Oh yes. Even if 'they' just SEE someone smoking sets them off...............
Posted on 08/13/2004 5:24:43 AM PDT by Hatteras
Mom Sent To Jail For Smoking Around Kids
POSTED: 6:43 am EDT August 13, 2004
BOWLING GREEN, Va. -- A woman was sentenced Thursday to 10 days in jail for defying a court order not to smoke around her children.
Tamara Silvius was banned last year from smoking around the youths, now ages 8 and 10, as part of a custody arrangement with her ex-husband.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
"try anarchy sometime, you'll love it"
Okay, reread what you wrote. Still sounds as though, in your viewpoint, anyone who just will not accept "It's a court order; cased closed," would be happier with anarchy. It is because addled Captain Queegs like this specimen infest lower court benches that we have a Supreme Court to overturn them. Because Americans are free to either lick this judges boots or roundly condemn his conduct, that you and I can enjoy this exchange.
MOst of us do not need momma government to tell us what to do.
I was at an OUTDOOR pool yesterday with a friend. Because of the weather, the pool and the grounds were relativley people sparse. The pool rules state you are not permitted to smoke in the immediate vicinity of the pool or near other patrons. We were 25 feet in front of the pool. There were no patrons to the right of us which was the direction in which a significant wind was blowing. Patrons to the left were 40 feet away. Someone complained to the management about my friends smoking; she was almost completely finished with her FIRST cigarette after being there an hour or so. She genereally smokes two or three in a several hour period.
When my friend asked who complained (because there was no one sitting nearby) they wouldn't tell her. She told them she wouldn't put it out, because she wasn't violating their smoking policy, they wouldn't tell her who complained, and the person who wasn't near enough to be affected by the smoke was obviously a control freak and a bully.
When we left, the very, very young manager of the pool approached to explain the smoking policy, AGAIN. "You can smoke until someone complains" (never mind if they've got a legitimate interest to complain). My friend said, "Oh, and if the person was 100 feet away they could complain and I would be required to put my butt out? We'll just see about that."
Their policy prompts adults and I suppose children squealing on other adults.
She was planning to complain to the head of recreation today. I told her probably what will happen is smoking will be banned altogether.
This was outside where the wind was blowing the smoke AWAY from patrons.
This is people just wanting to tell other people what to do.
We suspect it was the lady who gives water aerobics lessons, she was the only one within angle and eyedistance to have seen the cigarette. The lessons are given at a bad time and take a lot of pool space, when working people are arriving to swim for an hour or two.
I was going to complain about them, prior to the above incident but decided not to. I called to complain today but the person wasn't in. I will call again on Monday.
Go back to my original post. I observed that the woman wasn't being jailed for "smoking around kids," but rather, for violating the court's order. That's the only point I really desired to make; not whether the court's order was fair, or unconstitutional, or what-not. You can't fight what you can't define.
And of course I've never maintained that it's "a court order; case closed." However, if the case is to be pursued, it must be pursued in a manner consonant with law; something I believe everyone on the forum will agree with.
OMG! You pompous azz. And you call yourself a CHRISTIAN? You sure have a LOT to learn about love and respect for your fellow man.
How dare you judge Bella about going to hell. Just who do you think you are? You sure don't follow the love from God, that's for sure. You're so full of hate it stinks.
Exactly what I just said.
So....why not lay off the abortionists?
They don't need momma gov't telling them what to do either, right?
You don't believe in abortion, so you are against it.
You do smoke -- so you're ok with that.
I'm shrugging my shoulders here....
See my post #199.
No, it was your logic. Majority rule.
How can someone who proclaims to love the Lord yet spew out all this hate. I just shake my head, stylin............ :(
And what's that other verse?
"Judge not lest you be judged?" heh!
This isn't the nanny state telling people what to do. This is two people agreeing to certain custody conditions and one of these people not abiding by the agreement.
Oh yes. Even if 'they' just SEE someone smoking sets them off...............
As a direct result of exposure to one incident of abortion, a person dies.
As a direct result of exposure to one incident of smoking a person, uh, lives and walks away with his/her full health in tact.
Furthermore, many of our parents smoked when we were kids, and to date I have not met anyone who got sick or says they got sick because of it. But before long the anti-smokers will probably be blaming their parents for all kinds of illness as well.
While smoking can be severely detrimental to the health of smokers, the second hand smoke studies are BOGUS, they are nothing more than fabricated lies, by anti-smokers who needed a tool to impose their will on smokers. They were quite successful.
"Oh yes. Even if 'they' just SEE someone smoking sets them off"...............
Absolutely.
I think this has already happened but is going to become far more commonplace. Neighbors taking their neighbors to court for smoking in the yard and then in their homes.
Reminds me of the good ole days....you remember - when the Earth was flat?
People don't have the right not to be offended. I don't know where in the constitution you find that, but I believe that you believe you are more conservative than you think.
My health is my own concern, unless I have something dangerous and communicable, like Ebola.
It's up to adults to navigate the hazards they encounter in the pursuit of their happiness - and that includes the 'infringements' on other's pursuits as well.
You want the government to do that for you. You'd walk into a cigar lounge and tell everyone sitting there quietly enjoying their premium puros to extinguish their cigars, because his royal highness - who is very conservative and doesn't smoke - is offended by cigar smoke.
You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everytime you go crying to your congressmen I lose a little bit more liberty, and it impedes the normal pursuit of happiness.
In my world, you just pick a different restaurant to eat in.
You're a liberal, you just haven't woke up to it yet.
And you have no idea what you're talking about. According to you an unborn baby should dodge the forceps.
Thanks for playing.
I didn't disagree. Sometimes it takes getting arrested to change a bad law. The judge is going to have to show cause in a criminal court. It's likely it will be overturned.
By the way, WELCOME TO FREEREPUBLIC as of 8/11/2004.
You are a troll, and I smell OZONE!!!!
I should have checked your 'born on' date before I replied the first time. It was the factless, ad hominen nature of your reply that gave you away. The lack of coherence and cool logic in your response betrayed you. It's a quality that most conservatives have in deep reserve.
Again, I call upon the Viking Kitty. That's two trolls for me today. Not bad hunting.
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.