NAZI MAINE: House gives final OK to smoking ban in bars PUKES ONE AND ALL!

boston.com ^ | 6/3/2003 | Glenn Adams

[SheLion]

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) Public health interests prevailed over warnings that personal freedoms are being eroded as the Maine House gave its final approval to a bill to ban smoking in bars and taverns.

Representatives' 95-47 enactment vote sent the measure to the Senate and put Maine a step closer to joining California and Delaware in imposing statewide bans on smoking in bars. New York's ban starts in July, and Connecticut's newly enacted ban on smoking in bars takes effect next April.

[VRWC_minion]

Gee, and all this time I thought my rights were guaranteed under the Constitution, and not dependent on my doing "a major makeover."

You have no right to smoke in public. In fact most states had smoking bans in place at the time the constitution as signed.

[Madame Dufarge]

As far as rights, where do you want to go with this, madame

What are you, thick?

How about the property rights of the bar owners?

Very touching story about your father.

[VRWC_minion]

The next thing they will do is enact a policy that ensures the safety of our military personnel by making it a "bullet" free zone.

Apparently smoking is considered as much a danger to the troops as bullets. They even devote boot camp time to the topic.

[Madame Dufarge]

Sometimes it's entertaining to watch them make fools of themselves; but you're right, they become bores rather quickly.

[VRWC_minion]

Let's chat among ourselves and ignore them

And while you do you can ignore the state by state ban on public smoking in bars and restaurants and pretend it isn't happening and you can ignore that courts are beginning to use smoking as an indication of custody and that states are beginning to question whether its child abuse to smoke in front of kids.

Ignore.

[kmiller1k]

Up yours quote unquote. I was making the point that debating an issue is loads more fun when the participants use their intellect to make an arguement than when disrespectful epithets are used.

It is my hope that a coherent dialog can be made by both sides of the issue rather than swearing, and using colloquial slang.

[Mears]

One of a few non-smokers with common sense, Thanks!!!

[Conspiracy Guy]

The argument is your father has made his choice and I feel no need to debate the issue with you further. It is doubtful that smoking is the sole cause of your father's illness and if it is he should quit. You should be happy that you live in a state where people can't afford to run their air conditioning yet there is no smoking and businessmen are forced into paying for the very government that is trying to put them out of business(Yea for Gray Davis). The rolling blackouts have affected your brain. Please send me your guns soon I need more.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I'm down south in the land of cotton

[kmiller1k]

Society decides what will be allowed and what will be banned. It is also illegal to sell heroin in bars because as a society we have decided that heroin is illegal. Society is making a similiar choice now about smoking.

And no, I am not thick, in fact, I am just perfectly built. Tennis and the gym.

[Conspiracy Guy]

They just keep repeating it like Clinton robots over and over and over and.... I'm going to start looking for new posters on the anti property rights side pro gummit control side to respond to. : )

[RightWhale]

You're right, of course. Everything is just fine here in the Republic of Paradise. Massive social changes are not just around the corner. The Superbowl is not prolefeed. Carry on.

[Conspiracy Guy]

There's that buzzing sound again. Its like a drone almost...

[Trace21230]

I think someone needs to organize a smoker's ping list so we can respond to VRWC_minion's arguments adequately.

Wait, in order to do that all we need to do is list my 5 year-old-nephew. No need for a list.

Trace

[Madame Dufarge]

If only most smokers had his attitude the smoking bans wouldln't be needed. But, alas, that is not the case.

Your attempt at a beatific, reasonable attitude is belied by your snide swipes at smokers and their "attitudes."

You can't carry it off, so why don't you stop digging your hole deeper.

[kevao]

You have no right to smoke in public.

What? Look, I don't know how you define "public," so let's leave that aside for the moment. The argument here is whether the government can ban smoking on private property like a restaurant or bar.

In fact most states had smoking bans in place at the time the constitution as signed.

Where do you get this stuff?

[kmiller1k]

Debate. Requires participants to stay on point.

Thank you for the kind words about my dad. Truth is his cholesteral is perfect but his lungs are not. Doc points out how non-smokers and smokers differ in their rates of progress toward recovery from heart by-pass. That information would be anecdotal to his surgeon and his cardiologist but it is their observation and record.

Not sure what air conditioning has to do with smoking ban; we have many problems in California but as yet we have not had a rolling black out where I live. Again, Flurry, use your intellect to make your points, it will be better for both of us.

[kmiller1k]

M

I love debate so I try to keep on point. If my attitude is too civil for you don't reply.
k

[Liberal Classic]

You have no right to smoke in public.

Now I think you're showing your true colors.

[kevao]

I was making the point that debating an issue is loads more fun when the participants use their intellect to make an arguement than when disrespectful epithets are used.

What? Are you for real? YOU are the one who, in your original post (#333), made the blanket assertion that all smokers are rude, a disrespective epithet if ever there was one. Epithetically speaking, you are a consummate hypocrite.