County ERF Bans Smoking; Some Smokers Fume

Oswego Daily News ^ | May 29, 2002 | Heidi Rauch-Webb

[VRWC_minion]

"Some smokers were smoking in non-designated areas," he said

Many smokers are inconsiderate yet they expect non-smokers to be considerate of their uncontrollable urges. And smokers cannot understand why they are hated by non-smokers.

[Poohbah]

Smokers emit a residue as a byproduct of their activity. In a confined space, it permeates others' clothes and hair, causing them to smell like cigarette smoke.

I wonder how annoyed the smokers would be if those who drank beer disposed of the beer residue by excreting it upon the smokers?

[Just another Joe]

Many smokers are inconsiderate yet they expect non-smokers to be considerate of their uncontrollable urges. And smokers cannot understand why they are hated by non-smokers.

Many smokers ARE considerate. Should we be judged by the ones that are NOT?
Many nico-nazis are inconsiderate yet they expect smokers to be considerate of their uncontrollable urge for power. And nico-nazis cannot understand why they are hated by smokers.

[Just another Joe]

Smokers People with BO emit a residue as a byproduct of their activity. In a confined space, it permeates others' clothes and hair, causing them to smell like cigarette smoke BO.

Should we also legislate BO?

[SheLion]

My letter to Visser:

Mr. Visser:

After reading the article posted in the Oswego Daily News, I felt compelled to write to you.

I smoke and I vote. Your telling me I have no rights?! Banning smoking in a county owned building, I can respect that. When I worked in a government building, I, too, had to go "outside" the door to smoke. That worked for me. But "50 feet from the front door?" That's totally uncalled for!

As for the EPA's report in 1993 about second hand smoke, were you aware of the Federal Court in 1998 throwing out that EPA's bias study? Probably not.

Here is the link so you can educate yourself:

Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke

I bet your feeling pretty smug about now, wearing your Brown Shirt and marching in time with JackBoots.

The war on the smokers IS a Rights Issue. One by one, our rights are being eroded, and it's people like you that will one day look back on America and wonder what happened.

Oh yes. How many people do you have working there that are obese? Were you aware of our Surgeon General's latest report that Obesity has higher health risks then even smoking?

Here is the link so you can educate yourself:

Surgeon general warns obesity may overtake tobacco as leading preventable killer

Smokers aren't going away. Smokers aren't going to quit. What smokers want is for Big Brother to butt out of their lives. And for Big Government to stop the taxation without representative.

[SheLion]

Many smokers are inconsiderate yet they expect non-smokers to be considerate of their uncontrollable urges. And smokers cannot understand why they are hated by non-smokers.

And what urges do YOU have that puts YOU out of control, eh?

~here we go, where's my list~

I don't know where YOU go, minion, that your around smokers. Name one.

[Poohbah]

It is--just try showing up for work with severe BO.

[VRWC_minion]

Many smokers ARE considerate. Should we be judged by the ones that are NOT?

Do we allow an inconsiderate minority dictate the working conditions of the majority ?

Apparently this is a public building and apparently the public officials acting under the authority given them by "we the people" felt that allowing smoking to continue at this was a priviledge and that the priviledge was being abused by some. So, its not a rights issue its a consideration issue, a nuisance and a potential law suit issue from the non smokers.

[Just another Joe]

It is--just try showing up for work with severe BO.

No, it isn't.
Even severe BO is not 'legislated' nor will a supervisor make you leave the lunch room because of it.
Your coworkers may make you leave but not the supervisor.
I understand your point, do you understand mine?

[VRWC_minion]

I don't know where YOU go, minion, that your around smokers. Name one.

Restaurants and sidewalks mostly. But did you read this article ? The lunch room was also the smoking room. That was dumb to begin with because the smoke and the smell stays there.

[Poohbah]

Even severe BO is not 'legislated' nor will a supervisor make you leave the lunch room because of it.

Read a few municipal ordinances. You can be kicked out of public buildings if you stink badly enough.

Your coworkers may make you leave but not the supervisor.

I wonder where--or if--you work.

I understand your point, do you understand mine?

I understand that you act on Free Republic as if you're an obnoxious twerp with lousy impulse control.

[Flyer]

I would normally ignore you or engage in a reasonable dialogue - but I'm am tired and cranky. So. . . I long for the day when something you enjoy is over taxed and over regulated and you are demonized for enjoying it. I will not come to your defense. In fact I will revel in your new troubles and taunt you and laugh and laugh and laugh. . .

Hope you catch me on a better day next time.

[SheLion]

So, its not a rights issue its a consideration issue, a nuisance and a potential law suit issue from the non smokers.

You hate us that much?

I'm a Christian. Do you hate me?

I'm a Republican. Do you hate me?

I love animals. Do you hate me?

I drive an SUV. Do you hate me?

I'm a mother. Do you hate me?

I love NASCAR. Do you hate me?

I love America. Do you hate me?

I'm a human being. Do you hate me?

I'm a smoker. Do you hate me?

[VRWC_minion]

I'm a smoker. Do you hate me?

I don't know you but I sure hate your smoke. But what does hate have to do with the right of a town to set smoking policy for its employees ?

[Just another Joe]

If you read this whole thread you would see my letter to Mr. Visser.
In it I stated that I do not have a problem with the county making the building nonsmoking.
The reason for making it nonsmoking, to me, is suspect.
Because SOME smokers were smoking in "nondesignated areas" the county decided to make the entire building nonsmoking.
Because the county owns the building, if they wanted to arbitrarily make the building nonsmoking they could and I find no fault with that.
To make it nonsmoking because SOME smokers weren't following the rules, I find fault with that but still must say that the county can make the building nonsmoking.
For Mr. Visser to state, "As a smoker, you have no rights. If I smoked, I guess I'd just quit.", is just plain wrong headed.
Stated in a different way such as, "As a smoker you are no longer allowed to smoke in this building", I have no problem with.
That he even MADE such a statement shows the thinking that the antismoking nico-nazis WANT, and have done a darn good job of making happen, to permeate the thinking of the public in general and the government in particular.

[4CJ]

Excellent letter. ;o)

[Just another Joe]

I understand that you act on Free Republic as if you're an obnoxious twerp with lousy impulse control.

Thank you very much for the insult. Just goes to show, doesn't it.

[Just another Joe]

But what does hate have to do with the right of a town to set smoking policy for its employees?

Don't you mean for it's buildings, not it's employees?
And yes, I know that a ban in a building affects the employees.

[Just another Joe]

Further I don't demonize smokers, I just hate their smoke and feel it should be allowable to shoot them on sight.

And you don't demonize smokers? LOL
You are SOooo funny.