Smoking's giving drinking a bad name

The Newark Star-Ledger ^ | April 01, 2004 | Paul Mulshine

[weegee]

72% of all statistics are made up anyway.

[Just another Joe]

Now that you have posted a semi-reasoned response I will respond in kind.

#1. What gives you the idea that all smokers are, and I quote, "drug dependent individual's getting high"?

Are you saying that anyone that smokes is addicted?

But when you are in public

Are you saying that a privately owned business is publicly owned?

There is no constitutional right to smoke in public

You are correct, there is no constitutional right to smoke ANYWHERE.
It's called a liberty for the person smoking.
I think there could be a case made for the constitutional right of a property owner to allow smoking. I just don't think any property owner has had the cajones too take it that far yet.

I will patronize no smoking establishments and I have made my business a no smoking office staffed with 100% non smokers

I wouldn't try to strip you of that liberty but remember, if the govt can proclaim that businesses MUST ban smoking they can also proclaim that businesses MUST allow smoking. Is that what you want?
Wouldn't it be better if the business OWNER can make the choice?

[cinFLA]

Now smokers are psycho and are to blame for alcoholism.

Someone on FR told me last week that smoking increases the pleasure of alcohol. Could be the reason?

[cinFLA]

and as such I would have much rather dealt with so called "second hand" cigarette smoke than a drunk driver.

But is is twice as nice to not have to deal with either.

[dallasgop]

Joe most if not all day to day smokers are addicted to nicotine.
I am also saying that while in a building occupied and open to the public, having the presence of harmful by products of tobacco combustion is both irritating and potentially harmful to the health of others exposed to it, and it sure is unfair to the health of children forced to be exposed to it by circumstance. If a building is open to the public and the public has unfettered access to it, then it should be non smoking, especially restaurants.

Joe I am not sure how long you have smoked, my mother smoked for a little over 50 years before she died about 10 years ago from lung cancer. I was there with her when she died, I cleaned up all the fluid from her gown after she drowned in it. I sat there for nearly a day listening to that death gurgle grow louder and louder, for the last few minutes or so I kept getting clean towels to soak up the fluid from her lung as it spilled out of her mouth and nose. I went through 4 or 5 towels in last few minutes of her wonderful life, Yes Joe she exercised her liberty and smoked and enjoyed it a lot as I am sure you do. That is until the last month or so of her life as she began to die from that "wonderful liberty". She missed seeing her 11 year old grandson grow into a man and will miss his college graduation next month. She barely knew her other grandson and never met the other 2 who came along after her passing. In the end I know she knew it was not worth it. She just realized it too late.
It is not too late for you Joe. Have a seat Joe, Gabz and the other tobacco lovers and fire up a smoke and savor that "liberty". But, if you should have the misfortune later in life of coming down with lung cancer as thousands of tobacco users do daily, be sure to keep plenty of towels handy for your caretakers. They will need them in your last horrific minutes of your life as you drown and the fluids spill out of mouth and nose, that is unless you like to make a mess.
My life's experience has made me an aggressive anti-smoker. About a year after she died, I was in a restaurant with my wife and children, the smoking\no smoking layout was done poorly so our "no smoking table" was adjacent to a smoking one. The smoking couple had just finished their meal and right away had to fire up, they were blowing their smoke over towards us and my children. I asked them to stop, the male nico-nazi took offense to my polite request for them to refrain. Words were exchanged and we went outside to discuss it. He had a bad attitude and when it was all over he was missing a yellowed tooth and left on the ground bleeding after I rammed his face into the brick wall of the building 3 times and then kicked him in the gut. Thank God that public smoking and smokers are slowly but surely going the way of the dinosaurs. Regards dallasgop PS. If you are ever in Houston or Dallas and an attractive athletic 40ish blond haired, blue eyed couple politely ask you not to smoke around their preteen kids, you might consider obeying their request and not developing an attitude about it.:-)

[NYCVirago]

I wrote a rebuttal letter to this jerk, elaborating on the flaws in his argument, and I received a very nasty response. I don't feel comfortable about posting personal email, but I'd like to make an exception in this jerk's case! What do the people in this thread think? Should I post his response here?

[metesky]

Do you always assault those who refuse to obey your requests, or is it just smokers that you feel free to knock down and kick (ADW - to wit: shod foot)?

[metesky]

Post it please, sir.

[SheLion]

I wrote a rebuttal letter to this jerk, elaborating on the flaws in his argument, and I received a very nasty response. I don't feel comfortable about posting personal email, but I'd like to make an exception in this jerk's case! What do the people in this thread think? Should I post his response here?

We usually do! I even post their picture if I can find it. Let everyone know what pukes we are up against.

Sure, post it. Lets see the name behind the hate speech against smokers!

[FairWitness]

Opponents of the ban said revenues would drop by 40 percent. In fact, revenues rose by 9 percent.

Has anybody else thought that the fact business is up is, at least in part, a sign of an improving economy?

[Just another Joe]

dallas, I'm sorry for your loss. Truly.

BUT, the only thing about ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) that has been proven is that it irritates some pre-existing medical conditions and that it annoys some people.
I very rarely smoke in restaurants or any other building besides a bar or my home.

Talking about the health of children, especially in this case, sounds more like a liberal than it does a conservative. I'm not accusing, just stating the obvious. (It's for the CHILDREN.)

Just because a building is open to the public does not mean that it is publicly owned.
You're coming very close to the definition of socialism there.

If you enter a business that you KNOW allows smoking you shouldn't gripe at the customers of that establishment for taking advantage of the owners largesse.
IMO, if the space between the smoking and nonsmoking portions were that bad you should have asked the manager or hostess for a different table. You were in the wrong to take it outside and cause the injury to that man, whether or not you won the fight or not.
And as for public smoking, and smokers, going the way of the dinosaur - Just remember that statement when fast food restaurants, alcohol, and gun ownership go the same route.

[Alberta's Child]

You want to assemble in a 'smoking allowed' bar or hall, open to the public? -- Not allowed.. - Get it?

I want to assemble in a bar where they build a giant bonfire every evening, but such a thing violates about a dozen different fire codes in New York City. Does this make a fire code a violation of the First Amendment?

[tpaine]

Alberta's Child wrote:
Mulshine's right about Kudlow's argument.
How anyone could make smoking a First Amendment issue is beyond me.


______________________________________


The 1st says we have the right to peaceably assemble.

You want to assemble in a 'smoking allowed' bar or hall, open to the public?
-- Not allowed.. - Get it?
47 tpaine

______________________________________


I want to assemble in a bar where they build a giant bonfire every evening, but such a thing violates about a dozen different fire codes in New York City. Does this make a fire code a violation of the First Amendment?
73 -A Child-

______________________________________

No wonder you refuse to 'get it'.
You're so confused you ~want~ to see a bit of smoke as a real fire.

Prohibitionists everywhere salute your irrationality.

[CSM]

"I love smoke free environments. All you nicotine junkies can go outside and get high, but not around me and my family. Smokers are losers!!!!"

Ah, the blind support of government dictation of private property use. Without compensation to the owner, to boot. You need to change your moniker to "dallasFASCIST".

[CSM]

"I will patronize no smoking establishments and I have made my business a no smoking office staffed with 100% non smokers. I do not hire smokers.!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Since you seem to forget this is a choice left to the property owner, not up to the government to dictate private property use to suit your own desires, would you support legislation by the government that forced you to hire smokers and to offer facilities for them? What if the majority of the people smoked, would you support tyranny of the majority to suit my needs?

It is up the the owner of the property, no one forces you by gunpoint to enter that private property!!!!!!

[MEGoody]

"I found it an altogether pleasant experience to be able to enjoy a few pints of ale without coming home smelling like I'd just rolled around in a gutter filled with cigarette butts."

Instead, you came home smelling like a bucket of urine.

[MEGoody]

"but somehow it's okay to make non-smoking patrons itchy and scratchy!!"

You can always patronize a different establishment that does not allow smoking.

[CSM]

Given the tone of your posts, I highly doubt you politely asked them to stop smoking. You have shown no civility to this point, so it is safe to believe your claim is untrue!

Plus, I love the support you throw in about government control of private property that is "accessible by the public". Once again, I implore you to change your moniker to "dallasFASCIST".

---

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality

[CSM]

Yes, post it. Or freepmail it to me!