Posted on 10/20/2013 5:43:53 AM PDT by Sam's Army
Many people smoke after they've eaten. Lindell Harvey smokes because he hasn't.
"You smoke out of anxiety because you don't have the food you need," said Harvey, 54, who lives alone in Crum Lynne, Pa. He receives disability checks from the Navy that keep him $2,000 below the poverty line.
Harvey relies on his Newports to see him through his hard days. "In my mind, the smoking becomes a comfort as I try to create ways to get food."
(Excerpt) Read more at theledger.com ...
Yup.........
My neighbor who gets $750 amonth in disability and $200 a month in food stamps spends about $250 a month on cigarettes and $200 on pot. He’s also on medicaid and his brother pays his rent. Recently on Facebook he commented that he “wants more government.” He was really ticked off when pot was legalized in Washington state because now he’s going to have to pay taxes on it.
As I leave for work everytday, I see him outside his place in his robe smoking a cigarette. All I can do to keep from mistaking the gas pedal from the brake.
We leave for Las Vegas tomorrow where the will of the majority reigns and apparently the majority of gamblers also smoke.
We don't go for the gambling, we go for the PBR Finals. I wish they held the Finals some place else but they didn't ask me.
I can live on far less than $5 a day for food (and have done so, adjusted for inflation). A dozen eggs gives you two eggs a day for about $0.30 a day in protein, and under $1 a day even with canned tuna included alternate days. A pound of pasta (rice, grits, taters, etc) gives you the calories you need for an active day at less than $1 a day. Throw in $1 worth of the fruit that is in season or on special, and $1 of a fresh veggie that is in season, and you’re good. That’s without trying to develop gardening skills, or if you’re in a neighborhood where the ferals destroy anything good and productive, as I was.
You're not telling me anything I don't know. So many folks I know who had been wait staff first in Delaware and then Maryland had to find other jobs because their tips dropped drastically and their hours were cut because business dropped so much.
We moved to Virginia about 6 months after the Delaware ban went into effect. That first summer of the Delaware ban saw a huge uptick in business at the beach area where I now live (we're just an hour from the MD/DE line)and I was shocked at how many people said it was because of the ban. 10 years later and I am still seeing many of those folks from that first summer because they are still coming here, even though may of them no longer smoke. heck some of them didn't smoke in the first place, it was just the principle of the ban that irked them.
I have an acquaintance who insists that she and her husband can not afford health insurance. However....Recently, they sent one of their two dogs to a dog training camp for three weeks because of the dog’s behavior problems.
Choices, choices, choices!
Go figure! ( sigh!)
Yes, many did WITHOUT government interference, but that wasn't good enough for people like you, you had to get big brother involved so everything was to accommodate YOU.
I neither lobbied for nor against govt regulation of smoking. I simply voted with my consumer dollars. If I was happy with an establishment...I spent money there. If I was unhappy with a place...I did not spend money there.
Although not required, if you had read my comments in the thread, you would've realized my position. Instead, you choose to attack me and wrongfully accuse me of being someone that called for govt regulation....when I NEVER made a mention or desire of that at all.
I simply said "And then, retailers and restaurants realized they were losing business because non-smokers WERE staying away...and they changed their rules to accommodate the larger group of spenders...the non-smokers."
While I can't speak for all restaurants in America, I worked in a number of restaurants in my earlier years, and YES, there was voluntary accomodation for non-smokers.
It does not surprise me in the least that you were on the losing side of the ban.
how big is the dog?
Would you mind posting actual proof?
The government passed laws making smoking in various venues illegal and THAT is why restaurants, bars and bowling alleys "changed their rules".
If non-smokers had such power all of these businesses would have been non-smoking and no private property usurping laws would have been required.
Of course I don't expect to see any proof as none exists.
I have no problem with that, and I wouldn't hire non-smokers with the type of attitude you have about smokers.
While I am not lumping you into this group, I have to say most of the adamant anti-smokers I have encountered who refuse to hire smokers have been outraged that I would take the same stance against hiring anti-smokers.
The percentage of U.S. adults who smoke has dropped tremendously in my lifetime, to something like 19% according to recent surveys.
There are a few problems with those survey numbers, first off the population has increased, and then of course there is the bias in those surveys, and finally there is the knowledge of attitudes such as yours and so people have a tendency to be less than truthful. While the percentage by population has dropped, there is still the same estimated 50-55 million smokers in the US as there was 30-40 years ago.
....my path evidently doesn't cross with the 19% very much, because it's a far, far smaller percentage among those I know.
And my path evidently doesn't cross as much with the other 81%, because it is a far, far higher percentage of smokers to non-smokers among those I know.
“Would you mind posting actual proof?”
Would you mind posting actual proof they didn’t?
Get lots of good pics!
That isn’t how it works.
YOU postulated the lie and were caught so fess up and admit you are talking out of your ass.
And I gave you the perfect example of WHY I see it that way.
We don't go for the gambling, we go for the PBR Finals.
I realize that, so what goes on in the casinos should make no never mind to you.
I have only met one truly rude smoker in my life, and that was my mother, but I didn't realize it until I was over 30. She and my dad were showing me and my (now) husband my brother's new house - he was at work but knew they were bringing us over - and she proceeded to light a cigarette. I went nuts about it because my brother didn't, doesn't, and never has smoked. Her attitude was "I'll smoke if I want to, I'm the mother." She got bent out of shape with me when I tried to explain to her she was a guest, not the mother, in his house. This was 1992, and I had already been involved with the slow creep of the anti-smoker move to have the government intervene in private business dealings with the issue of smoking.
OOPS - I meant to add —
Have a safe trip and enjoy the finals!!!!
You are lucky you have only met one rude smoker, I am older than you and I have met lots of them. I can remember times when I said nothing but I made a face or held my nose that smokers have blown smoke in my face and laughed.
The world was theirs, kind of like your mom.
You and I will never agree on this, you may regret your decision to smoke but you still won't agree with me. That's OK.
Thanks for the good wishes. :)
Let’s assume he’s not planning to quit or can’t...For starters he should learn how to roll his own... even if he buys filters to roll with them, it’s much much cheaper. The other thing is, you will smoke a lot less especially if you wait to roll them till you need one.
Many did change the rules on their own, but the vast majority sought to have the rules changed for all because they were afraid of losing business. Seeking to change the rules for all means government intervention, and that is where my train of thought went.
While I can't speak for all restaurants in America, I worked in a number of restaurants in my earlier years, and YES, there was voluntary accomodation for non-smokers.
I know this, and I agree with you, and it was working just fine. However it wasn't enough for the anti-smoker industry (ASI)and the big chain restaurants. The two hooked up together for supposedly different reasons, but the same results. The ASI sought control and profit for big PHARMA and the chains sought to get rid of competition. How could, can, would, will, your corner pub compete against that kind of bankrolling?
It does not surprise me in the least that you were on the losing side of the ban.
The losing side of these bans are small businesses, individuals, and the concepts of private property and free enterprise. Yes, I was on the losing side, but I don't regret it for one minute. I stood up, and still stand up, for what I believe conservatism stands for. It's a damned shame so many on this "conservative" forum don't understand that.
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.