Posted on 11/26/2002 4:58:07 AM PST by SheLion
The letter from the health department suggested not smoking. If you do smoke, and it must be out doors, you must wash before returning to work. I was standing in the back door smoking as always. It should be obvious, this had little to do with public health. For the record, my refrigerated square footage, exceeded the dining room square footage. This restaurant was very clean, it was the love of my life. Damn these people.
But many of those 23 milliion would be more than happy to prevent the rest of us from ingesting. And that's the problem the moronic smoke banners just can't seem to come to grips with. Today, they get their wishes enacted into law. Tomorrow, the next least favored activity gains the spotlight. Each group with its pet peeve stands in line waiting for the legislature to drive another nail in the coffin of liberty.
Have you ever heard of the term "pecking order"? I'm told it describes actual chicken yard behavior. The "alpha" chicken can peck any other chicken in the group, the "beta" chicken any other chicken except the "alpha" chicken, etc. The "omega" chicken can be pecked by every other chicken and can peck none. Sometimes, the "omega" chicken gets pecked to death. The "psi" chicken becomes the new "omega" chicken, and the process repeats.
Today, smoking is the "omega" liberty. It is in the process of being extinguished. Zealots have discovered that to do so means that private property rights must be sacrificed. This does not deter them for their call only requires that others to cede rights, not they themselves. They absolutely cannot fathom that when smoking is universally banned, the "psi" liberty will become the next victim.
I'm not a smoker. I'm not an ex-smoker. I'm a never smoked-er. What I am, is a lover of liberty, and I know when it is being attacked. I support what you are doing, not just because you have a right to use your body as you see fit, but because this fight continues to expose the fraudulent activities of those who seek to enslave us all. These are the tactics of liberals, not conservatives. Their ends-justifies-means rationale requires they alter any study, provide any false witness, tell any whopper. And the number of "useful idiots" they attract is truly sad.
Where have you ever seen it argued a smoker has the right to subject another to second-hand smoke?
Serves them right!
Another question: was this person's lungs exposed to RADON? Coal Dust? Farming Pesticides?
I want another answer: do you believe that if a person never smokes they will never die? I want your opinion on this.
About your Grandfather dying: you believe it was because of his smoking, right? Not because the Lord said "his number was up."
And "I" got some stats for ya!
The BIG LIE That Smoking is an Economic Burden To Society
"After the Clinton administration proposed a fairly substantial increase in the cigarette tax as a way of funding health care reform, my colleague Dennis Zimmerman and I wrote a paper entitled "Cigarette Taxes to Fund Health Care Reform and Economic Analysis." (CRS, Library of Congress, #94214 E ) The part of the paper I'd like to talk about is the justifications for increasing the cigarette tax.
"I know an economist, so I start with the presumptions that people have subjective preferences about what they like to do and how they spend their money and that, in general, we want to allow people to enjoy their lifetime resources in accord with those preferences. We would intervene in those decisions only under certain kinds of circumstances that we try to delineate and measure.
"When you buy a pack of cigarettes, you pay the price of the cigarettes. You also assume some implicit costs that you know about if you are aware of the health effects of smoking. But there might be another part of the cost that you don't pay, the cost that smokers impose on other people. That is the kind of cost that we were trying to examine. When we looked at the study done by health economist Ray Manning and several associates (funded by the RAND Corporation) we found that the spillover effect per pack of cigarettes was 33 cents. At the time (1994), the sum of federal, state, and local cigarette taxes was about 50 cents per pack. So the cigarette tax was already higher than the spillover cost."--Jane Gravelle, economist, Congressional Research Service.
"The lifetime health cost for a smoking man is $72,700 and $94,700 for a smoking woman. For nonsmokers, the cost is $83,400 for a man; $111,000 for a woman.
"If people stopped smoking today, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs." --New England Journal of Medicine,1997;337:1052-7.
Smokers are not a financial burden as you imply: Smoking-related healthcare costs are a pittance to overall healthcare costs (8% in my state of Maine). If every smoker quit, healthcare costs would go down only temporarily and then rise above the amount you are complaining about now, because nonsmokers get sick too and for more years. Smokers more than make up for their extra cost by dying (their choice-not yours) sooner; collecting less social security and pensions, and less time in nursing homes. The state tax on cigarettes is all gravy. This is all backed up by facts. You should know this if you're going to play with numbers.
But of course you won't read what I posted. Your right and that's it!
Want me to post a gory picture of a liver from alcoholism? eh?
We all lose. The tax man, the rabid anti smoker, my favorite customers, and me. I truly loved my work, as a result, I was one of the best. I am a native Californian, live in the Sierra, these ignorant, do nothing government workers, are about to succeed in ridding themselves of me.
Presently he drinks and frolics, his former customers, smoking and non smoking, are searching for a beautiful, Epicurean delight they are likely not to find.
Welcome to America.
Do you think the anti-smokers health fanatics care?? Hell no! They go from city to city, FORCING private business's to go smoke free. Leaving closed business's, lay-offs and lost revenue in their wake. They could care less. They ACHIEVED their goal! Total control over the people!
Go to this link and scroll down. Read all of the devestation the smoking ban did to all of these restaurants!
Well, I had cancer twice and I had TWO oncologists! And THIS, I can assure YOU!
Gee........she lost her sense of smell when her spouse broke her nose. Go figure!
Your absolutely right, Max. And I told him several posts earlier that it took "5" years of study for the Federal Court to make their ruling. It just wasn't an overnight pencil whipping!
We are NOT mindless BOOBS! All of us know that smoking isn't good for us, just like fat greasy burgers! But tobacco is LEGAL! Hello!!!
Like I said, if smoking was as bad as you anti-smoking health fanatics are spewing, it would have been banned 50 YEARS ago! My parents told me back in the 50's that smoking was NOT good for us. It's nothing new. But the anti's sure would like to THINK they just discovered this!
'Tis to laugh...
LOTFLMAO...
300 years from now historians will have a hard time not rolling on the floor laughing at the "Age of Morons"...
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.