Posted on 09/10/2019 2:17:51 AM PDT by C19fan
After living in LA for so long,I’m surprised he didn’t move to the French Riviera for the similar climate.
Given how wealthy he is, why didn’t he buy a couple restaurants and make them allow smoking?
Conservatives constantly buy into the lies of the left. You see it here every day. Second hand smoke. Rape is about power, not sex. Meat consumption is killing us. Air bags are good for us even if we get our faces burned off. Children should not play on the front lawn, they’ll get abducted.
As Groucho said, whatever it is, I’m against it!
I’m with you there.
He’s probably sick of alot of things about Los Angeles.
Here in my small city, we have at least two restaurants that allow smoking. Very hazy atmosphere, I must say.
YOUR leftist environmental hypocrisy is so noted.
But I digress...
Now David Hockney is 82 and wants to light one up in a restaurant in France. Well hell, that was the norm for every restaurant in Iowa when I was a kid if my memory serves me correctly. Somehow, I doubt that David would ever had said, "Those Wheatlanders know how to live. The folks at Mac's Triangle know about pleasure." Just typing that gives me a chuckle. Yeah... he'd have run right out and bought a villa overlooking the Wapsipinicon after 25 rapturous minutes (10 minutes if it had been raining a lot in the previous months).
I hated my dad's cigarette smoking back then (he quit way too late), but I do miss the days before the PTB figured out how to manipulate large segments of a population into forcing other segments into straightjackets- whether anti-tobacco or pro-homosexual straightjackets.
Ah’ve invited yew a thousand times to Bud’s Ceegar City, son, but yew never shew up. Ah’m a-thinkin’ yew goin’ health-nazi on me. Ah’m mighty sad.
Aw HAIL naw.
Good ta hear it.
Smoke bans started rolling out in the 90s. In the 60s many smoked.
If there were any truth to the hazards of second hand smoke, anyone who had a job before 1990, say those 1974 and earlier, would be dead now.
I smoke an occasional pipe and occasional cigar, just because I know that by exercising my right to do as I please, there is a Leftist out there somewhere whose head is exploding because they cannot control my personal life.
That, and I find the pipe relaxing. Cigars are usually when I am with guys hanging out...:)
I grew up in a house where I was the only one in a family of eight who didn’t smoke, and it never bothered me, but as I got older, I refused to go to the store and buy them for my mom. I don’t care if people smoke, but I do dislike it when I see people ignoring no smoking signs, particularly near hospital entrances, but it is more of a rule-breaking aspect rather than smoking.
I don’t smoke often, but when I do, I am always by myself, outdoors in my hammock or in front of a fire...and I always make sure I shower before I get into bed for the night-I don’t like going to bed smelling like smoke, and I know my wife doesn’t like it.
While we’re making comparisons to how leftists treat Trump, I should point out that you seem to be doing the same thing the president’s critics do. That is distort a comment into something other than what was said. The poster simply stated a desire that all smokers leave. There was no mention of exile, which would be something forced on them.
Maybe he’ll elect to stay stoned on opiates instead of taking the chemicals. He’s old enough to make an informed decision.
Actually, this is a property rights issue.
If you don't want smoke in your home, that's perfectly fine and within your property rights.
If the airline or restaurant permit smoking, it is their right as the property owner and that air is a free good in their space, just as is the lighting/darkness/absence of sunlight (another free good).
If you, as a "renter" of the airline or restaurant's property rights, thinks smoking is bad, your choice is to leave or not...unless you abhor property rights like the left statists and believe EVERYBODY gets to have a say in whether or not people can smoke, drink, must brush their teeth before entering, wear deodorant, play loud rap, or set a dress code on SOMEONE ELSE'S private property.
Furthermore, if you give license to the state to ban smoking in airplanes and restaurants, then it is a hop, skip, and a jump before that state tells bakers what kind of cakes they can make.
I don't smoke, and I'm willing to "endure" the "little offenses" that accommodate the joys of private property that typically set off snowflakes. As they say, if you don't like the weather, then move.
“I wish the rest of the smokers would leave too.”
How about you schwantz lutschers have your space and we (smokers) have ours? But oh no....you have to have complete control. Selfish bastards....go be a democrat.
Next is give up your guys so everyone can be “safe”. To be followed by get on this bus to the re-education camp so you can get your head right.
The painting looks like something I saw at a high school art show a couple of years ago.
I guess I should have bought it for the $30 asking price.
“But on the other side I’ve had compliments and even a female cop said she liked the smell.”
I remember back when America was still America that women would comment on the nice smell of my pipe, Now, they bitch about it.
I used to smoke, and I enjoyed it. But I realize at one point my life that I grew up from a generation that really didn’t know a lot about smoking but gained knowledge from medical observation. I realized that I needed to just stop, and I did. Not that I haven’t smoked since but it’s rare that I do. And as a nonsmoker, I can understand smokers just as I can understand non-smokers.
But smoking in public places really does affect everybody, and many of those people who are now in the majority would rather not be affected.
But that doesn’t mean smokers should be completely ostracized, and in regards to this article if that guy wants to move to France so he can smoke in a restaurant, he’s an adult, with Free Will and he’s allowed to do so.
(Completely off subject but somehow oddly comparative)
In fact that’s what the police tell concerned loved ones when family members go mad, and those families could do nothing about it because the mental breakdown was occurring to an adult and because free will allowed that person to remain out there until a legal boundary was crossed. People die because of those mindsets.
It’s a shifting of liabilities but the liability ultimately rests with the individual or in cases of insanity, with the responsible spouse or parent, whose hands are often tied because of free will and the non-participation of agencies that were designed to help but refused to do so because of lible concerns.
The government will do everything it can to deflect liability but the liability always comes back to the individual and the individual is the one who ultimately pays that ultimate price for libel. That’s why lawyers thrive, to deflect liability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.