sq764]

I know you don't want to realize this, but you can substitute 'inhaling the second-hand smoke' and 'smoker' in your post. This was the reason the law was put into place. You can percieve it any way you want, but this is the reality of the basis of the law..

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

The point being there is a direct cause and effect relationship between health of the non-smoker struck by a motor vehicle operated by an intoxicated smoker. It implies if a person does not undersatnd how intoxication mixed with the operation of a motor vehicle is dangerous to innocent non-smokers pursuing their happiness in public places, that smoker is irresponsible with his choices regarding the abuse of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle.

Is that better? I used non-smoker, because inhaling second-hand smoke didn't make sense in my quote.

It probably would be better if I substituted those specific terms in my quote about local municipalities bannig fire pit usage on private property, thus denying people enjoyment and use of their property to prevent the inhalation of smoke.

Regards,
Show me the Wire

My reality is really, really different than yours.

[sq764]

Now you sound like Derek2u.

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

Also, I guess you don't want to realize personal rights are involved.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

My reality is based on my perceptions.

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

Ah personal attacks the last bastion.

My apoligies to derek2u.

Regards
Show Me the Wire

Too much color blinds us.

[sq764]

SMTW, I didn't attack anyone. I was actually called a moron by Derek2u.. Oh well, whatever floats his boat.

You win, you and Rick win. The law is a violation of civil rights and is part of a communistic government. I have been officially warned and made aware of the demise at hand. Thank you Rick.

Well, off to smoke-free Delaware Park for some simo action. Take care fellows..

Scott

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

I am not trying to win. Only stating my perception of the issue.

Hopefully, it made some people think.

Hope they come home for you.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Nature acts without intent

[Tom]

I think they oughta outlaw these damn things.
Whatta you guys think?
D'oh!

[Rick]

He he he (as Derek would say). Sometimes it sure is fun to stir up trouble.

Here's my answer. Anything that people argue about can't be proven to either right or wrong. There was once a time when people argued about whether the earth was flat. People threatened to kill other people if they claimed otherwise, so most people went along in the interest of self preservation and it really didn't matter that much to them anyway. Now, nobody says that the earth is flat so it's not something to argue about anymore. That's what politics is like too, and that's why I take a middle-of-the road position on most controversial issues.

[Tom]

The trouble with living on a round world is that the farther you go to the left, go eventually get back here from the right.

If you stand in parking lot in Iowa on a clear day, you can see the back off your head.

[delayjf]

It's about time, if smokers want to die of Cancer, thats fine I should not have to go down with them. Not to mention all those cig butts thrown down on the ground. I was pumping gas one day when some guy jumps out of his car and flicks his cig right which lands right down by my feet. If I were a cop I'd had out littering fines all day to smokers tossing their butts out the window. I'd say, if smokers don't like it, let them stay home and infect Mommy and the Kids.

[Rick]

You gotta love this article:

http://ktla.trb.com/news/health/ktla-120902hf-air,0,2885668.story?coll=ktla-newshealth-1

[Rick]

OK, which one would you guys rather spend time with? The smoking actress (warning, R rated):

www.charlizeonline.com/photos/mags/misc/smokin.jpg

or, the non-smoking Senator:

www.gambits.com/childers/senator-hillary.jpg

[Rick]

Sorry, the link didn't work. But you get the idea.

[smf]

Originally posted by Rick
OK, which one would you guys rather spend time with? The smoking actress (warning, R rated):

www.charlizeonline.com/photos/mags/misc/smokin.jpg

or, the non-smoking Senator:

www.gambits.com/childers/senator-hillary.jpg

re: Hellary pic...Poor Clinton. I bet he is every bit as whipped at home as Al Bundy was (Married With Children show). Even worse, his daughter ain't no Christina Applegate.

[so.cal.fan]

Rick and smf:
You guys are mean!
Hillary is a woman in her 50's. Give her a break.
And Chelsea is a nice young woman, smf.
Don't tell me you wouldn't date her.....IF SHE COULD PICK HORSES!!! LOL

[smf]

SCF,

Chelsea is way too young for me, but I think GWB's daughter's are much hotter <G>.

Hellary's looks doesn't bother me. It's "her" that bothers me, lol.

[Derek2U]

I got this crazy slant for asian women. Chalky white skin and
spade-black straight hair. Yikes I'd give up my beatle cd collection
for 2 nights with 10 of them.

[Doug]

DEREK2U WRITES,

I got this crazy slant for asian women. Chalky white skin and
spade-black straight hair


And horney an hour later.

Doug

[Dave Schwartz]

DOug,

LOL - That was funny.

Funny, you have the same sense of humor as a "Doug" I know that lives in Las Vegas. I assume that is you?

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

After reading this thread, I guess I understand the Middle East a little bit better. We will see Israelis and Palestiniens sharing a barbeque long before we resolve this smoking issue.
HeHeHe. (*cough*)

[Rick]

Derek,

What happened to the French one you were going to marry? You've got a short attention span guy.

[Rick]

socal,

I like Chelsea. I just don't like her parents. And I like plenty of women over 50. How about Ann Margaret and Tina Turner? You'd have to see the picture to understand why I picked Charlize Theron. But maybe you wouldn't appreciate it as much as I did.

[smf]

>>>And I like plenty of women over 50. How about Ann Margaret and Tina Turner? <<<

...and Raquel Welch and Stephanie Powers and Barbie Benton and Anne Archer and Bernadette Peters and.....

Beauty is only skin deep; Hellary and Babs Streisand just don't get it for me in any way shape or form.

[Tom]

What do you get if you cross a crooked politcian with a dishonest lawyer?

CHELSEA!

[Derek2U]

my span is about 5.5 minutes ,,,, hey, Viva la france but I'm
never gonna be comatose.