IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL

The Cigar Show ^ | 2 October 2002 | Chuck Cason

[SheLion]

The movement to get the Dallas City Council to pass a city ordinance to make ALL establishments 100% smoke free is gaining momentum. They advocate preventing a bar or restaurant owner to make his or her own decision about giving a choice to the customer. They advocate putting into LAW that you can't... CAN NOT... smoke anywhere in the City of Dallas. "Well, how about the cigar bar in Del Frisco's after a big steak dinner?"

Nope. In fact if they get this passed, they might come back and try to get a law passed that we can't eat a big steak dinner because they found a study that suggests that the side-effects of other people enjoying a steak is bad for "the children".

In fact, there is no stopping a group of people organizing, coming up with their own "research", and lobbying to take our rights away because they don't like what others do.

 I know that sounds ridiculous and that is why no normal citizen, who enjoys the rights that people before us fought and died for, ever thinks that anything as absurd as a law to take away any of those rights could be even considered as serious. That is where we have been wrong... dead wrong. It seems that advocates share a certain trait with politicians: they both feel the need to get "involved" with the issue of guiding our citizenry. In the meantime, our citizenry is comfortable knowing that our Constitution is protecting us so we can go about our daily lives working and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Well, guess what? We were wrong.

There is a group in Dallas that is working hard to "ban" smoking in any establishment in the city limits.

They contend a restaurant owner has no business making a decision about his or her own policies. They think that the local government should decide what type of customers they should try to attract. This group has even stooped to the over-done, we-should-do-it-for-the-children-and-if-you-disagree-with-that-you-hate-children tactic.

 They wonder why when they are with their "children" (because after all, they are pro-family... aren't you?) and someone in a restaurant lights up, the government isn't there to protect the health of their family. They wonder why they are expected to make a decision not to go to that restaurant instead of making everyone around them change so they don't have to.

To find the wisdom in our system, it is often necessary to read what our leaders said a long time ago. It was Abraham Lincoln that had words for this situation:

"Those who deny freedom for others deserve it not for themselves".

Let me be clear. I do not smoke cigarettes. They are nasty and dangerous. There are probably many chemicals and poisons that are let out into the air by smoking. But I reserve the right to smoke one day, if I want to. I won't smoke at your church, school, or in your government building. If you don't allow it in your home, I will totally respect that. I won't smoke in your car, or even near you when I can... I am not rude. However, when I choose a restaurant that wants me as a customer so much as to have a section for me, and you want to go there too (because the food and service are great), we have both made a decision based on personal freedom. Since you have made that choice, why is it my fault that you aren't comfortable? Why do you insist that city government get involved to make sure your dining experience is more pleasant? If you walk by a club and the rap music from inside is so loud that it seems offensive, will you go inside? No, of course not, and you wouldn't run to the city council wanting a law against rap music.

You simply wouldn't go. Get it?

I am not even going to start in on the junk science and so-called "surveys" presented as "irrefutable fact" by this poster group for political correctness. I will give you the link to the web site. Twenty years ago this web site would have made a great satirical magazine. It would have shown, in a ironic way, how fanatics try to push their agenda using any scare tactic they can. Sadly, this is not satire. It is a group that will not be content until others behave the way they think they should. It is time for common sense to replace political correctness.

It is time that people realize a perfect world is not formed by laws.

 

Here is the web site. Enjoy. http://smokefreedallas.org/

[SheLion]

Your post:

"They advocate putting into LAW that you can't... CAN NOT... smoke anywhere in the City of Dallas."

"So you are anexing Dallas to California??? Now that is news.'

Excuse me? I did not say that. You should go back over the thread and see who REALLY said it!!!!

414 posted on 10/5/02 6:24 AM Eastern by SheLion

YOUR post:

How rude can you get. I never said you said it. It was me saying it at that time. A little to touchy aren't we?

So........if YOU were saying it at the time, why would you single ME out? Your post to me just doesn't make sense. Sorry.

[SheLion]

You call *me* loud?

I didn't call you "loud."

I have seen Joe. He is a very articulate man. Articulate men do not have bad breath even if they DO smoke.

[SheLion]

its not your health I'm concerned about, its mine.

So.......your saying the Government ORNL Lab committed FRAUD about second hand smoke????

Project Title: Environmental Tobacco Smoke Study

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

I'd like to see what you would say in response to that question.

[farmfriend]

The you was refering to Texas people. Hello, it was a joke about how Texas laws will now be equal to California. Not used to dealing with sarcasm? Take every post personal?

[SheLion]

As far as me having to start my own smoke free business, it looks like that won't be necessary. As it has been pointed out to you on this thread, things are going my way & it looks like smokers are 'sh*t outta luck'. (Heads up Joe, I've told you all this before)

If we have a lot of people coming from the wrong end of the GENE pool, then I guess we MIGHT be sh*t out of luck!

[SheLion]

Take every post personal?

Never know WHAT kind of people are coming in. Lately, we have been getting a lot of RINO ANTI-SMOKERS.

If I took your remarks wrong, I am sorry. But I do get my fur up and claws out. I am very suspicious about peoples remarks that I am not familiar with.........

[farmfriend]

Hey, no problem. No offense given or taken. Everything said with a smile.

[Max McGarrity]

Your own post contradicts your stand: ""To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense,"

[Just another Joe]

OF COURSE emphysema is CAUSED by first hand smoke, glad to know you are aware of that, but it is aggravated by 2nd hand smoke.

Then in the context of ETS emphysema is a pre-existing condition.
And it should be emphytsema CAN be caused by first hand smoke, not IS caused by first hand smoke.

As the person encounters allergens the allergic reactions will *develop*.

Then it's not asthma but the allergy that is the pre-existing condition. You and your brother may BE allergic to tobacco smoke but, if so, you are in the minority.
For almost every other anti-smoker I have heard about it is a matter of annoyance.
"I have to take a shower and wash my clothes every time I go to a bar."
"I hate the smell of smoke"
On and on and on.

As it has been pointed out to you on this thread, things are going my way & it looks like smokers are 'sh*t outta luck'.

Not quite yet but you are correct that it is headed that way.
Are you happy that totalitarian govt is that much closer?

[SheLion]

Hey, no problem. No offense given or taken. Everything said with a smile.

Heh! I (hope I) made a new friend!

Big Hugs!!!

[Roscoe]

Your own post contradicts your stand: ""To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense,"

The actual quote:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams

[Ditter]

I don't have time to read the whole report. If it says no *connection* was found between 2nd hand smoke & disease, then it will be like saying clinton was tried & found not guilty because of lack of evidence. That is not the same as being found innocent. I have known 3 non smokers who died of lung cancer after living with a heavy smoker. Does that prove anything? I don't know. I do know you are all over every report that says what you want to hear. May all *your* reports be good.

[Ditter]

Yes, you are right, allergy suffers are in the minority. If it wasn't for the people who just simply don't like to smell it we would be run over like sitting ducks. I know in small towns & rural areas many more people smoke than in urban areas. Smoking has gone out of fashion. Smoking will always be with us, just not in public. Thats why you should just stay home & smoke & shut up.

Am I happy we have totalitarian gov? haha I'm happy that the majority is getting what we want instead of getting our food to go, when the smoking section right across that invisiable line lights up. (You know that line restaurants put between us & you that doesn't work?) The fact that that line doesn't keep the smoke on your side is the reason for the total ban. Smokers were OK with it & the rest of us weren't.

As far as smokers protecting my SUV or hamburgers or what ever other kind of tripe you spout, smokers are nothing but a small speed bump. When the majority decides I shouldn't drive an SUV anymore, its gone.

[SheLion]

So your saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

[SheLion]

[headsonpikes]

"...smokers are nothing but a small speed bump....When the majority decides...it's gone."

'If you're happy and you know it, clank your chains'!

[tpaine]

Roscoe, in the "actual quote", taken in context, Adams is defending the constitutions 2nd amendment, and elaborating on the role of a 'well regulated' milita:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.
The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

         ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms in the 'private self-defense' line.
However, his opinion is that militia units must be controlled by state/local government and the rule of law, - that they be well regulated.

As usual roscoe, you 'cite' quotes out of context in order to shade their meanings to reflect upon your anticonstitutional agenda. You're a typical gungrabber at heart.

[Ditter]

I don't know, *you* tell me. Why do you shout down everyone who comes on here & tries to tell you something that you don't want to hear? Anyhow, the best to you & yours. Ditter %;9}

[Madame Dufarge]

I have known 3 non smokers who died of lung cancer after living with a heavy smoker.

If you're using this to support your position, give us all the facts support your assertion that living with these smokers caused the 3 non-smokers to die of lung cancer.

I mean names, dates, medical reports and conclusive and undeniable scientific proof that second-hand smoke was the cause of their death.

Because I could say that pigs fly out of your butt, but I won't, because I can't prove it.

[farmfriend]

Always here for you.