Posted on 01/10/2005 10:52:26 AM PST by aynrandy
Get the votes for it like the anti's do for smoking bans. Knock yourself out.
Rush playing the victim card...
I was working with some guys starting up a website design and hosting company........all 4 of us smoked, and didn't give a hoot that it was against city ordinances to be smoking in our offices.
We were ready to actually hire someone and had the ad written. It specifically stated "smoking permitted environment, smokers encouraged to apply."
Unfortunately the week before we were planning to put the ad in the paper, our artistic partner suffered a horrendous accident and passed away the week after the ad was supposed to appear. By the time the remaining 3 of us dealt with our own personal grief and the "business" problems his deaths created........we were in no position to hire anyone, so the ad was never placed.
However such ads are perfectly legal in Delaware, and I believe 29 other states. I don't know about it here in Virginia, as I haven't done much in the way of looking for a job since we moved here. Someone needs to be here when the school bus shows up every afternoon, and my husband is perfectly happy with our current arrangement. :)
Your clothes dryer being either elec/gas is also emitting hydro carbons you out of defference to your fellow man should stop using it immediately. If you have porch lights or allow light of any kind to emit from your residence that is light pollution you are blocking out your neighbors view of the stars! Its incredible how inconsiderate you are!
You cannot argue against facts ? No wonder smokers are getting banned more and more everyday. A fresh new legislative session begins in most states with the new year. The state wide bans will be expanded in more states and the driving force is in fact big restaurant chains.
I've got no clue what you're attempting to imply.
The only thing my life depends upon is God.........and the lives of my husband and child and seeing to it said child receives a good education.
There you have it, folks. An admission that if there's a non-smoking place in an area full of smoking places, it will lose business unless NOBODY can have a smoking place.
The anti-smokers want everybody to ban smoking so that a smoking place won't have an economic advantage over them. Amazing that the admission was finally made by one of them. Don't they realize what they're saying?
What is amazing to me is that ancedotal evidence of isolated incidents is used to augment arguments for smoking while if someone used the same evidence to show smoking was dangerous it would yell foul that there is no causitve relationship.
Let me ask a question though. Who knows more about the bottom line. The waitress serving coffee or the executive running the business ?
Why wont you admit that practically any human activity can be viewed as offensive by other humans, of course smoking nazis are really just plain old nazis who feel superior to others so you probably wont respond!
You ignore the truth at your own peril. Now that the smoking bans are in most every major city and many states, the momentum for forcing them on the rest of the country will increase geometrically.
The arguments of private property failed. The arguments that there is no proof of harm by sHs failed. The arguments of mass business failures on account of the bans have not panned out and they have failed.
You are being deliberately obtuse, I think. Of course I can argue with facts! The FACT is that you don't understand that these bans are violating these property owner's rights!!
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's okay to force it on everyone. Reasonable accomodations have been made for an unsubstantiated RISK. Even other non-smokers can see where this is going, and -again- you are being deliberately obtuse if you can't see that sooner or later, they'll come after something you don't agree with, either.
Perhaps you'd like to be forced to drive a certain car, because of the emissions others put out. Only be able to buy "healthy" food because all the rest is bad for you, and grocers aren't allowed to stock it, because someone might get fat or have too much cholesterol. All because "it's not good for you." You really want the government to dictate to you like that?
That's hunky dory with you? Then you really need to rethink what you are doing here.
Some are necessary and some are not. Smoking is not necessary. A smoker can wait one lousy hour to have a cig or go outside. An unheated home can cause a death. Banning vehicles will cause harm. Telling a smoker to wait an hour is minor inconvenience.
The bottom line is do we cater to the convenience of a few for the convenience of the many ?
My my...this thread is going by so fast--with remarkably little if any sensible input from the nannies....
I love cholesterol. Without it, humans wouldn't survive, so the body makes its own cholesterol. Genetically, we're diverse, so some make more than others. Some make too much. Some always have the right amount...cholesterol lowering drugs harm the livers of a significant number of folks--enough so that the enzymes have to be monitored...I suspect the cholesterol-heart disease studies (including Framingham) were seriously flawed, now they're saying inflammation is the major culprit in heart disease.
So, which is it? Heredity, cholesterol, inflammation, lifestyle, smoking, bad attitude?
I come from very long-lived majority smoking people. Only one person ever died from cancer, that was my mother, at 44, from a Kreukenberg Tumor (what they called it at the time. Name may have changed) 32 years ago...heart disease gets us in our late 80s and 90s, except for one nephew who died at 17 from influenza-related cardiomyopathy, not very many years ago...
And I'm not a big-time smoker, but I am BIGTIME on smokers' rights, AND I VOTE. I do not have emphysema, I do not have a cough, and I will die when the Good Lord sees fit to take me.
First, that is untrue. All property rights are created and protected by the soveriegn state that the individual lives in. The citizens of the state have the right to restrict the use of the property. If anything, the owner does have a right to be compensated when his property is taken.
Second, many owners of the property are simply using their lobby clout to get smoking bans so they can save money and at the same time avoid losing business to most smokers.
You frighten me, seriously.
I didn't know her real well before the bust happened. But I got to know her well later, and we became friends. And we became the kind of friends that even though I haven't seen her in a year, I could comfortably pick up the phone and call her tomorrow.
This is a person, with first hand experience of what crack can do and cost a person, and so really has the right (IMO anyway) to be offended by the nico-gnatzies making such a comparison. Her husband, who has never smoked a cigaette, is even more vocal about the comparison.
No, I just ignore most of what you say. I've heard it all before, from better than you. So far, you're all social engineering nanny-staters who want policeman to do for you what you aren't man enough to do for yourself: Force everyone around you to quit smoking OR ELSE. I do believe you are going to reap what you sow, though.
Well, your friends sound like very strong, very nice people. From all I've seen and heard, crack addiction is one tough hombre...right up there with heroin. It takes a lot of fortitude to come back from that.
Bless 'em.
I know I can get nasty also, and not only on smoking threads.
I try not to, insults or not. If I find I'm starting to get nasty I will go find a crossword puzzle to work on for a while or open a cookbook and then come back....
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.