Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Tarheel on March 06, 2008, 06:37:03 PM
-
Yes, the Smoke Nazis are marching again:
http://www.startribune.com/local/16261261.html
I like this innovative idea of trying to get around the smoke ban but, unfortunately, the authorities were not amused by the would-be thespians.
-
I like where there head is at fuck the man :vn:
-
Another chapter from the pleasure police.
-
Another chapter from the pleasure police.
You just wait 'till Queen Hillary sinks her talons into everything. "Misery spread equally" will become the standard.
-
You just wait 'till Queen Hillary sinks her talons into everything. "Misery spread equally" will become the standard.
Scary pictures! I thought that it was Halloween already!
-
Former smoker. Current officer in the Smoke Nazi SS.
It happens.
-
I don't like smokers. Used to be one. But I did not light up wherever and whenever I wanted. If the place says no smoking, keep your damn smoke to yourself. Go sit in your car with the windows up. Some redneck bitch lit up at the pall park the other day. A no smoking park. But she decided to stand beside the batting cage with a lit one in her hand and coach the kids. Did she think the kids would be OK because she was outside the fence. I mean chain link stops anything.......
So if you smokers get pissed on, its your own fault. We don't care if you smoke. Just don't share it with us.
As far as raising taxes and all that, bullshit. Just make it so that militant smokers can get their asses whipped without the threat of litigation. I'm sure we could work it out then.
-
As a smoker I try to be considerate of others that I am around. This is not about smoking indoors or in designated areas. This is about my right to choose to smoke. You just go ahead and keep giving up your rights to choose and see where you end up.
-
As a smoker I try to be considerate of others that I am around. This is not about smoking indoors or in designated areas. This is about my right to choose to smoke. You just go ahead and keep giving up your rights to choose and see where you end up.
Nobody's saying you can't choose to smoke. But your right to smoke ends where it infringes on somebody else's right not to. And since people can't really control the direction of exhaled smoke, that means it's pretty much going to infringe on others unless you're sealed in your car or in your own home.
-
Nobody's saying you can't choose to smoke. But your right to smoke ends where it infringes on somebody else's right not to. And since people can't really control the direction of exhaled smoke, that means it's pretty much going to infringe on others unless you're sealed in your car or in your own home.
if they choose to go to a bar where there is smoking allowed TFB in my opinion.
-
if they choose to go to a bar where there is smoking allowed TFB in my opinion.
Agree there. Businesses should be able to choose whether they allow smoking or not. If they do and you go there, shut the fuck up if somebody smokes. If they don't allow it, shut the fuck up about wanting to smoke.
Here's a tangent for you, though. Suppose your neighbor is a cigar smoker. He likes to go sit on his porch at night and smoke a big, fat cigar. His property abuts yours and when you try to enjoy an evening on the porch, you're constantly choked by the clouds of smoke that emanates from his property. Do you have any recourse? Can you tell Mr. Stogie he can't smoke on his own property?
-
Agree there. Businesses should be able to choose whether they allow smoking or not. If they do and you go there, shut the fuck up if somebody smokes. If they don't allow it, shut the fuck up about wanting to smoke.
Here's a tangent for you, though. Suppose your neighbor is a cigar smoker. He likes to go sit on his porch at night and smoke a big, fat cigar. His property abuts yours and when you try to enjoy an evening on the porch, you're constantly choked by the clouds of smoke that emanates from his property. Do you have any recourse? Can you tell Mr. Stogie he can't smoke on his own property?
Can you tell him not to smoke on his own property? I would say that depends on what state you live in. I would say it would be common courtesy to speak to him about it and attempt to reach a middle ground. And he should have enough respect to try to reach middle ground. The overall problem as I see it is most people on both sides don't want middle ground. They want absolutes, and those don't exist in life. IMO.
-
Wow! I didn't realize my initial post would start such an interesting debate...didn't realize that there were militant, anti-smokers here either! Some of yall need to light up...I mean lighten up. (If some of yall have kids I can understand not wanting them to be exposed of course.)
Speaking as that neighbor who does sit on his back porch and smoke cigars I have always tried to be considerate of others at such occasions...especially if they have something going on outside too...none of my neighbors have ever complained though...but I have gotten a compliment or two. All of the cigar smokers that I know are very considerate of others.
And, I do enjoy to smoke a cigar where cigar and/or cigarette smoking is allowed; I despise those militant, anti-smokers who walk into those same establishments and complain about the smoke (usually nagging old biddies or fags); especially when they don't have the courage to complain directly to me; but even then I have been considerate most of the time...when asked...but like Saniflush opined...if it is a cigar friendly establishment then TFB as far as I am concerned...I have a right to smoke just as much as they have a right to get the fuck out and go somewhere that is non-smoking...Lord knows there's enough of the latter in Georgia...thanks to the Smoke Nazis that we have in our legislature.
-
Pardon me for jumping into this, but I'm not a fan of smoking either. I find that I am essentially allergic to cigarette smoke, but I do smoke cigars, usually two a day. Even with that, I don't really consider myself a smoker. The real issue here has less to do with smoking rights and more to do with private property rights. If you as a private property restaurant owner chose to allow smoking, which is still a perfectly legal activity, that's your choice. The government shouldn't have much of a say in this. The majority of people seem to be missing that point. As far as you having a "right" to breath clean air, the answer is very simple. Stay out of establishments that permit smoking. The government shouldn't force establishments to go non-smoking. This sort of thing is a threat to everyone.
I'm not griping about those places that chose to go non-smoking. That's their choice. They pay the mortgage or lease. They pay the bills. It's completely their choice. As long as it's their choice, I see no problem in that. Of course, when I decide not to stop by after work anymore, that's my choice too. It all works out in the end.
As for the neighbor situation, do I know you? I get dirty looks in my neighborhood, but I don't care. I have a half acre lot, and if I chose to smoke a cigar in my car or on my back porch, it is my choice. I'm not standing on the border between our yards blowing smoke into your yard, and I can't control the direction of the wind, especially when you're three houses down across the street with your little fuck-trophies using the street as their personal playground. Now, if you live in an apartment or townhouse neighborhood, I'd suggest that you change your patterns to avoid Mr. Stogie, especially if you're unable to work out an arrangement with him. You knew, or should have been intelligent enough to realize, that a community like that would be sharing each other's BBQ smoke, cigarette smoke, belches, farts and other gaseous events.
-
And here's another example of the Smoke Nazis at work in England...but if Hillary gets elected it'll be her Orcs instead of over-zealous council wardens...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article904331.ece
Fortunately the judge saw this lunacy for what it was...
-
For the record? The cigar on the porch scenario was hypothetical. I have no such neighbor. My nearest neighbor is over an acre away from me.
-
For the record? The cigar on the porch scenario was hypothetical. I have no such neighbor. My nearest neighbor is over an acre away from me.
So noted.
-
My nearest neighbor is over an acre away from me.
Your use of an area unit to measure linear distance disturbs me as an engineer, but the pictures you post make up for it........
(er, as-in make up for your misuse, not make up for me being an engineer)
-
For the record? The cigar on the porch scenario was hypothetical. I have no such neighbor. My nearest neighbor is over an acre away from me.
Just in case you hypothetically were my neighbor, I still don't care. In fact, I'm gonna light up one of my nastiest smelling but tastiest stogies right now, drive around the neighborhood with the windows open and then sit on my back porch for the next hour as I finish it off. Good times...
-
I do not care if you smoke, just follow the rules. A youth athletic complex with a no-smoking policy is not the place for smokers to light up. Yet they do.
I like the way Prattville did it a few years ago. The city gave them a one-time choice. Smoke, or no smoke. Post it outside and you cannot change unless the business changes hands. This way anyone who visits knows the deal. If it is a smoking place, then I will not bitch if someone lights up. But conversely, don't try to smoke in a non-smoking joint. And then when I tell you to put it out, don't look at me like you want your ass whipped. We both know the deal.
-
I know that we've beaten this topic to either a horse which if not dead is about to shortly expire but this is a subject that is near and dear to me personally; the fucking smoke nazis are still marching:
States Intensify Assault on Tobacco Use
Tax hikes, outright bans proposed in many states
Written By: Nick Baker
Published In: Budget & Tax News
Publication Date: April 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smokers are under siege in state legislatures across the country.
Virginia, Wisconsin, and other states are considering banning smoking in places that serve the public, including privately owned restaurants and bars. In a growing number of states, elected officials are debating whether to prohibit smoking in private automobiles when a child is present. And in about a dozen states, lawmakers are seeking to hike tobacco taxes.
Virginia's Third Try
In Virginia, lawmakers are considering a statewide smoking ban. Similar proposals failed in 2006 and 2007.
Gov. Tim Kaine (D) supports a ban, saying at a news conference, "Recognizing the negative health effects of secondhand smoke, Virginia must act to protect the workers and consumers in its restaurants."
Virginia's business leaders have come out against the proposal, saying government should not regulate private enterprise so intrusively.
"The owner of the business should be the one to decide on whether to allow smoking," said David Meyer, vice president of the Cigar Association of Virginia. "Seventy percent of restaurants have already gone smoke-free, so there's no reason to make this into law."
Wisconsin Aims to Follow Suit
Similarly, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) wants lawmakers to ban smoking statewide. Most Democrat and many Republican lawmakers gave the governor a standing ovation during his State of the State address earlier this year when he urged them to pass the ban. The measure has the backing of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association.
Many municipalities in the state have passed their own bans. Doyle called on legislators to pass a statewide ban to end "the patchwork approach to public health." He noted Illinois and Minnesota, which border Wisconsin, have passed similar bans, and said he did not want Wisconsin to "become the ashtray of the Midwest."
Banning Smoking in Cars Nearly a dozen states--including Maine, Oklahoma, and Oregon--are considering banning smoking in private automobiles when children are present. Arkansas, California, and Louisiana already have passed such laws.
In Washington, state Rep. Shay Secual-Burke (D-Normany Park) and state Sen. Chris Marr (D-Spokane) have sponsored legislation that would make it a traffic infraction to smoke in a car with children.
At a recent Senate committee hearing, state Sen. Mike Carrell (R-Lakewood) said the bill's provision banning smoking in open-topped cars goes too far. "I don't smoke--never have smoked--but this is sort of another 'driftnet' approach to a 'nanny-gate' state," he said. "What does a house have in common with a field? Nothing. What does an open car with volumes of air blowing around have in common with an enclosed car?"
Kansas Governor's Call
In Kansas, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) has called for an increase in the state's cigarette tax, starting at 50 cents per pack and indexed to inflation so it would increase automatically after the first year.
Sebelius said the increase is necessary to fund 21 health care recommendations made by a study committee. These include an education campaign to reduce teen smoking, subsidizing insurance premiums for low-income families, and promoting nutrition in schools.
Tim Shallenburger, representing Penn National Gaming, told a legislative panel that a smoking ban would hurt the state's gaming industry. He said smokers would travel to nearby casinos in Missouri and Oklahoma, states where smoking is allowed.
"This bothers me. Where do we stop?" asked state Sen. Ralph Ostemeyer (R-Grinnell).
Utah's Tax Proposal
In Utah, state Rep. Paul Ray (R-Clearfield) has introduced a bill to raise taxes on a pack of cigarettes 72 percent, bringing the tax from 69.5 cents to $1.19 per pack. Ray estimates the tax hike would raise $25 to $29 million to help fund health improvement programs such as cancer screenings and smoking cessation programs.
"A tax increase is never popular and [is] viewed as unnecessary in a revenue surplus year and impossible to get passed in an election year," Ray told the Deseret Morning News. "This is a public health issue that will go on no matter the revenue picture or the political season."
Ray's bill faces stiff opposition from members of his own party. Lisa Roskelley, spokesperson for Gov. Jon Huntsman, said the governor plans no tax hikes in the 2008-2009 budget. "We are not for this or any other tax increase," she told the Deseret Morning News.
Here's the link:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22890
-
The Smoke Nazis have been quiet for a while after satiating their appetite to infringe upon personal rights of tax-paying citizens of Virginia, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Utah; however, they've resurfaced now in a full assault in Pennsylvania this time led by Gov. Ed Rendell (D-umbass) who signed the "so-called" Clean Indoor Air Act into law yesterday. Although I have made my thoughts on these laws well known on this and other threads in this forum I must reinforce it by writing yet again the Democrats are using instruments like this law to get a foothold on controlling every aspect of our personal lives. Mark my words; you non-smokers might be all for this but they'll come after you for something you enjoy soon enough...
Here's the article from the Politico (emphasis and sub-texts are my own):
'Butt Out'- Rendell has a message for smokers
By HOLDEN SLATTERY - THE PITT NEWS | 6/20/08
When Oakland's Mad Mex restaurant and bar became exclusively non-smoking in March, it did so for moral reasons. Now, some other Oakland establishments must follow suit, a new state law says.
The Clean Indoor Air Act, signed by Gov. Ed Rendell last Friday, will ban smoking in most public buildings and work places throughout the state but will not have a sweeping effect on Oakland businesses because of an exemption.
Bars or taverns that make less than 20 percent of its total sales from food are immune from the ban.
Thank God some lawmakers had to common sense to make some exemptions to this socialist law.
Oakland venues, including Boomerang's, Garage Door Saloon and Bootleggers, all of which make little to no food sales, will run as usual, while restaurant/bars like Peter's Pub, Fuel & Fuddle, Joe Mama's and Primanti Brothers will have to be smoke-free under the law, which takes effect on Sept. 11, 90 days after Rendell's signing.
[b"]Unfortunately, we're upset there are exemptions," said Tom Baron, owner of big Burrito Restaurant Group, which includes Mad Mex.
"I think what it says is that they care about the health of some employees but not all employees," he said.[/b]
TFB; of course this asshole is upset...maybe he ought to sell less food and you won't loose your smoking customers; I like how he makes a "compassionate" play on it being unfair to some employees...typical Liberal Democrat...Boo Hoo!
Baron made the switch to non-smoking March 1, when one of his employees became pregnant. Baron said he was sick of waiting for the state or county to pass a smoking ban and decided to make all of his restaurants non-smoking.
"It was the right thing to do," he said.
Instead of smoking sections and non-smoking sections, Oakland customers will have to choose between smoking bars and non-smoking bars.
Peter Leventis, co-owner of Peter's Pub on Oakland Avenue, said he makes much more than 20 percent of his sales from food.
"I'm not happy with it, because I think it should be across the board, not just 20 percent food," said Leventis.
He said he plans to comply but does not think it can be enforced in every bar.
"It's going to be enforced, but I don't know how strict at first because they don't have enough people to do it," he said. "There's over 2,000 liquor licenses in Allegheny County."
Seth Plyer, a manager at Primanti Brothers, said he thinks the new state law is unfair and creates an inconvenience for his employees, who all smoke, except for two.
Yes it is unfair...to business owners and the smoking public.
"It creates an unlevel playing field. Now you can go to some places to smoke but not others," he said. "For the drinkers who want to go out and smoke, it will certainly send business to the bars that make less than 20 percent of their sales from food.
"I think it should just be left up to the individual business owners," he said.
AMEN TO THAT. The government should not be telling business owners that they can't allow smoking.
Chuck Ardo, a spokesperson for Rendell, said that the law will reduce cases of secondhand smoke.
"In the most practical terms, it will reduce medical costs as fewer Pennsylvanians are subject to the diseases that exposure to secondhand smoke causes," he said.
Again, I have to call :bs: on that because there's not one shread of scientific evidence prooving that second-hand smoke causes anything except irriation to some sensitive individuals. What absolute rubbish!
While the ban was enacted for health reasons, Ardo said that owners of establishments with low food sales lobbied for their exemption with financial arguments.
Vic Bovalino, director of operations for Joe Mama's, Fuel & Fuddle and Uncle Sam's Subs, all located on Oakland Avenue, said because this is a statewide ban, he thinks the ban will not harm his business.
Ardo said that Rendell would support attempts in the legislature that would allow Allegheny County and Scranton to impose their own laws, which could be stronger than the state's law.
Both state Sen. Jay Costa, D-Allegheny, and state Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny, have publicly said they will push for legislation allowing Allegheny County and other local governments to pass stricter smoking bans.
When Rendell signed the act, he wrote a message: "Although I enthusiastically signed this bill, I do share the concerns of many of our citizens, and some legislators, who think we can and should do better."
The law reads that other exceptions include certain sections of gaming halls and casinos, private residences that aren't used as day care centers, tobacco shops, cigar bars and private clubs.
Here's the link:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11228.html
-
...
"In the most practical terms, it will reduce medical costs as fewer Pennsylvanians are subject to the diseases that exposure to secondhand smoke causes," he said.
Again, I have to call :bs: on that because there's not one shread of scientific evidence prooving that second-hand smoke causes anything except irriation to some sensitive individuals. What absolute rubbish!
Here's the link:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11228.html
Let's clarify some things. If those poor innocent non-smokers are genuinely concerned about the risks of second-hand smoke, there's a very simple solution that doesn't involve imposing their concepts of "clean air" on others. These clowns are fully capable of exercising their own personal judgment (aka CHOICE) by not patronizing establishments that permit smoking. Problem solved! Why is that concept so difficult for people to understand? I've had my fill of these idiots.
-
Let's clarify some things. If those poor innocent non-smokers are genuinely concerned about the risks of second-hand smoke, there's a very simple solution that doesn't involve imposing their concepts of "clean air" on others. These clowns are fully capable of exercising their own personal judgment (aka CHOICE) by not patronizing establishments that permit smoking. Problem solved! Why is that concept so difficult for people to understand? I've had my fill of these idiots.
Because half of America doesn't believe in any form of personal responsibility...
It is always someone elses fault and they want to know what the government is going to do about it...
-
Because half of America doesn't believe in any form of personal responsibility...
It is always someone elses fault and they want to know what the government is going to do about it...
Yeah... I know. Most of Europe is like that too. You can openly see the toll that it's taking on these societies...