Skip to comments.
Peggy Noonen: "Them" [one group for whom liberals have no tolerance at all]
Wall Street Journal ^
| Nov 15, 2002
| Peggy Noonen
Posted on 11/15/2002 1:46:24 AM PST by The Raven
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 461-473 next last
To: Skywalk
You are dead-on.
I am an ex-smoker (30 years!) and am from Calfiornia to boot (you are lucky if you even get to smoke in your own home!)
When I married my non-smoking wife I got into the habit of going outside to smoke (easier to do in California than, say, Buffalo). I did this as a courtesy (also to keep my marriage!). I was always a respectful smoker and worked extra-hard to ensure my admittedly filthy habit did not adversly affect others. If even one person in our group was a non-smoker, I always tried to get seated in the non-smoking section (back when they existed).
Alas, my efforts were wasted on the Thought Control Police who decided that they were the last and final word on what I can and can't do for myself. I was treated like I was a Bad Person for being a smoker and was a parriah.
And yes, smoking was pleasurable. I quit because I was wheezing, had smokers hack, etc. etc., not because of any external forces.
All that being said, Skywalk is correct in the 5 points made. This is the only reasonable stance that be taken by anyone with an ounce of common sense and compassion.
To: The Raven
Gunny G, On Smokers!!!
Gunny G, On Smokers!!!
by Dick G
Dick G (Login Dick Gaines)I do Not smoke--never have.
But the present US Government vendetta against smokers (not smoking) is one of the crummiest, most arrogant, most revealing examples ever of government abuse of power, using taxation to punish a segment of "the people"--and, strangely, sanctioned by the people, whom it chooses to war against!!!
-Just Plain Dick!
62
posted on
11/15/2002 5:28:35 AM PST
by
gunnyg
To: Grit; SheLion; *puff_list
Your ping didn't take, or I would have gotten it.
Let's try a pro:
You here yet, She?
63
posted on
11/15/2002 5:31:38 AM PST
by
metesky
To: Skywalk
1)My father was right to make that concession. Why the hell should the furniture STINK to high heaven of cig smoke? I spent the night at my friend's house after a New Year's Eve celebration and the stench was everywhere(everyone but my friend smoked in that place) It made me sick, that's how oppressive the smell was. My dad was, fortunately, not a chain smoker, but he did the right thing.Why the hell should the furniture stink? Maybe because he PAID for it. I smoke and I will smoke in my home any damn time I choose. I have 4 sons and you know what? They have NEVER had the audacity to tell me to go outside and smoke. Your dad was no doubt a good father.....you on the other hand sound like a twit of a son or daughter.
To: The Raven
Actually there is a smoking zone in Bloomberg New York. You can smoke on any one way sidewalk.
65
posted on
11/15/2002 5:42:29 AM PST
by
bvw
To: Skywalk
Isn't up to the company to decide what concessions they will and won't make to employee requests?Should that be "isn't it"? If so, sometimes it is up to the company and sometimes it isn't. If the company owns the building it would probably be easier. If they lease it, well...jump through the hoop.
BUT, what if they don't?Well you already know the answer to that. The smokers get sent outside.
Maybe it's unwise, depending how many smokers they employ, but isn't that their right?Not if there is a law disallowing them from exercising that right on their own property. Gotta comply.
2)I am against laws that interfere with owners of bars/clubs/restaurants/etc from deciding what their policy will be regarding smoking or drinking or whatever on their property
If the company owns their property what is the difference?
4)I DO think that in closed spaces, such as offices, where people have to work and produce for hours on end, that there should be SET-ASIDE rooms with proper ventilation for smokers OR they should go outside(smaller buildings won't have space for smoke rooms)
As you imply...that should be up to the company/property owner to decide.
To: johnny7
Dude, you could be diabetic; in certain forms of diabetes the sufferer appears to be drunk and has a distinct smell of alcohol about him. This is serious stuff and should be looked into.
67
posted on
11/15/2002 5:48:25 AM PST
by
Junior
To: The Raven
Bump
To: Drawsing
Yeah... you got it.
69
posted on
11/15/2002 5:50:51 AM PST
by
johnny7
To: Tokhtamish
Life is becoming sterile. But the sterile life is also colorless. Where would the world be without the likes of Hemingway, Twain or Faulkner -- folks who would be shunned by "polite society" today because of their "disgusting habits?"
70
posted on
11/15/2002 5:56:31 AM PST
by
Junior
To: Moosefart
I smoke and I will smoke in my home any damn time I choose. I have 4 sons and you know what? They have NEVER had the audacity to tell me to go outside and smoke. Now that's a real man. You have every right to be a complete jerk in your own home.
71
posted on
11/15/2002 6:00:28 AM PST
by
Taliesan
To: Skywalk
So what if the buildings are privately owned? Many of the first restrictions on smoking came from private companies. The reason was because people were bothered by the smoke. Owners voluntarily restricting or banning smoking is not my point - smart employers will listen to their employees concerns. My point is the government - Mayor Bloomberg and the City of New York - requiring them to. Owners setting circumstances around their property is the very essense of liberty.
You're right, that I'd have to go somewhere to smoke, but in a FREE SOCIETY people are also allowed to request their employers set up a tolerable work environment.
Requests are completely different from laws backed by force.
Yeah, I guess if the boss wanted to hose me down with Kool Aid, I'd better just shut up or leave. But I become anti-liberty if I DARE ASK the man to call off the Kool-Aid Man.
Again, making requests are not anti-liberty.
72
posted on
11/15/2002 6:05:10 AM PST
by
laredo44
To: Skywalk
It is ok if you don't like to or want to smoke. Those guys outside looking furtive were forced there by the danmed do gooders.
To: Skywalk
One question for you: Who paid the bills?
To: tm22721
Peggy is right. Liberals and the guardians of other peoples health and life do think they can live forever if they do certain things or do not do certain things. Very few people actually see the end of their lives happening. Some live long, like my friends 97 year old smoking mother, who at this point wheezes a bit. Or my 93 year old mother who lived with a chain smoker for 65 years. She doesn't wheeze.
People with asthma are badly affected by 2nd hand smoke, or wood or leaves burning and should stay away from it, but there's a whole lot of things that make them have attacks. Dust for instance.
To: Taliesan
Now that's a real man. You have every right to be a complete jerk in your own home.Au contraire l'ami, I am a good father to my kids as they would tell you. I just wont be told what to do in my own home by them. If that makes me a jerk in your estimation so be it.
To: borisbob69
I disbelieve that most people do what you do. What you do shows an enormous work ethic that I know 90% of the people (smokers included) do not have.
BTW, do you include travel time in your 5 minute smoke break estimation?
77
posted on
11/15/2002 6:29:07 AM PST
by
krb
To: Just another Joe
ping
78
posted on
11/15/2002 6:36:53 AM PST
by
KC Burke
To: krb
I agree with you about the disappearing work ethic in America across all groups...but since I'm 55 and grew up when that was still being taught, I manage to stay ahead of the slackers.
The 5 minutes I mention includes 1 minute each way for travel and a 3 minute "power smoke"...a technique developed by those of us in the shunned class.
To: Skywalk
I do not smoke anymore. I did for 40 years. Would I go back again? No! Do I believe workers should not be forced to be around the smokers if they do not want to? yes! However, that is their right and now that they have been allowed to have their rights met, we should meet the rights of the smoker as well.
There should be a large room where the smokers can go. The smoke could be ventilated to the outdoors. It would satisfy EVERYONE'S RIGHTS and not just one group.
That's the trouble with a lot of this stuff today. One group is OFFENDED well fine, if we fix it that they are not OFFENDED then you make certain the group who is ALLEGEDLY doing the OFFENDING is able to continue on with what it was they were dooing.
It CAN be worked out. Just don't think some people ever want things to be worked out. It is always their way or the highway. Well, I personally will fight for the smoker's rights too. I WISH they would quit but...like Ms. Noonan said Bloomberg thinks he can protect people from harm by banning smoking everywhere.
Dream on Mr. Bloomberg...I think we have other more important issues we are dealing with right now in NY especially. I am sure a cigarette calmed many a nerve the day we were attacked and I am sure if a rescue worker was heading up to save someone and happened to have a cigarette in his mouth I DON'T THINK the person being rescued would refuse to go with him or her because they didn't like the smell of cigarette smoke.
People need to lighten up and stop being so touchy. Fix the problems yes but not at the cost of taking away someone else's rights. It's ridiculous. There should be this much effort towards drugs and porn.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 461-473 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson