Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: GarMan on May 03, 2010, 11:20:23 PM
-
The smoke-NAZIs are furious... And YES, I said it!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/03/BA1Q1D8VVL.DTL&tsp=1 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/03/BA1Q1D8VVL.DTL&tsp=1)
Schwarzenegger vetoes smoking ban at parks
Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Monday, May 3, 2010
(05-03) 17:43 PDT Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill today that would have prohibited smoking at nearly all state beaches and parks, saying the law would have been too intrusive and would not have done much to curb litter on California's shoreline.
The groundbreaking legislation would have created the nation's most far-reaching smoking ban in a state that already restricts people from lighting up in cars with children, restaurants and bars. State Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, who authored the bill, said Schwarzenegger's veto stands in "stark contrast to what is already being done at more than 100 local cities and counties statewide," including smoking bans at beaches and parks controlled by local jurisdictions. Oropeza and other supporters said the bill was necessary to cut down on litter, second-hand smoke and forest fires at the 278 parks and 64 beaches owned by the state.
"I'm sorry the governor did not agree with this widely supported effort to increase public awareness about the environmental threats carelessly tossed cigarettes are doing to our marine life and to the great outdoors," Oropeza said in a written statement.
But Schwarzenegger - whose cigar habit is well known - wrote in his one-page veto message that Senate Bill 4 was an "improper intrusion of government into people's lives." Noting that he has supported other smoking bans, the governor nonetheless said that Oropeza's bill "crosses an important threshold between state power and command and local decision making.
"There is something inherently uncomfortable about the idea of the state encroaching in such a broad manner on the people of California," Schwarzenegger wrote. "With respect to marine debris, I understand the challenge cigarette butts cause to our beaches and marine life. But, this bill applies the ban solely to those beaches and parks owned and operated by the state of California ... As we have seen, marine debris and litter know no boundaries."
Schwarzenegger also noted that the state Department of Parks and Recreation has some discretion to ban smoking in parks and beaches under certain circumstances, such as when fire hazards exist.
The bill, which was first introduced as a broader measure in 2006, would have imposed a $100 fine on people who violated the ban. After changes made during the legislative process last year, it exempted all state-owned campsites and parking lots as well as a vehicle recreation area in San Luis Obispo County, and could only have been enforced in areas where signs were posted advertising the ban.
E-mail Marisa Lagos at mlagos@sfchronicle.com.
-
I am for any smoking ban in public.You lose your right to smoke when I lose my right not to have to breath it in against my will. Plus - if Swartzendumbass did it, we should probably be against it. He's terrible.
-
Good for the Gov, IMO. :clap:
-
I am for any smoking ban in public.You lose your right to smoke when I lose my right not to have to breath it in against my will. Plus - if Swartzendumbass did it, we should probably be against it. He's terrible.
Here we go... I think I agreed with 90+% of your posts in the other threads, but I don't see much opportunity for any of that alleged "back-patting" on this one.
Nobody is forcing you to breath in anything. Is a smoker holding you down and blowing it in your face? Are you tied up in a room with a group of smokers? Do you have the same opinion of diesel exhaust? What about excessive perfume or cologne? How are you losing your "right" when you're perfectly capable of moving away from the situation? What entitles you to anything when you're out in public?
Next, what's a public place where smoking should be banned? Is it my backyard? My front yard? My driveway? What about when I'm in my car smoking with the window down? What about the street, sidewalks, parks and beaches?
Personally, I can't stand the smell of cigarettes, and I actually experience a bit of an asthmatic/allergic reaction when I'm around too much of it. But, I smoke cigars, lots of them... I don't have a problem with natural tobacco, but cigarettes are rough on me. It's not my place to impose my beliefs, wants or desires on others. Similarly, I think that most smokers should be courteous enough to be aware when their smoke is bothering another, but when everyone is outside, it’s a significant stretch to start calling for smoke bans.
-
Here we go... I think I agreed with 90+% of your posts in the other threads, but I don't see much opportunity for any of that alleged "back-patting" on this one.
Nobody is forcing you to breath in anything. Is a smoker holding you down and blowing it in your face? Are you tied up in a room with a group of smokers? Do you have the same opinion of diesel exhaust? What about excessive perfume or cologne? How are you losing your "right" when you're perfectly capable of moving away from the situation? What entitles you to anything when you're out in public?
Next, what's a public place where smoking should be banned? Is it my backyard? My front yard? My driveway? What about when I'm in my car smoking with the window down? What about the street, sidewalks, parks and beaches?
Personally, I can't stand the smell of cigarettes, and I actually experience a bit of an asthmatic/allergic reaction when I'm around too much of it. But, I smoke cigars, lots of them... I don't have a problem with natural tobacco, but cigarettes are rough on me. It's not my place to impose my beliefs, wants or desires on others. Similarly, I think that most smokers should be courteous enough to be aware when their smoke is bothering another, but when everyone is outside, it’s a significant stretch to start calling for smoke bans.
I understand what you are saying, but if I am sitting on a park bench in the public place, and someone sits down next to me, and lights up, why should I have move just to avoid the smoke. Most smokers are not courteous at all. Go out to any street and walk 100 yards in any direction, count how many butts you see.
-
I am for any smoking ban in public.You lose your right to smoke when I lose my right not to have to breath it in against my will. Plus - if Swartzendumbass did it, we should probably be against it. He's terrible.
(http://ftsb.alt130.net/livejournal/shut%20the%20fuck%20up.jpg)
Personally, I can't stand the smell of cigarettes, and I actually experience a bit of an asthmatic/allergic reaction when I'm around too much of it. But, I smoke cigars, lots of them... I don't have a problem with natural tobacco, but cigarettes are rough on me.
Sounds like you're the Beta-male.
But in all seriousness, I'm with you on this one.
-
Here we go... I think I agreed with 90+% of your posts in the other threads, but I don't see much opportunity for any of that alleged "back-patting" on this one.
Nobody is forcing you to breath in anything. Is a smoker holding you down and blowing it in your face? Are you tied up in a room with a group of smokers? Do you have the same opinion of diesel exhaust? What about excessive perfume or cologne? How are you losing your "right" when you're perfectly capable of moving away from the situation? What entitles you to anything when you're out in public?
Next, what's a public place where smoking should be banned? Is it my backyard? My front yard? My driveway? What about when I'm in my car smoking with the window down? What about the street, sidewalks, parks and beaches?
Personally, I can't stand the smell of cigarettes, and I actually experience a bit of an asthmatic/allergic reaction when I'm around too much of it. But, I smoke cigars, lots of them... I don't have a problem with natural tobacco, but cigarettes are rough on me. It's not my place to impose my beliefs, wants or desires on others. Similarly, I think that most smokers should be courteous enough to be aware when their smoke is bothering another, but when everyone is outside, it’s a significant stretch to start calling for smoke bans.
AWK, Chad - are you watching the good ole boy club here? Back patting? :poke:
Seriously though - if I am out in public (not private property) - a park, a restaurant, etc I have no choice but to breathe in what is there. I cant tell you how many times I have been in a restaurant before and been forced to breathe in that crap against my will. Smokers are not usually the most courteous bastards in the world. Even at Jordan Hare, that little area they have - if I go down to get a drink in line on the concourse, I'm pretty much forced to breathe it in - unless I want to sit in my seat the entire friggin time. Smoke travels! Sure - I can go home and avoid it all. But then who is dictating the public places? The smokers - and Ive essentially lost any privilege of being able to enjoy a public place without smoke.
Your backyard and your driveway are your property - you can do as you wish. My point is that if someone else is being subjected to that filth against their will in public, the smoker has lost that right. That applies to any right. If your gonna blow smoke around in public, people in the vicinity have a right NOT to breathe it in.
-
(http://ftsb.alt130.net/livejournal/shut%20the%20phuk%20up.jpg)
:thumsup:
-
:thumsup:
The language filter "phuked" up the url name.
I recommend turning it off anyway.
-
Sounds like you're the Beta-male.
But in all seriousness, I'm with you on this one.
:fu:
Sweetheart, your man-card was revoked years ago. Oh... Wait a minute... That may just mean that you're a better judge of beta-male character than me.
I can't control my health situation, especially those items that are genetic.
-
:fu:
Sweetheart, your man-card was revoked years ago. Oh... Wait a minute... That may just mean that you're a better judge of beta-male character than me.
I can't control my health situation, especially those items that are genetic.
Whole lot of Beta-Male'ing going on here.
Why don't you guys just hug and end it....mmmmkkkk?? Alrighty then.
What exactly does "GarMan" mean?
-
I smoke, but I understand where the complaints come from. If I am in a restaurant or around a large group of people I will walk away/out to smoke.
Also, I don't mind having to go outside of a bar to smoke.
-
I smoke, but I understand where the complaints come from. If I am in a restaurant or around a large group of people I will walk away/out to smoke.
Also, I don't mind having to go outside of a bar to smoke.
Good man. Only if all smokers had this mentality.
-
I only smoke AWK's cigs
-
I only smoke AWK's cigs
Fact. Shark week. But it's all good because a beer without a cigarette just seems wrong.
-
I only smoke AWK's cigs
capris?
-
capris?
Nope, Virginia Slims.
-
AWK, Chad - are you watching the good ole boy club here? Back patting? :poke:
I felt like I had been molested...
Seriously though - if I am out in public (not private property) - a park, a restaurant, etc I have no choice but to breathe in what is there. I cant tell you how many times I have been in a restaurant before and been forced to breathe in that crap against my will. Smokers are not usually the most courteous bastards in the world. Even at Jordan Hare, that little area they have - if I go down to get a drink in line on the concourse, I'm pretty much forced to breathe it in - unless I want to sit in my seat the entire friggin time. Smoke travels! Sure - I can go home and avoid it all. But then who is dictating the public places? The smokers - and Ive essentially lost any privilege of being able to enjoy a public place without smoke.
Most of those "public" places are not really public. It's not the government's place to impose this type of control over the use of that property. If a particular restaurant or bar allows smoking and you find it offensive, go somewhere else that doesn't allow smoking. Eventually, when enough people adopt your position, the owners will change their internal policies. As an example, most restaurants in the area where I live in Georgia were non-smoking long before the state ever passed a silly smoking ban.
Your backyard and your driveway are your property - you can do as you wish. My point is that if someone else is being subjected to that filth against their will in public, the smoker has lost that right. That applies to any right. If your gonna blow smoke around in public, people in the vicinity have a right NOT to breathe it in.
Like I said, define "public" very carefully. If you allow the government to mandate non-smoking policies in privately owned restaurants, bars and other establishments, when do you think they'll start pushing into other private property? Take your home, for instance.
-
Nope, Virginia Slims.
Thsi^ They're women's cigarettes and they have little boobies on them you can play with while you smoke..but not in public...nudity offends some people.
-
Fact. PRIDE week. But it's all good because a cock without a cigarette just seems wrong.
FTFY...
-
FTFY...
Dear GH,
Next time you feel like I begin the name calling, please refer to the post above.
K, Thanks
XOXO
-
What exactly does "GarMan" mean?
Think cigars... I have at least eight nicely stocked humidors filled wiff tobacco goodness. In fact, I just finished one for lunch.
-
Dear GH,
Next time you feel like I begin the name calling, please refer to the post above.
K, Thanks
XOXO
(http://youknowwhatwe.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/crying_baby.jpg)
-
(http://youknowwhatwe.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/crying_baby.jpg)
C'mon, now. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If you want the freedom to throw that shit around, then you don't get to cry foul when someone says "redneck".
-
C'mon, now. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If you want the freedom to throw that shit around, then you don't get to cry foul when someone says "redneck".
No, no, no Wes... We are insensitive "beta-male" name calling racist towards rednecks... When they do it, it's ok. Irony aside, I find this shit hilarious.
-
C'mon, now. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If you want the freedom to throw that poop around, then you don't get to cry foul when someone says "redneck".
You know... Those two guys seem so much alike with the tone of their posts, I honestly didn't realize that they switched on me. Chad started on the 4th or 5th response into the thread, so I thought we were still throwing jabs at each other. My bad...
-
You know... Those two guys seem so much alike with the tone of their posts, I honestly didn't realize that they switched on me. Chad started on the 4th or 5th response into the thread, so I thought we were still throwing jabs at each other. My bad...
His partner said, "Damn, they all look like Tyson."
-
No, no, no Wes... We are insensitive "beta-male" name calling racist towards rednecks... When they do it, it's ok. Irony aside, I find this poop hilarious.
Seriously... Read my note to Wes. My bad... I F'd up. I do apologize, if you're game for keeping this civil.
-
Seriously... Read my note to Wes. My bad... I F'd up. I do apologize, if you're game for keeping this civil.
We should have a fight to the death with tridents.
I kid, It's all good. I am not a pussy, I just like it.
-
We should have a fight to the death with tridents.
There were horses and a man on fire and I killed a guy with a trident.
-
Dear GH,
Next time you feel like I begin the name calling, please refer to the post above.
K, Thanks
XOXO
No argument here.
-
You know... Those two guys seem so much alike with the tone of their posts, I honestly didn't realize that they switched on me. Chad started on the 4th or 5th response into the thread, so I thought we were still throwing jabs at each other. My bad...
I thought beta-male was a lighthearted jab that no one should take offense to? I was clearly kidding around poking fun at the not-so-tough-guy post. Kind of like singing rammer-jammer back at the bammers after we beat them. Just turning your own classlessness back on you.
And then I said I agreed with your position.
-
I thought beta-male was a lighthearted jab that no one should take offense to? I was clearly kidding around poking fun at the not-so-tough-guy post. Kind of like singing rammer-jammer back at the bammers after we beat them. Just turning your own classlessness back on you.
I'm good with it, Honey. But, "classlessness"? Really??? With all of the crap that you throw around in here at just about everyone, you're going to sling "classlessness" at someone? Your predatory bullying across most of these threads defines the term.
And then I said I agreed with your position.
I was a little surprised by that. With all of that PC crap that you seem to subscribe to, I expected the opposite. Perhaps, there's hope for you...
-
No argument here.
You saw my posts after that. I made a mistake. We've moved on...
-
I was a little surprised by that. With all of that PC crap that you seem to subscribe to, I expected the opposite. Perhaps, there's hope for you...
Clearly you don't know me.
-
Clearly you don't know me.
Correct. There's no hope for you. :vn:
-
Clearly you don't know me.
You send mixed signals a lot chad. Sometimes you sound like you are best buds with Keith Olbermann, and then sometimes you sound like Ron Paul- who I like and supported in 2008. I would like to think you are more the latter and the former simply comes out when the argument gets dirty. I know sometimes I sound a lot more right wing than I am simply due to being pissed.
-
You send mixed signals a lot chad. Sometimes you sound like you are best buds with Keith Olbermann, and then sometimes you sound like Ron Paul- who I like and supported in 2008. I would like to think you are more the latter and the former simply comes out when the argument gets dirty. I know sometimes I sound a lot more right wing than I am simply due to being pissed.
I think it's this:
Sometimes a thing can be defined by its surroundings. A photograph exists as a negative image at first. In this relatively conservative/republican/rightwing/insert your label here forum, Chad appears to be on the far end of the spectrum.
I know that he is not that far out left (in fact, he leans mostly conservative in the traditional sense of the word), but the majority here makes him appear to be out there.
-
I think it's this:
Sometimes a thing can be defined by its surroundings. A photograph exists as a negative image at first. In this relatively conservative/republican/rightwing/insert your label here forum, Chad appears to be on the far end of the spectrum.
I know that he is not that far out left (in fact, he leans mostly conservative in the traditional sense of the word), but the majority here makes him appear to be out there.
Whatever you consider this forum, you'll always find individuals even within the same classification, right or left, with significantly differing opinions on teh topics. At the end of the day, we're all still individuals in this country, for now anyway, and we're all able to devise our own conclusions and evolve our own individual set of positions on teh topics.
-
Whatever you consider this forum, you'll always find individuals even within the same classification, right or left, with significantly differing opinions on teh topics. At the end of the day, we're all still individuals in this country, for now anyway, and we're all able to devise our own conclusions and evolve our own individual set of positions on teh topics.
Fair enough, but I think you're being disingenuous if you deny that this forum leans heavily to the right.
-
Fair enough, but I think you're being disingenuous if you deny that this forum leans heavily to the right.
Who? The Xer's? Leans Right? Naw :)
It think that is pretty evident looking at the political spectrum quiz thread. I would love to see everyone participate in that one. I will when I get home. Work has it blocked, but would like to see where others stand. Even those that never venture into the SGA.
-
Fair enough, but I think you're being disingenuous if you deny that this forum leans heavily to the right.
Well, I don't think my statement implied anything about the rightness or leftness of the forum, but it does depend on your own personal perspective, as in where do you define your center, etc...
-
You send mixed signals a lot chad. Sometimes you sound like you are best buds with Keith Olbermann, and then sometimes you sound like Ron Paul- who I like and supported in 2008. I would like to think you are more the latter and the former simply comes out when the argument gets dirty. I know sometimes I sound a lot more right wing than I am simply due to being pissed.
I don't think so. Name one position of mine that is Keith Olberman-esque that Ron Paul would not agree with as well?
-
I don't think so. Name one position of mine that is Keith Olberman-esque that Ron Paul would not agree with as well?
I just mean your tone mainly when the arguments go to the mud. The name calling, redneck idiot labeling. Thats very Olbermann-esque and youre probably better than that. I can tell you that Keith and Ron differ very much. Keith is all about big govt and the nanny state - pretty much everything Obama wants while Paul is fiscally probably the most conservative member of Congress. I - like Paul - am against Abortion. And also like him, it has nothing to do with religion. I really think we screwed up not nominating the guy on the GOP ticket. He wiped the floor in every debate I saw.
-
I - like Paul - am against Abortion. And also like him, it has nothing to do with religion.
Just out of curiosity....what is your basis for being against abortion, if it isn't religion?
-
Just out of curiosity....what is your basis for being against abortion, if it isn't religion?
I'm not against all abortions, but I believe they should only be allowed for certain circumstances. I'm not sure the government needs the power to decide for people though.
Overall though, it's a non-issue to me. It's your life. Live it how you want to. I just think it's bullshit to take a life for such a selfish reason as "I'm not ready for a kid."
-
I'm not against all abortions, but I only believe they should be allowed for certain circumstances.
People shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion just because they were irresponsible during intercourse and don't really want a kid. Too fucking bad.
Too fucking bad for the kid you mean. I agree it's bullshit to use abortion as a means of birth control, but I don't like seeing kids on the news with cigarette burns or broken little arms either.
I don't know if I could personally have one, but as long as it's done within the first trimester...I'm fine with it.
-
Too fucking bad for the kid you mean. I agree it's bullshit to use abortion as a means of birth control, but I don't like seeing kids on the news with cigarette burns or broken little arms either.
I don't know if I could personally have one, but as long as it's done within the first trimester...I'm fine with it.
You got me before my edit.
IMO, abortion isn't a legitimate answer for child abuse. But I see your point.
-
I just mean your tone mainly when the arguments go to the mud. The name calling, redneck idiot labeling. Thats very Olbermann-esque and youre probably better than that. I can tell you that Keith and Ron differ very much. Keith is all about big govt and the nanny state - pretty much everything Obama wants while Paul is fiscally probably the most conservative member of Congress. I - like Paul - am against Abortion. And also like him, it has nothing to do with religion. I really think we screwed up not nominating the guy on the GOP ticket. He wiped the floor in every debate I saw.
I'm aware of the ideological differences between Ron Paul and Keith Olberman. I'm saying I don't agree with one single thing that Olberman might argue that Paul wouldn't also agree with.
Tone? I don't like your tone. /thread :poke:
-
Just out of curiosity....what is your basis for being against abortion, if it isn't religion?
I have my reasons. We'll keep it at that. :)
I'm aware of the ideological differences between Ron Paul and Keith Olberman. I'm saying I don't agree with one single thing that Olberman might argue that Paul wouldn't also agree with.
Tone? I don't like your tone. /thread :poke:
Im not sure they have any common ground except for being Anti-War and maybe legalizing mary jane. Olbermann is an ideologue, Paul is not.
-
I have my reasons. We'll keep it at that. :)
Im not sure they have any common ground except for being Anti-War and maybe legalizing mary jane. Olbermann is an ideologue, Paul is not.
So I ask again, what position have I taken in these forums that Ron Paul would not agree with?
-Legalizing Marijuana?
-Removing restrictions on alcohol in the state?
-Repealing DADT?
-This Arizona bill where Mexican citizens are required to show "their papers" when demanded by law enforcement?
-The freedom of a business to decide whether or not to allow smoking on its private property?
-
Just out of curiosity....what is your basis for being against abortion, if it isn't religion?
Abortion is one of those issues where I can legitimately see both sides of the debate, with religion not being a factor.
Most importantly, I don't think the Government has a right to intrude on such a personal decision as that.
Science dictates that there's essentially no difference between aborting in the first trimester as there is jerking off and wiping it on a towel. I tend to err on the side of science in these matters.
However, that being said, I would have a hard time personally with ending the life of my child, even if it is before it technically is a life. It just would feel wrong, I would think.
I can understand the argument that it is murder, and murder should be punishable.
It's a complicated issue, one of the few that I totally understand where both sides are coming from.
Because of all of what I stated above, I believe the law should allow abortions in the first trimester, but strictly make them illegal beyond that.
-
So I ask again, what position have I taken in these forums that Ron Paul would not agree with?
-Legalizing Marijuana?
-Removing restrictions on alcohol in the state?
-Repealing DADT?
-This Arizona bill where Mexican citizens are required to show "their papers" when demanded by law enforcement?
-The freedom of a business to decide whether or not to allow smoking on its private property?
How does he stand on the last 4? I really havent looked into his stances on the last 4 since those debates have occured recently.
-
What the hell? Hijacking my thread like that...
Go start your own!