|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,059
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,059 |
Quote:
Um, Taggarts is not a "pub", it's as pure bar as it gets. We are talking bars, not restauraunts that serve alcohol.
Well I guess I don't know the meaning of the word "pub". Maybe there should be an admendment put on the ballot to give exceptions for those places that sell alcohol that don't have full service menus. The chances of that passing would seem to be greater. I know I really don't care if your smoking as long as it's not where I'm eating.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
They banned smoking in resturants so you don't kill those who don't want to be killed by lung cancer.
Those that are complaining about the smoking ban must be pissed they can't go shooting people with their guns just because it hurts someone else. Don't want to be shot, don't be near me. It's the same affect of, "Don't want to be bothered by smoke, go somewhere else." 
But, this is the type of ignorance that got this bill passed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
Quote:
We used to go out alot. Pure bars or pubs like Tagarts? Not much in the last 15 years. Many resturants have bars though. As well as many clubs where there is live music. Smoking and non smoking areas are a joke. You still get healthy amount of smoke even if you don't sit in a smoking area. Smoking is dangerous to others.
I beleve in personal rights, but not when it enfringes on the health of others. There are many times personal freedoms are enfringed on because of adverse effects to others.
You don't fertilize your yard, do you? Cause that fertilizer can affect me.
You aren't overweight, are you? Cause your health costs can affect me.
You don't drive a car, do you? Cause your noxious emissions could affect me (yeah, we all know GM's noxious emissions affect a lot of people, but he has a license - least that's my understanding  )
I could go on and on, but I won't.
Here's the catch: you seem to be okay with banning smoking in public places cause it affects your wife. All those things I mentioned affect others as well. Are you okay with banning those as well?
Are you okay with businesses banning employees that smoke? (I don't mean smoke on premises, I mean smoke when at home). Are you okay with gov't. doing that? If so, then you must be prepared for businesses, and gov't, banning overweight people from eating anything other than lettuce, fruits and nuts.
You must be okay with - and it will happen - gov't. banning smoking in your own home. Course, if you're okay with that, then you will be for gov't. banning other things - in your own home. Like butter. Or meat. Better yet, let gov't. ban t.v.'s, as television does not better an individual.
Just where will you stop when it comes to allowing gov't. to determine what we can do? When it affects you? By that time, it will be too late.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,644
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,644 |
Great post Arch! 
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
You don't fertilize your yard, do you? Cause that fertilizer can affect me.
And there are a lot of banned fertilizers that you can't use in your yard already.
Quote:
You aren't overweight, are you? Cause your health costs can affect me.
If I can get cancer from second-hand blubber, then we can use this comparison. 
Quote:
You don't drive a car, do you? Cause your noxious emissions could affect me
And many states and cities already have emissions checks to keep these to reasonable levels.
You could also go the other way ... Would you be cool with you neighbor burying mercury or even nuclear material in his back yard?
Would you want you neighbor to play music at jet engine decibles at all hours of the day?
I understand this is a slippery slope, and we don't want the goverment regulating everything, but I also understand that somethings could use regulation as well. I'm all for businesses themselves deciding what their customers can and cant' too, but i also enjoy going to restaurants here in California and not having to worry about any smoke.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I wonder how many of those folks didn't know or realize there was a difference or a defined stance to include bars, or that there was an option to defeat it and have it rewritten later to only include restaurants.
You know alot of people who vote never read or watch anything about the issues, the first they really see of it is on voting day and they read like the first sentence of the description and make a choice.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
My whole point all along is that people should have a choice, whether it's smokers or non smokers. It's not about being winners, as some of those who want to control other people even though they never set foot in a bar consider themselves "winners" over other people because they stopped them from doing something they don't want them to do. That attitude is sickening.
There should have been establishments where smoking is allowed for people who like to go to bars to drink and smoke.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Im not sure of how it read in Ohio, but here, there are alot of loophole's in the writing. Like if you take a food order you cannot serve alcohol,or if you have so many slot machines, you can smoke. Or if it is a family owned establishment it is up to you to ban smoking.And if you own so many establishments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
Quote:
There should have been establishments where smoking is allowed for people who like to go to bars to drink and smoke.
There were, jules, there were!!!! I know you understand, but for some people it just never hit home.
IF THERE WAS A BIG DEMAND FOR NON SMOKING ESTABLISHMENTS, some whacked out entreprenour would have filled that need, and he/she would've made a lot of money in doing so.
I know around here there was one place that was smoke free (prior to the ban). Years ago - 1992 - 1993, something like that. The guy had a hell of a first week, maybe 2. Then, business died. Within the year smoking was allowed.
The choice WAS there, but gov't. took it away.
So banning some things are okay with you. That's great. Watch the next 5 or 6 years. There will be things banned that you can't believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,740
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,740 |
Quote:
(yeah, we all know GM's noxious emissions affect a lot of people, but he has a license - least that's my understanding )
It's not only licensed, it's registered as a lethal weapon in all 50 states 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
Quote:
They banned smoking in resturants so you don't kill those who don't want to be killed by lung cancer.
Those that are complaining about the smoking ban must be pissed they can't go shooting people with their guns just because it hurts someone else. Don't want to be shot, don't be near me. It's the same affect of, "Don't want to be bothered by smoke, go somewhere else."
But, this is the type of ignorance that got this bill passed.
And thank God it did, seeing as how I suffer for asthma, I'd rather there be 0 smoke period. But i'd rather not deal with it while I eat.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Well, it's all about you. Go ahead and keep thinking that. And, btw, we're talking about bars here.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
Well, it's all about you. Go ahead and keep thinking that. And, btw, we're talking about bars here.
I will and have fun, I think this is bull crap and people can swear if they want to.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
I agree with this....swearing should be banned from bars. As a matter of fact, swearing should be banned within 25 feet of any public door while they're at it. I don't want to hear that stuff.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
I agree with this....swearing should be banned from bars. As a matter of fact, swearing should be banned within 25 feet of any public door while they're at it. I don't want to hear that stuff.
And While were at it let's stop people that talk to much! or have asthma from going out in public! Or Over weight people to have wider doors!Or people that are sensitive to light have all places turn them down! How a bout we just get rid of all people that are not perfect?!!!! Damn I hate people! Why cant we all just get along and live?Why is it that if someone dosent have the same feeling, or belief, or choice of life style that they have to bitch!? This world is going down hill so f...ing fast!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
I agree. And I really want to pass a bill about wearing cologne/perfume in public. It really offends me and makes me cough and wheeze. Besides the fact that most people take a bath in the stuff and it just plain STINKS.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
OH! Dont get me going on that!  These old blue hair Women here swim in some of the most discusting I have ever smelled!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,648
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,648 |
I can't STAND perfume!!! UGH! Makes me sneeze...
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Quote:
I can't STAND perfume!!! UGH! Makes me sneeze...
HEY! I thought you love De Shotty De Pew!?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,739
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,739 |
Quote:
Quote:
Um, Taggarts is not a "pub", it's as pure bar as it gets. We are talking bars, not restauraunts that serve alcohol.
Well I guess I don't know the meaning of the word "pub". Maybe there should be an admendment put on the ballot to give exceptions for those places that sell alcohol that don't have full service menus. The chances of that passing would seem to be greater. I know I really don't care if your smoking as long as it's not where I'm eating.
So you are saying you got your way for dining out....that is fine, maybe!
But why in the hell do you want to visit a smokey bar or pub if you know it is that way....when you can visit one of your favorite resturants that don't let people smoke!
That should not bother you....should it?
![[Linked Image from i96.photobucket.com]](http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l197/thazen/brownsflag2.jpg) GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
As a human, as long as you're not physically confined, you have the freedom and power to do anything you want. . . . . . . .Anything.
I don't mean this strictly in an inspirational way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
May have allready been said, but....
for those of you who don't believe in the "slippery slope theory". I guess ya'll reep what you sow. Let's see where this all goes from here. Sure, it's easy to pick on smokers, so how far can we be pushed? What's next? I know in NY the next step was the noise caused by the smokers who were now standing out side, then it was who was supposed to clean up after them. Now someone is going to ban cursing in a venue which is inherantly adult only.
I'll grant you, I have brought my young children to the bleacher seats at Yankee Stadium. I would appreciate if people would have some consideration. But first, I don't want it to be illegal, because second, I can take care of it myself. Not to sound like a tough, but if making people aware doesn't help, my children and I can leave.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
Happy birthday, and I posted my comment before I read yours. Yes. It pretty much is.
And for the spelling Nazis, I know "yes" is not a complete sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Speaking of individual property rights being usurped by the Nanny-State ... State proposes to take control of home temps By: BRADLEY J. FIKES - Staff Writer Revision to building standards would make some power conservation mandatory California utilities would control the temperature of new homes and commercial buildings in emergencies with a radio-controlled thermostat, under a proposed state update to building energy efficiency standards. Customers could not override the thermostats during "emergency events," according to the proposal, part of a 236-page revision to building standards. The document is scheduled to be considered by the California Energy Commission, a state agency, on Jan. 30. The description does not provide any exception for health or safety concerns. It also does not define what are "emergency events." During heat waves, customers crank up the air conditioning, putting severe strains on the state's power supply. By giving utilities the power to automatically adjust power demand by reducing air conditioning, the hope is that more severe interruptions, such as rolling blackouts, can be avoided. However, both the Utility Consumers Action Network, a consumer rights group, and the Riverside County Chapter of the Building Industry Association said customers should be allowed to override the thermostat. State and utility spokespersons said utilities will provide health and safety exemptions, although that is not specified in the document. Imminent threats of blackouts would qualify as emergency events, they said. Final adoption of the revised standards is scheduled by April 2009. The document, available at http://tinyurl.com/225htc , outlines the mandatory use of Programmable Communicating Thermostats on page 64: "Upon receiving an emergency signal, the PCT shall respond to commands contained in the emergency signal, including changing the set-point by any number of degrees or to a specific temperature set-point. The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events." The PCT specifications require them to include a "non-removable Radio Data System device that is compatible with the default statewide DR (Demand Response) communications system, which can be used by utilities to send price and emergency signals." The mandatory nature of the proposal was described in a Jan. 4 article in the American Thinker, an online political magazine with a conservative bent. The article, which denounced the plan as overly intrusive ---- and economically counterproductive ---- is at http://tinyurl.com/29q2tp . Michael Shames, UCAN's executive director, called the directive "a stunner" in an e-mail. "These 'advanced' energy technologies have the potential to be used for both good and evil. It looks like the California Energy Commission wants it both ways ... good and evil." Shames wrote that allowing external control of thermostats can help customers better manage their energy use, which he supports. "However, it is repugnant and entirely unacceptable to mandate that the customer loses control over the device that will be mandatorily placed in their homes," Shames wrote. Borre Winckel, executive officer of the Riverside building association, said the mandatory aspect of the proposal smacks of "Big Brother" governmental planning. "This is not too different from certain voices we've heard from the water world ... where if somebody were to use too much water, the water agency can (by) remote control turn your water off," he said. "What's there to keep people from deciding you've had your lights on too long?" Winckel continued. "This really does go very deep into government control into how we lead our lives." The thermostat control would be exercised only in cases of need, and is the latest refinement of a 30-year-old building energy conservation program, said Adam Gottlieb, a spokesman for the California Energy Commission. Thanks to efficiency standards, California's demand for electricity has remained flat since the late 1970s even as its population has doubled, Gottlieb said. Utilities know how to interpret the new mandate, he said, and when to apply it, even though the definitions are not specified in the document. According to Gottlieb, though, the phrase "emergency events" refers to a Stage II event or higher as defined by the California Independent System Operator, which manages the state's electrical grid. A Stage II event occurs when electricity reserves, or the surplus of supply over demand, fall below 5 percent. A Stage III event takes place when reserves drop below 1.5 percent, and customer power may be shut down involuntarily. "Any emergency event would be a limited-time occurrence to prevent an imminent outage," Gottlieb said. The terms "Stage II" and "Stage III" are not defined in the document, Gottlieb said. "It's more a term of art that the utilities are familiar with." Rachel Laing, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric Co., said the proposals are in the early stage of consideration, and explicit exemptions for health and safety would be adopted later. "I think you're right, that it doesn't have in this proposal what the exemption criteria would be," Laing said. "This proposal is the start of the whole long process of several hearings, and those hearings are meant to identify issues just like this one. We expect that the final plan will have exemptions." Laing said SDG&E notifies those with medical needs beforehand of rolling blackouts. "Their account is flagged, and when we have a rolling blackout, a message is sent out in advance to those folks," Laing said. http://nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/08/news/top_stories/1_02_261_7_08.txt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,740
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,740 |
Quote:
I agree. And I really want to pass a bill about wearing cologne/perfume in public. It really offends me and makes me cough and wheeze. Besides the fact that most people take a bath in the stuff and it just plain STINKS.
How about those of us who are allergic to many types of cologne, and perfume. Eyes water, nose starts running, throat closes up, unable to breath. How is it that I can't smoke in a bar because it bothers others, yet it's just fine for them to take a bath in a 55 gallon drum of perfume, then sit next to me in a bar or restaurant. I have actually had to leave half a meal sit on the table, and leave because I couldn't breath.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
Quote:
St. Louis-area town considers proposal that would ban swearing in bars
ST. CHARLES, Mo. - What the ...? A St. Louis-area town is considering a bill that would ban swearing in bars, along with table-dancing, drinking contests and profane music.
City officials contend the bill is needed to keep rowdy crowds under control because the historic downtown area gets a little too lively on some nights.
City Councilman Richard Veit said he was prompted to propose the bill after complaints about bad bar behavior. He says it will give police some rules to enforce when things get too rowdy.
But some bar owners worry the bill is too vague and restrictive, saying it may be a violation of their civil rights.
Marc Rousseau, who owns the bar R.T. Weilers, said he thinks the bill needs revision.
"We're dealing with adults here once again and I don't think it's the city's job or the government's job to determine what we can and cannot play in our restaurant," Rousseau said.
The proposal would ban indecent, profane or obscene language, songs, entertainment and literature at bars.
A meeting to discuss the proposal is set for Jan. 14.
© 2008 The Associated Press.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22559988/
The flood gates are officialy open.
Can you say 1984
Brown to the Bone
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
then it was who was supposed to clean up after them.
That I do have an issue with, never fails I see someone toss a lit cigarette out the window, not to mention the tons of cigarette butts sitting on the curb at any intersection.
And we have an area the smokers go here at work, and there are 2 cigarette butt cans right there, and another one next to the door leading back in, yet there's cigarette butts all over the ground.
Can't you smokers at least put the butts where they belong, not just toss them wherever?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Quote:
Why don't these people focus their unbridled energy on issues that are actually important instead of resolving to resolve problems that don't need resolving?
wouldn't work, the democrats would have nothing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
Quote:
They banned smoking in resturants so you don't kill those who don't want to be killed by lung cancer.
Those that are complaining about the smoking ban must be pissed they can't go shooting people with their guns just because it hurts someone else. Don't want to be shot, don't be near me. It's the same affect of, "Don't want to be bothered by smoke, go somewhere else."
I've read allot of dumb statements in my life, and this one is now in my top 5. I won't waste my time breaking down a goofy comparision. thanks for the laugh though!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
Quote:
but if making people aware doesn't help, my children and I can leave.
You mean to tell me that you can choose to remove yourself and your family from an environment that is not healthy for them without having to pass a law ??? Surely you must be kidding me !
Undirected ramblings below.
I have a special hatred of whiny %$@$% who even thought of banning smoking in bars . I don't want you in my bar and I'm sure other bar owners can do without your chump change that you bring in on your one night a month that you frequent such a place . It kills businesses and if you don't think so I can tell you from personal experience that it does . If you doubt it you need look no further than liquor license renewals across the state and find out what I am talking about . There are long established businesses that simply are no more because of this smoking ban and plenty of others that are on the cusp .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
Glad you posted that - I was going to mention it yesterday but didn't have a link.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
I'd like to think this would scare the bejesus out of people but apparently there is a need for this type of babysitting . Once upon a time I would have read this and laughed at the silliness of it but nowadays the humor has been replaced with fear of whats next .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,824
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,824 |
Quote:
Quote:
They banned smoking in resturants so you don't kill those who don't want to be killed by lung cancer.
Those that are complaining about the smoking ban must be pissed they can't go shooting people with their guns just because it hurts someone else. Don't want to be shot, don't be near me. It's the same affect of, "Don't want to be bothered by smoke, go somewhere else."
I've read allot of dumb statements in my life, and this one is now in my top 5. I won't waste my time breaking down a goofy comparision. thanks for the laugh though!
It's goofy ... but it isn't.
Cigarette smoke does cause cancer in some people. It also stinks when it gets on your clothes. There is no defense against either condition, except not to have smoke present. If you are in an area where a smoker opens "fire", you will be "hit" by it. If you are in an enclosed place, there really is nowhere to run .... nowhere to hide.
When I smoked, I'd go out and put away a pack or more in a night out in a bar. I'd also hack my way through the next day. After I gave cigarettes up ..... I'd go out ..... and still hack the next day from the smoke I inhaled in the bar.
I think that the question, as far as cigarettes go, is this: Is it more "inconsiderate" to ask smokers to take them outside, or to subject non-smokers to each and every ill effect of those cigarettes?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
I didn't know becoming an ex-smoker turned you into a liberal. LOL. People always say ex anythings are the worst.  So, you think it's my way or the highway huh? You think there is no way we could have done this where everyone could have gotten a choice. Not just "your side".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Also, I didn't want to get into this here but, the second hand smoke science is considered very suspect by some.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,800 |
It's a goofy comparision because shooting someone is illegal and cigarettes are legal. Both smokers and non smokers have rights, the fact is non smokers are trying to control the right of what others do legally mind you, and that's bogus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
J/C
Bar owners can ban anyone they want....and they can set any ground rules they want "No Swearing"...."No Hats"...."No whatever". The government doesn't need its freaking nose in it at all. There are more important things.
As already mentioned here...once the momentum starts on the slippery slope, ain't no going back...unless you're willing for a revolution.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,697
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,697 |
I actually agree with you and others on this, jules.
My nanny state loving days are over, hahaha
I'm a smoker, but used to think it was OK to ban smoking in bars. But I've chaged my mind - smokers and non-smokers should each have a choice of whether to go to smoking or non-smoking bars.
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
Quote:
Also, I didn't want to get into this here but, the second hand smoke science is considered very suspect by some.
Not to mention that smokers not only smoke, they also breath in the second hand smoke. Smokers get the double whammy.
However, even though this thread has evolved into a smoking thread it seems, the topic was originally "swearing and table dancing", or something like that.
Right or wrong, swearing is something some people grew up with. To them, it's not "wrong" or illegal. But it's ok to ban that? Some people grew up that it's ok for women dress in a manner that their ankles, or even knees, show. Some people don't like that. Should we ban women showing knees or even ankles?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,644
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,644 |
Quote:
Quote:
Why don't these people focus their unbridled energy on issues that are actually important instead of resolving to resolve problems that don't need resolving?
wouldn't work, the democrats would have nothing to do.
That's rather odd.
When the "smoking ban" was put to a vote, we had a GOP Gov. and a majority GOP in the state legislature. And Bush won Ohio in the last election. Are you SURE it's all "the Dems" playing "morality police?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum But if I go outside, I might
offend the smokers
|
|
