There back !!!!
The Coalition for a Smoke-free Adams County is here once again to save us for the hazards of smoking in "any public place or place of employment" in the city. This burns my ass for so many reasons, it's hard to mention. Since this is my blog and I have all day, I will address it anyways…..
2,200 signatures supporting that "requiring all Quincy restaurants to go smoke free"? If this is a true statement, then how can you propose to ban smoking "in all public places in Quincy"? You summit a specific condition, but make a blanket ordinance. I feel that there will be a petition on the opposite side of this from local business owners with a lot more on it.
As "an employee of the Adams County Health Department", don't you have anything better to do with your time than dictate conditions in which YOU think business in the city MUST operate? I think the health department does a fine job mandating conditions in which food is prepared, just don't tell me what I can do while eating this food.
"Quincy Clean Indoor Air Act of 2006" ?? WTF is this? Define "Clean Air" ? I have a problem with obese women who sit around me in a restaurants that smell like they showered in the cheapest perfume Walmart sells. Is this Clean Air ?? I think not.
Fines ?? You propose fines too? Wow, if is isn't enough to force this crap down our throats, you also want fines. Would there be a fine for farting? This is definitely not "Clean Air" either. This must be fined too.
A survey conducted showed 70 percent of the 402 registered voters contacted said they support smoke-free policies and feel smoking should be "restricted or banned in public places"…402 ?? You surveyed LESS than 1% of the city of Quincy and conclude that smoking should be "restricted or banned in public places" ??? And you picked banned? So much for surveys !
I have inserted a Poll on this page on the right of the page here myself. Please vote on what YOU think should take place. >>
Please vote only once.
"Is it their right to smoke and put poisons into the air? Or is it our right to not have those poisons in the air and breathe clean air? That's the question."
Here's your answer. It is YOUR right to eat, drink in a place where YOU choose. If you do not like the atmosphere that is there, YOU are FREE to choose another location that is more suitable for YOU. When YOU dictate RULES in which YOU decide, that's where I have a problem. If a bar or restaurant owner DECIDES that HIS or HER business would benefit from a different environment, let THEM decide what to do. There are several "smoke-free" locations going up in Quincy everyday. If you prefer these locations, please visit them.
I still like this Article. Has some truth to it.
67 comments:
This discussion will become useless soon.
Airlines, office buildings have all become smoke-free. It will happen with the restaurants as well, it is smart business.
My office has adopted this years ago, because the majority of our clients are older and do not like the smoke.
Freedom of choice should still be allowed, but it will eventually become a no brainer with any smart business.
HYPOTHETICAL PARTIAL COURT RECORD FOR AN AIR QUALITY VIOLATION CASE:
(The Court)"On the record...this is case number 10-OV-555, City of Quincy versus Peter Peristalsis.
The Defendant is charged with violation of the Municpal Indoor Clean Air Act. Defendant Moved for a Verified Complaint and the City has filed one, it alleges that the defendant, on the 16th Day of February did, openly, notoriously and noxiously commit flatulence in a confined public area at and within the City of of Quincy, To Wit: the south elevator of the WCU building;
Is the City prepared to proceed?"
(C/A) "We are your honor, we have present the nose-witness, Ophelia Obsessive, the first officer on scene, who collected the offending emissions in a freezer bag, despite the defendant's felonious efforts to turn on the hood fan in the elevator, and Our expert witness, Anal Roberts, who will testify that he tested the contents of the freezer bag and found it contained nitrogenous waste in a concentration above that permitted in the ICAA, and also found traces of Amber Bock and apparent Tuna Casserole. We had also intended to recreate how we located the defendant through the use of the FBI's bloodhound through scent-tracking. Unfortunately, the bloodhound passed away shortly after this mission."
(The Court) Do you have any preliminary matters to bring to the attention of the court?
(C/A) "Yes, your Honor, the defendant and his counsel are sitting to my right and the air conditioning is tending from my right to my left. We would respectfully ask permission, for this case only, to relocate over there by the window, upwind from the defendant."
(The Court) Very Well. Is defense counsel prepared to proceed?
(Defense Attorney) Yes your honor, We have filed three Affirmative Defenses. First, the defense of necessity. If we didn't handle it immediately as "regular" it would have come to pass, so to speak, later anyway as "extra crispy". Second, we interpose the defense of food poisoning. In support of that Defense, we have brought in, as a third party defendant, Shorty's Diner. It was Shorty's Tuna Chalupa that brought about this unfortunate episode. Finally, our third Affirmative Defense is "Concealed Carry". My client possesses a valid permit from the sheriff in his home County in Missouri to cut the cheese while fully clothed. As the Court Knows, this was approved by referendum in Missouri several years ago, when Charlton Heston was concerned his anus was to be pried from his cold, dead hands.
Between the time my client sent the mental command from his permitted, concealed carry sphincter (not to be confused with The United States Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Sphincter) and the time he realized he was no longer in Missouri, it was gastrointestinally impossible to stop the tragic emission.
(The Court) "If the parties wish to take some time to discuss an equitable resolution of the case, there is a conference room at the rear of the courtroom and the court would give you some time."
(Defense and C/A in unison) "No Window of Opportunity in there, your Honor!!!!"
Lets all get behind the upcoming smoking ban ordinance. It's rude to smoke in public, spreading toxins, even in "smoking" sections. Ever go to El Rancherito and other places? It doesn't matter what section you're in, you are still inhaling Benson & Hedges, whether you want to or not.
Even if you don't support the ban, for gosh sakes don't smoke in places where kids are present. Act like you have some sense. & don't smoke in front of the kids section at McD's. (Sad that one fels the need to say it)
It ain't a matter of choice, at all. If it was , smokers could also choose to stick their lit cigarettes up their asses.
It's all about, hey, let's not be offensive and harming to others around us (ever hear of the concept of manners?). Strike that, didn't mean to imply smokers should have the ability to empathize ith others. I know, it's smokers god-given right to stink up the air, our clothes and hair, give us 2nd hand cancer, and say it's about the resturants you choose to go to. I know, I know. Tony's post makes a lot of sense, you don't fart on someone while they are eating, don't smoke on them either (oh, sorry, didn't mean to imply smokers should be civilized people, did I say something wrong?)
Ever notice it's always those "govt shouldn't run my life" people that are the first ones to sign up for PUBLIC MEDICAL AID when they are dying from cancer & COPD from exercising their God-given right to polluting others air?
ANON 8:32
Your the PERFECT a$$hole that would support this.
Anon 8:32
read this:
The anti-smokers, of course, bristle at the comparison, quickly pointing out that they are not rounding up smokers and sending them to death camps. Hitler never did that to smokers either. He simply vilified them, taxed them, lied about them, restricted advertising of tobacco, and forbade smoking in public places. Comparing Hitler’s treatment of those he murdered to smokers would be absurd. Comparing Hitler’s treatment of smokers to the behavior of today's anti-smokers is a perfect apples to apples comparison.
9:19
Maybe you'd like to get together in person and dicuss this. I've got your asshole right here, punk bitch. Disconnect your O2 & meet me at Shopko parking lot at 9:30 pm. We'll take this up further, that is if you can go with out a butt while I'm ------- your ---.
Hey Fire, If it's about choice, you smokers have the choice to stick lit cigarettes up your asses, don't your. Make that choice, Fire, tell us how it feels.
Shopko parking lot at 9:30 ?
My lord you really need to take your meds . I bet the other poster is shaking at your Net muscles .
9:56
You have to use shopko, there ain't a Jack's parking lot no more.
So your going to fist fight in a parking lot over smoking ?
No, we're gonna buy candles, romantic comedy DVD's, and bon-bons.
What do you think we are gonna do?
The level of stupid around these parts has hit an all time high .
You got that right. You have Fire saying that if you don't want to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke, you have to spend go around avoiding the smokers, because I guess they are more important than everyone else, and have a god-given "99th ammendment" right to smoke& offend others. Absolutely right, things are getting stupid.
What's really stupid is the way this concern is made into a so-called "choice" issue. You're supposed to choose not to go around pigs who smoke and have no concern for the health of themselves or others.
Maybe the smokers could "choose" not to be rude, disgusting pigs and not pollute the air with toxins and cancer-causing agents?
Just cause you smokers were young and stupid, got addicted, we all have to suffer? BS. You all's time is comin. I'll soon see you all standing outside in 10 degree weather, freezing your stupid butts(NPI) off.
Just like the dumbass Blessing smoking employees who got kicked to and then off the curb!
Hurry up smokers, sign up for public aid and help bankrupt the public coffers. We need a new COPD poster child, how bout you, Fire?
Let me preface this by saying I dislike breathing smoky fumes (other than incense at church), and have never smoked therefore (though my mom does).
But I can see why smokers feel persecuted, given the asinine reactions of some folks here.
Anyway...
the problem with this kind of blanket ban, as I see it, is its implications for personal freedom.
If this smoking ban is allowed, what's to stop the "health police" from next coming after the fat folks (yes, like me) and your eating habits? One can make a strong (though I say bogus) argument about insurance rates and the public cost of obesity, etc. etc.
How about the Chicago suburb where they basically prohibit people from smoking in their own homes if they receive city services? If a city employee is coming to your home, you may not smoke in your own home prior to the visit "to protect the employee". That began as a restaurant/public places smoking ban.
Yes, smoking is a bit different, but even so this is the very kind of "tyranny of the majority" that the founders of this nation warned us against.
Let the business owners decide whether to be smokefree or not. And let smokers and non-smokers decide which to patronize.
Rocky Cola is correct that this will drive the decisions made by owners. There will be one of two results: the smokers' business will support the loss of non-smokers business at those places that choose to allow smoking, or it won't. If it doesn't those business owners will reconsider, post haste.
And just to be fair: smokers, can you REALLY not get through an hour-long meal without lighting up? C'mon! If it's impossible for you to spend that time without a cig in your mouth, you have far more serious issues than whether or not you can smoke at restaurant A or bar B.
(See how conflicted I am? :)
Smoking bans are a violation of private property rights supported by most Americans. If a person owns a restaurant, it is his right to decide whether or not he will permit smoking. If a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, he might put up a "Smoking Permitted" sign and let customers decide whether they wish to enter. Similarly, if an owner didn't permit smoking, he might put up a "No Smoking" sign and let customers decide.
I'm guessing that a restaurant owner who didn't permit smoking would see it as a violation of his property rights if a coalition used the political arena to create legislation forcing him to permit smoking. It is no less of a property rights violation the other way around.
I would encourage all smokers to try to quit. Young people start smoking because they older people smoking, and they want to smoke because it's "the big shot thing to do". Every adult that quits is no longer promoting smoking to younger kids. Think of the health benefits to you and your families if you quit. A couple people I work have quit, and have been tobacco free for over a year.
Heck, call the gal at the health dept who is leading the anti-smoking crusade, and lay it in her lap, tell her you need help quitting, sure she would be glad to help. It is a such a great thing when someone quit's smoking.
It isn’t about choice, personal freedom or liberty, or private property; Nice Try. It's about not harming others, plain and simple. If we are supposedly intelligent and civilized, we don't go round spreading toxic, poisonous, carcinogenic fumes in public places. A restaurant, though privately owned, is a public place.
1158
No it's not. It's private property.
I take no position on any legislation which may come before the city council but there is one medical fact that is coming clear and scares the beJesus outta me.
Tobacco Smoke contributes to macular degeneration. It doesn't seem to matter much whether you are the smoker or smokee. If you're of Northern European descent and you expose yourself to cigarette smoke, you really increase your chances of losing your central vision.
Being active in politics, it's really difficult to avoid smoke, but I try. Lord, I try. I must save my eyesight for when the Cubs win the Big One!
Hey UMRBLOG - Doesn't this private property - my own business - not a public place - stuff remind you of Ollie's BBQ in rural Alabama on a state highway where the owner's use of a national brand of catsup put his business into interstate commerce and therefore prohibited him from excluding black patrons back in the civil rights fight days?
Anon 11:45
Thanks for bring this subject back to a more intelligent level.
Like you say, it's just one now.
But what is next?? It may not affect you right now, but when will it?
Is Ollie's BBQ hiring ? Mike Shula needs a JOB .
Where is Lester Maddox when you need him?
1227,
I was thinking of exactly that--Nicholas Katzenbach--when I was reading the discussion. Personal Rights vs. Public Accomodations.
1013,
Does that mean they have to fight because they don't know Jack?
Are all you Bears fans that were pissing and moaning about the Rams being on stead of them in past weeks happy they got to see Grossman's lackluster performance yesterday? Was 3 picks and one fumble enough for ya? Hope you all were happy you got to see da Bears.
2:04
That's a play on my past, whenever QND & QHS kids would fight, it was established practice that things would be taken "Jack's parking lot" when it was @ 48th St & that was the end of town. Anyone, where where some other established "brawling spots", maybe we could settle the issue there instead of 8th and Maine. Just kidding!
Maybe smokers could start up their own "Freeman Cult" like those one you heard about in the 90's, groups that thought they wer above the law. They kind remind me of that, with their flawed logic.
Tuesday we will present the concept of "privately owned public places" and will dummy it down for you "Freemen".
Why iz ya all trippin' about whether or not brothas can smoke in rib an' chickn n` corn bread 'n joints? You all iz uh bunch o' fools. Mookie an BeBe an' I, we's wuz chillen, down at Maine St., drinkin gin we's snuck in an we's wuz smokin 00 's,all damn night!. No body said sheeeit!. Den Mookie got beat up in alley. You fools be trippin! and sh t.
THERE BACK??
Yikes! It's THEIR, NOT THERE!!
Isn't it the contraction "they're" for "they are"?
Correct ebonics is "dey"
Dey back, straight up, you mo-fo!
Non-smokers die every day.
White-trash smoke cig's every day, the deiver them by the box to their relatives when the get put in jail.
First thing you hear, "Billy Bob's in jail, send him some cigarettes....."
FDR smoked cigs .....
So did JFK
I think Cigs are a classless drug .
The places that will be hurt will be lil pubs like the H-Pub or Spring Street . You kind of know they will be smoke filled before you enter them .
Gov't could require eating places to install the best HVAC system that will suck up the smoke. Kreigers has a very nice one that doesn't allow the smoke to escape into the mall.
Instead of blanket laws , we can enforce codes and require places to install smoke removal equipment .
Just a thought
I smoke and I am not white trash and I vote and I am semi smart BUT I do try and respect the others around me who don't smoke. With proper HVAC systems smoke would not even make it to your nose.
It's a conduct issue, you have to have some respect and decency about yourself(maybe I'm askin too much), and that means NOT SMOKING around others. NEWS FLASH: it stinks and is disgusting, also harmful to others. Ever hear of the concept of consideration other people? Don't do anything that may kill people while you're around them. Just because smokers are big tobacco's little bitch and have to pay for their lawyer fees, settlements, doesn't mean they have to stink up joints when they go to em. Smoke in your own homes.
Again, it isn't a privacy, business, or property issue; it's a CONDUCT issue! Even though smokers a white trash hillbilly, you need to know how to conduct yourself appropriately around people, and that means NOT SMOKING.
Difficult (and expensive) as it might be, if smokers and non-smokers are to co-exist then restaurants and bars will need to fork out the bucks to make actual, walled, separate smoking and non-smoking areas, with the quality HVAC systems mentioned earlier.
If those business owners aren't willing to do that, then they deserve what the anti-smoking crowd will impose.
Nothing is more ridiculous than a restaurant with a "smoking section" that is nothing more than a few tables in the corner with ashtrays and no separation of any kind from the rest of the place.
And no, I'm not thinking of any place in particular here in Quincy, though I could.
The anti-smoking campaign started off attacking private property rights, with eminently reasonable pleas like requiring nosmoking sections on airplanes. Emboldened by that success, tobacco prohibitionists successfully campaigned for laws banning smoking on flights under two hours, then a ban on domestic flights altogether, then airports, restaurants and buses. Now, they're working to have smoking banned at all but residences, and later, no doubt, they'll go after residences. Their agenda required a propaganda campaign to dupe the public with lies and distortions about some of the health effects of smoking. Had the tobacco prohibitionists made their full agenda known at the outset, they never would have succeeded in even getting no-smoking sections on airplanes. This is precisely the strategy employed by the anti-gun lobby members.
10:46,
The only person acting like white trash hillbillies here is YOU.
Grow up and practice what you preach:
>Ever hear of the concept of consideration other people?
That works both ways, you know. Not to mention that smokers are in fact dealing with a pretty nasty addiction, self-imposed or not.
Now calm down and discuss the subject RATIONALLY, or else kindly be quiet and let cooler heads discuss the issue. It's not good for your blood pressure to get so pissy.
Here's an idea: How's about, if you do smoke in public, ask every son-of-a bitch in the bar or resturant if they mind if you smoke. Every single one. No exceptions. That would be the right, mannerly thing to do, wouldn't it?
You've been in situations with folks when one of them will ask: Do you mind if I smoke? That's the whole idea, CONSIDERATION! What's wrong with asking EVERYONE in a place if they mind if you smoke. I'm serious, every single person in the joint, and those that come in after you start butt sucking. You're affecting them, aren't you? Why not ask! They have a say, son't they.
That's why we need the blanket law, smokers rights to clean, non-toxic, non-carcinogenic air are frequently disregarded.
I got your asses on that one!
Jawohl, mein Fuhrer.
When should the smokers be lined up to be shot?
And the shoe fits for you anti-smoking Nazis.
10:55
You were directing at me, points taken and well heeded (sp, is that even a word?), appreciated!
I apologize for my vehemence, and appreciate the concern for my heatlh!LOL. No, I wouldn't wish smoking addiction on my worst enemy. A blanket ban would help to minimize exposure to youngsters, and may help to lower the numbers of youngsters starting.
To explain the passion, I've had a close family member seriously affected by 2nd hand (in a way) smoking. There wasn't any way at all for this person to exercise any choice whatsoever, if you know what I mean. But this isn't the sole issue, think it would be better all around for all folks (especially younger) if a smoking ban was put in place, and am greatly annoyed by people smoking in pubic, feel like I (and a lotta others) have been kept quiet long enough.
I'm sure we all come of as Nazi's with our differant points of view, like the idea of being more rational.
11:17,
I appreciate your candor, and I understand why you react so strongly.
My mom smokes. I hate it. She's dodged the bullet so far, but she's getting old. I don't care to patronize places where there's lots of smoking and that doesn't make an effort to really segregate smokers and non-smokers.
At the same time I understand why smokers get defensive too. They get told some pretty nasty things by some people (who could learn about consideration themselves).
And I *do* worry about the effect such bans have on our personal freedoms. Things have changed dramatically even from when I was young. Bit by bit we are allowing our personal freedoms to be whittled away, in the name of all manner of things that *sound* good when we impose them, but we forget the Law of Unintended Consequences.
I'm a heavy dude and I already get "looks" from people when I eat out or otherwise move about in public. I've already heard rumblings from the "anti-fat-people" lobby that basically want to restrict my rights to choose what I eat and when, in the name of "health".
I think you are right that we should be considerate, but I think that goes both ways. Instead of blanket bans on things, we should instead work diligently to educate and encourage people to think about others before engaging publically in such behaviors, and allow business owners to operate their businesses as they choose (within the bounds of civil rights and consideration, of course). Yes, I think that means restaurant and bar owners need to set up real, separate areas for smokers and non-smokers, as I said earlier--but at least in that case no one is being denied a personal freedom.
Yes, personal freedom includes the freedom to poison yourself with cigarettes. But also yes, because cigarettes have an effect beyond the smoker, measures have to be taken to protect others from undesired smoke. I just don't think that must necessarily mean a ban.
But let's all sit down and talk and work out how we can accomodate EVERYONE instead of discriminating against one group whose habits we don't happen to like.
If I didn't know better ,
That last RATIONAL answer has LOOTIE written all over it , but since I didn't write it I just want to clap for whoever did .
**claps & adds a Golf clap to be considerate of those who don't like loud claps
Job well done maybe the above should run for public office , he-she seems to get discourse and common ground.
Same here..
Great Job.
Thanks for stopping by.
"Being active in politics, it's really difficult to avoid smoke, but I try. Lord, I try."
LOL at UMRBLOG!! so your the one that ended our smoke filled rooms!!!! J/K buddy!
Aren't you the reason we have to limit the number of Steak dinners in one year????? J/K, really couldn;t resist again.
To the anti-smoking clan!!! Your next issue will be the elimination of Red meat from resaurants and public places! Cholesterol will kill you! OHHH or you could just decided to go to a place that specializes in a good pork chop like our buddy UMRBLOG!
;)
Now tell me this isn't a ridiculous application of an anti-smoking law:
"Three people caught smoking won't face any fines, but four others caught with ashtrays and matches will. A hearing officer is dealing with the first tickets to come from Springfield's smoking ban. The smokers were let off the hook because of confusion about smoking in state-leased buildings. The others were busted in private businesses after health inspectors got "tips." One woman was given a ticket for have an unlit cigarette in one hand and a lighter in the other. Springfield's smoking rules ban "smoking paraphernalia" as well as actual smoking. Fines can range from 50 to 500-dollars. Springfield was the first downstate community to ban smoking. The ban started September 17th."
Having an unlit cigarette and a lighter is illegal?!
That's just completely stupid and unreasonable--not least because it means "presumed guilty" in direct contradiction to what our system of laws is SUPPOSED to be.
2:36
Throw all them butt suckers in jail.
11:01
We will line them up 6 abreast to save on ammo (just kidding)
Nobody goes to Shopko to fight anymore. The cops are always checking there. You might want to try Wavering or K-Mart parking lot. Shopko doesn't like those tresspassers.
I hear JJ resigned today. Anyone know if that is true?
7:12
its true.
;)
Here's another "anti-smoking Nazi" story:
"A Massachusetts man is suing his former employee after he was fired for smoking while off duty. Scott Rodrigues was fired by Scotts Miracle-Gro Company after a mandatory urine test showed evidence of nicotine in his system. The company had adopted a policy in December of not hiring smokers. Rodrigues' attorney Harvey Schwartz says his client never smoked at work and his smoking habit had no impact on his job performance. Rodrigues is seeking unspecified damages."
The "we don't hire smokers" policy is discriminatory and therefor illegal. Private habits carried out away from the workplace are none of the employers business.
I hope he wins and that the anti-smoking Nazis get a clue: they're not in charge and shouldn't be, because their "vision" isn't the only one. Oh wait, I forgot, "tolerance" of other people only applies to people you don't like--they should be MADE to do things "for their own good".
Silly me.
2:49
I don't blame them at all for canning that stupid butt sucker. Now he can smoke his 00's on the unemployment line. "Smoke em if ya got em" Let his go to Phillip-Morris and get a job, & move to f#cking North Carolina, Alabama, or somewhere. Let him sing:
"O brown rosie, the rose of Alabamy, the sweet tobacco posey is the rose of Alabamy"
Thank you, Adolf.
Now let's hear some of YOUR vices so we can get YOUR dumb ass fired for something you do outside of work. I'm sure you have at least one that people would disapprove of.
A large unhealthy-looking women was going around getting people to sign a petition to allow known unsafe health practices to be legal in bars. She didn't look like a picture of health; she was markedly obese and was smoking cigarettes! How fitting to have a grossly overweight, unhealthy looking slob advocating for legal unsafe health practices that affect others. Looking at the gal, you just knew she was on public aid! Big fat slob walkin round with a butt in her hand. You just knew it! She hardly looked employable in any way.
Smoking crowd, get a better spokesperson. This person is proving all my arguments against smoking in public places!
What better "spokeman" do you have ??
Whining crying POS ???
908,
Interesting that you feel you have to mention her being overweight in order to bolster your argument.
You can't see why people get concerned about the anti-smoking crusade? Fat people will be next. Then who? People who abuse their bodies by tanning too much? Ooooh, maybe...colored people?
Don't poo-poo the notion. How often have we (as humans) undertaken something we thought would be "great for everyone" only to have it spiral out of control thanks to the Law of Unintended Consequences?
Hell, look at the so-called Patriot Act. Look at McCarthy and the 50s Communism trials.
In SPITE of the health problems, *I* believe we can accomodate both "sides" of the debate without dispensing with the rights of EITHER side.
Unfortunately, the anti-smoking crowd does not think that and simply wants to impose its will on smokers, because it can (and for no other reason, when you dig down to the root of it).
And mind you--I'm a non-smoker, hate the stench of cigs, and would be perfectly happy tossing all cigs into the sun. Except...I believe in individual liberties.
Including my liberty not to patronize places that allow smoking--which does two things: keeps me away from the smoke AND allows the smokers to have their own choice (i.e. to smoke).
I'm sorry the anti-smoking folks are so rabidly set in their "Impository Will" that they cannot (or will not) see what a joke they are making of civil liberties and individual freedoms--and the precedent they are setting.
"And then they came for me...and there was no one left to defend me..."
Anon 5:26:
Great Comments, Thanks for stopping by.
Have added new post from NYC on Fats/Fat people. Some people just don't see that it's just one liberty at a time taking away. Soon Mickey D's will be under fire !
As a smoker, I really feel like my civil rights are being violated. I agree with all of your feelings on this issue, it burns my ass too. And on top of it all, these anti-smoking crusaders act like holier-than-thou jerks.
12:54
Just don't smoke around other people, you jerk.
And don't ask public aid to pay for your iron lung when you need one.
6:03
I go to too many football and baseball games!
9:41
How bout the Marlboro Man, he died of lung cancer.
It should be up to the business owners what happens in their business. They can enforece dress codes for their business so they can enforce smoking codes, but they choose not too. This is a bunch of bullshit.
In 1998, Griffith Joyner died in her sleep. The cause of death in effect said that she had suffocated in her pillow during a severe epileptic seizure.
Do we outlaw running also ??
You anti-smoking assholes ???
6:23
No.
Post a Comment