Posted on 01/08/2005 9:20:21 AM PST by SheLion
I am surprised Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson didn’t refer to the smokers as swine in a pig sty. Isn’t that, after all one of the one of the first images that comes to mind when think of a pen? Before I am offended by “da mayor” I would have to be offended by the reference to the term smoking pens. In a city and state that was founded by a group of people so seriously reviled for their own beliefs in years past, you would think they would be among the first to take a “live and let live” attitude about the behavior and choices of others. Clearly the past lessons learned about intolerance by the Mormons must now have been forgotten.
Only 88 airports nationwide is hardly a mandate to make one’s own airport smoke free. Furthermore if these “smoking kiosks” are eliminated it will only cause people to find other places to smoke. Delta Airlines is correct in standing behind the rights of the smokers. Perhaps they have taken note that incidence of “air rage” only became prevalent AFTER smoking was banned on aircraft. It should also be noted that since the ban, they no longer use fresh air to ventilate the planes; instead, they just run the air through a filtrations system which in an enclosed environment further exacerbates the problem.
Mayor Anderson’s pompous arrogance in stating that the ban will help smokers to “break the habit” is outrageous. It is not his job to be neither a social engineer nor the arbiter of personal choices. I do know however, that as long as Salt Lake City and Utah continue down this Draconian path of heavy handed intolerance, I will avoid their state in very way possible. I will not travel to it, I will not travel thru it, and I will not support my company scheduling a convention there.
BANS ARE BAD! Read it again, BANS ARE BAD! Banning blacks from white facilities---BAD! Banning books---BAD! Banning Beer---Bad! If the people of Utah agree that these bans are bad, then they must also agree that banning smoking is also BAD! I would certainly hope at this juncture they are starting to realize that any action, that would favor a smoking ban of any type, will only create far more harm than good. IN all fairness I should note their may be one kind of good ban. That of course would be banning Mayor Anderson from further political office at the next election.
LOL...great graphic!!
Hehe! I feel like the 4 of us are standing in our booths waiting for the next anti to crawl out from under their rocks and come in here. :)
I'd prefer that they leave us alone so we wouldn't have to worry about it. But judging by the antis jumping in and hurling insults on these threads, I don't think THAT'S gonna happen anytime soon.
That's OK. I'm not an angry violent person -contrary to rumor. I'll be as gentle as I can.
I know that just mentioning PM sets your fur on end.......mine too!!!!
However, my reason for pointing these things out is not to get you riled, but to inform others who may be unaware of PM's practices.
It does sort of feel that way, actually, lol. So let me ask a question, if you don't mind.
Does you have any idea of what basis these anti-smoking ordnances get passed on? Would you say this is a result of state's rights run amok? What LEGAL basis do they have for being able to implement this, aside from the tyranny of the majority?
Am I missing something? Or are they leveraging other health codes that force business owners to serve their patrons in a cock-roach and salmonella free environment? I am really curious about this, and admittedly ignorant on some aspects of this.
Yep, and at the bar you made sure your smoke didn't go into anybody elses face, and they didn't freak out if a particle of odor reached their delicate nostrils. There was an understanding, a social compact.
Today you have a bunch of spoiled brats and self-righteous do-gooders trying to dictate... something, anything, as long as they can feel some sense of personal power. Control.
Here's my deal. Can't carry matches to the airport as well as having to endure being humiliated by the government. Won't go there. Can't smoke at the bar, won't go there. Can't smoke at the restaurent, won't go anywhere that doesn't have a drive up window. Can't smoke at work, well I have to work, but I'll find a way.
I smoked pot for 25 years and I never got busted and by God if they make tobacco effectively illegal I'll smoke that too. And to hell with accommodating the antis, appeasement never solved anything.
You can call it leftist, or one can say they're a conservative, but the truth is this is just one more way of the communists trying to drive wedges between us and wash away the foundations of our society. They're attacking from all sides now. Interesting times, indeed.
I have a theory in it's very early stages Here goes:
Since I started rolling my own cigarettes, I have been smoking less. MUCH less. The reason is because I just don't want to smoke another one right after putting the last one out. The need for another nicotine fix isn't as strong like it was when I would smoke a Marlboro or some other store brand. I began to wonder why.
I wonder if the nicotine amount is lessened in the store brands. I wonder if it's intentional to make the smoker want to light up sooner because the nicotine isn't as prevelant as it would be naturally in regular tobacco. This would equal an increase in usage, thus an increase in smoking, and an increase in sales. I wonder if the number of cigarettes smoked -being increased by the nicotine "Modifications" in store brand cigarettes- is the actual cause of the ailments that smokers endure. I wonder if smoking plain, unmodified tobacco is actually healthier because the natural nicotine content in the normal tobacco is real and pure.
I wonder if I'm not the only one to think of this theory.
That is one ugly frog!!!!!
Pat Nixon and Jackie Kennedy smoked too----also Rehnquist and Scalia. Don't forget Bette Davis---wouldn't do an interview in her later years unless she could smoke while being interviewed.
The 2 French filmakerr brothers who had the great 9/11 footage were interviewed on Charlie Rose in 2002-----Both smoked during the interview and that really surprised me.
We are in good company
I wouldn't mind anti-smoking folks being on this thread if they would stick to the topic and not deliver unsolicited advice on our habit.
Talk about why we should believe that it's legal to ban smoking, and then we've got a debate. Arguing that it's the government's job to regulate moral vices is an argument I don't agree with, for example, but it's better than GET YOUR SMOKE OUT OF MY AIR!! LOL
Oh me too! I remember one guy was really mad at me because I was bashing PM and he has stock in Phillip Morris. I didn't care. I still said I hope PM folded. He didn't take kindly to that.
A boycott isn't a ban!!!!!
No flame here, I spent hours reading a 900+ thread about divorce a few days ago. It was amazing what I saw there, and on some other threads I've been on as late. I think you articulated it very well.
So much of your own questions actually answer your questions...which, BTW are perfectly legit.
I could expound for pages and hours in response to all of your questions, as could SheLion.
You're not naive and you're not missing anything. The antis use any and all arguements, regardless of how bogus to get these laws/ordinances/regulations passed. They have lots of money and the ear of the PC media. They play on emotions and rely very little on fact.
You know the adage.........tell a lie often enough.....
This past year Wayne County, (home of Detroit) halfheartedly tried to get a ban imposed on bars and restaurants. Fortunately it didn't fly.
What appears to be the case in all these anti-tobacco movements, you have a small group of well to do individuals with nothing but time on their hands who decided to take it upon themselves to "cleanse" the atmosphere of the bars and restaurants "THEY" frequent without giving a single thought to the literally thousands of other establishment scattered throughout their counties.
Detroit, Dearborn, Hamtramck to name a couple, are old time industrial towns, inhabited by old time plant workers hanging out in old time neighborhood bars and restaurants. These same bars and restaurants are the kind of places that the nico-nazi do-gooders would never, ever think about entering let alone drive thru these neighborhoods without their doors locked. But yet is is these neighborhood bars that stand to suffer the most from the Do-Gooder bans. These bars are the heart and soul of these communities where the neighborhood plant workers gather after work to shoot the bull, drink shots, shoot pool and smoke cigarettes. After which they return to their homes, go to bed then back to the plant the following morning.
These people are the ones who build your cars, buy the cars they build and just want to be left alone. These people could care less about whether or not the guy sitting next to him in the bar is smoking but these people and their neighborhood bars are the ones who will ultimately suffer at the hands of the do-gooders.
Initially these bar owners will ignore the bans until the do-gooders start sending their nico-nazi scouts out to the neighborhoods to see who is complying and who is not. For those who are not, they will start to be issued fines for noncompliance. First the $200 fines then the $500 fines. After the fines start to mount up then the owners will have to start cutting down on the smokers. When that happens, their life long clientele will say screw it and stay home.
Will the do-gooders come to the rescue? Not hardly! Remember, these are the common folk and the type of people the do-gooders don't even give a passing glance to. Besides, the do-gooders have their own trendy places to sip their wines, drink their martinis and talk trash about who's banging who in their upscale neighborhoods. The shot and a beer joints are the last place they would ever consider visiting...........
Well, when a City Council lays down the laws, who in the town/city is going to go against them? They pound the gravel and that's it. It's a tightly wound web.
Even though the second hand smoke theory has been depleted, the authorities are sticking by their guns that they are "protecting the health of the employee's." Which is a bunch of baloney. Any person that takes a job in a bar knows there will be smoking. It's expected.
But when a nanny state goes in and tells the business owner how to run his business, there is something really wrong with this. Several states are starting to sue over the smoking bans. People are losing business and people are losing their jobs. And now they aren't going to stand for it.
A lot of places have been opened for years, and the business owner isn't about to give it up that easily. So, they are starting to fight back.
Gabz? I am sure you can help answer this as well. :)
And then you're addicted to the patches and gum.
So now we have acceptable addictions and non-acceptable addictions,right.
One addiction profits the pharmaceuticals and one profits the tobacco industry.
I am also addicted(and I'll admit it) to coffee----Is that acceptable or unacceptable?
I agree. Some FReepers hunt, I choose not to. I don't go to hunting threads and insult hunters. Some FReepers ski, I choose not to. Same rule applies.
((BTW, I'm former Navy as well. Gator. USS PELELIU Boatswain's Mate))
LOL.
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.