Skip to comments.
Pataki signs bill BANNING SMOKING IN ALL NEW YORK WORKPLACES
Posted on 03/27/2003 6:54:39 AM PST by 1Old Pro
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
To: 1Old Pro
That's ok, banning drinking in public is next, I'll take that one. Not sure if that is sarcasm, but in case it is, unless you are planning on throwing your drink every few seconds into the faces of those around you, thats not a good comparison. Care to try again?
21
posted on
03/27/2003 7:17:00 AM PST
by
leadpencil1
(all generalizations are bad)
To: 1Old Pro
This kind of reminds me of the "CFC" studies on refridgeration. All those companies had to spend billions because of those laws past, and then they found out that CFC's were not as bad as they had said.
You know, with all the major pollution in this world, I just can't see that ciggy being the main cause of cancer. "Stunted growth"? Well, another myth, I have a 13 year old son who is 6'4" and never been sick one day in his life, and I smoked all his life.
To: wku man
I bet you don't own a business. And I bet me and the 5 or 6 guys I eat lunch with every day will eat alot more often at those former "lets not go there, to smokey" places.
23
posted on
03/27/2003 7:19:56 AM PST
by
leadpencil1
(all generalizations are bad)
To: 1Old Pro
"Would you rather have the $1.50 or a healthier constituent?" replied Grannis, referring to the state tax on a pack.I would rather see the rights of individuals protected ......and their freedoms left intact. What a total putz.
To: 1Old Pro
"more than 63,000 people annually die from second-hand smoke"
I would like to know where they get these B.S. statistics.
IIRC they have yet to prove a link.
And what will they do for income when sales tax revenues start falling off from the bars?
And how will they pay for the health care of the former smokers who have NOT died off early and now require more expensive health care in their old age?
Talk about shooting yourself in both feet!
25
posted on
03/27/2003 7:20:52 AM PST
by
NYTexan
(back to the bunker...)
To: leadpencil1
First of all it was a joke. However, I could debate the issue about second hand drinking but I chose not to since we are funning right now. :)
To: 1Old Pro
Hidden in this bill is this bizarre unconstitutional law...
Indian reservations are forbidden to use USMail UPS etc. to deliver cigarettes to their customers.
This is the letter I got from the reservation I order from:
The State of NY will sign a new bill into law that may make it illegal for you to have cigarettes delivered to you from any retail location or internet company via a common carrier delivery system such as UPS or FedEx. We feel this law is unfair and unconstitutional; however, it will go into effect nonetheless. Time will tell if this law will pass constitutional muster.
27
posted on
03/27/2003 7:25:33 AM PST
by
alisasny
To: 1Old Pro
For those of you who complain when conservatives vote third party, please keep in mind that there are areas of this country where there is practically NO difference between Republicans and Democrats, the New York area being the perfect example.
28
posted on
03/27/2003 7:29:29 AM PST
by
jmc813
(Control for smilers can't be bought;The solar garlic starts to rot;Was it for this my life I sought?)
To: leadpencil1
you are an obvious smoke Nazi, I go WAY the heck out of my way to keep smoke away from non-smokers, and I know I'm not alone.
To: 1Old Pro
they are liberals really!
30
posted on
03/27/2003 7:31:48 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
To: leadpencil1
And I bet me and the 5 or 6 guys I eat lunch with every day will eat alot more often at those former "lets not go there, to smokey" places.
From your home page...
My wife and I are both registered members of FR with political views bordering on the edge of libertarianism.
I would think the libertarian view on this would be to simply not eat at those establishments, and to patronize those places that feel the free market determines that smoke-free is the way to go.
I must give you credit, though, for listing Skynyrd as one of your favorite bands. :->
31
posted on
03/27/2003 7:35:36 AM PST
by
jmc813
(Control for smilers can't be bought;The solar garlic starts to rot;Was it for this my life I sought?)
To: leadpencil1
Care to try again? Not until you prove that second hand smoke is more dangerous to the population than whiskey in the eye.
32
posted on
03/27/2003 7:41:13 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
(The Dems are self-destructing before our eyes, How Great is That !)
To: houston_matt
you are an obvious smoke Nazi, I go WAY the heck out of my way to keep smoke away from non-smokers, and I know I'm not alone.That is very much appreciated and I am sure it is an inconvenience for you. As far as being a smoking Nazi, I don't consider myself one. I either request a different table or skip any restaurant that cant provide a real (like, no smoke as in no smoke) no smoking section.
33
posted on
03/27/2003 7:41:45 AM PST
by
leadpencil1
(all generalizations are bad)
To: jmc813
maybe so and maybe not? : ) the solar garlic starts to rot...
To: jmc813
I would think the libertarian view on this would be to simply not eat at those establishments, and to patronize those places that feel the free market determines that smoke-free is the way to go.
\\\\\
The Liberaltarian view is to allow pot smoking but ban ciggarettes and cigar smoking.
To: 1Old Pro
Oh, geez. Here come all the usual idiots! I especially like those who complain about me calling them names and then call me names. And, yes, I do own a car.
Let us go over this one more time: a place that is open for business to the general public is NOT private property!! It must comply with 100s of rules, from taxes to access to cleanliness. I like California where many small businesses must post 5 to 10 notices on the front glass.
I am still amazed by the way smokers believe that others enjoy the waste of their addiction, the smoke and the smell. When I try to burn my chopped truck tires after a meal, they get all upset. The bar owner doesn't care.
What you addicts don't understand is that "no smoking" laws ARE freedom and areas that permit smoking force non-smokers under the tryany of smokers. I know, I know, your brains are exploding but try and think about it that way.
Where Pataki misses reality is that a ban on smoking will reduce taxes and make it take longer for diseased smokers (and some of their family members) to die. The economic consequences of this law may actually hurt some of us non-addicts.
36
posted on
03/27/2003 7:45:48 AM PST
by
Tacis
To: 1Old Pro
this is disgusting, and anyone who cheers this legislation is no friend of freedom.
37
posted on
03/27/2003 7:46:26 AM PST
by
Semaphore Heathcliffe
(With just a few more laws on the books, we'll soon be safe enough to live forever!)
To: 1Old Pro
Not until you prove that second hand smoke is more dangerous to the population than whiskey in the eye. Well, for one thing, smoke, once it leaves someones lungs, can't really be controlled. Whiskey ending up in someone's eye, however, is probably the result of a controlled action and very likely an assault. As far as being more dangerous, it's probably not since it can be rinsed out of your eye.
38
posted on
03/27/2003 7:46:57 AM PST
by
leadpencil1
(all generalizations are bad)
To: Semaphore Heathcliffe
Someone get Leary in here please...
Comment #40 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 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