The slippery slope

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Hey, shoot all the anthrax you want! As long as you do it on private property, with the permission of the owner, without any people involuntarily present, I sure as hell won't try to stop you.

So, logically, we can ban smoking in all public places since it involves public property and involuntary participants? No more hanging a cigarette out the window of your car or puffing down the street, right?

[Ibby]

I think that is a valid law, though I wouldn't support it. My problem is with the government trying to regulate private property.

[Griff]

I think we've probably heaped enough negative energy on the smokers by now. I was riding past a house yesterday and a woman was walking out to her car, having a smoke. We exchanged greetings and she did a weird thing. She palmed her cigarette like she was caught smoking in school or something.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

I think we've probably heaped enough negative energy on the smokers by now.

A fundamental difference exists between logic and negative energy. If our social standards are 'you have a right to do anything as long as it does not impose on the rights of others'; then we have only defined public smoking exactly in logical perspectives.

You want to do heroine? Fine. That is only your problem. You want to crucify your kids because you do heroine? Then it becomes everyone else's problem only because fundamental human rights are being violated.

There is no 'heaping of negative energy'. A logical fact denied by some smokers is that public smokers threaten the health of others; violate basic human rights of other people - only because they are addicted.

It is now a 'slam dunk' fact that smokers attack the health of non-smoking victims. She palmed the cigarette maybe because she does not want to be considered an addict. Just like a smoker who waves hands in the air to clear the smoke and says, "Look, I stopped smoking. The air is clear now." Denial rather than logic; as if smoking were not harmful to a smoker and his adjacent victims.

No negative energy. Just hard core, politically incorrect, and blunted stated facts.

[Ibby]

TW, if you dont like the guy smoking, walk away.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibram

TW, if you dont like the guy smoking, walk away.

It is a public area. I must leave only because smokers have rights? In fact, I am denied access to or driven out of most bars only because of their addiction. You have it completely backwards. Should I have to leave only because my skin is black? No difference. Both actions are a threat to my safety only because they want to smoke? Walk away? I have been doing that too many decades only because drug addicts have all the rights?

Who gets ill right then because they are smoking? Who has a headache sometimes before I can detect the odor. They have the right to physically attack my body? I should have to walk away from my beer only because they are so intolerant, addicted, and toxic? You have it backwards. I should be tolerant of their intolerance? I should be denied access to any restaurant? Maybe they will sell me food out the back door? Who then is the nigger?

Originally Posted by tw

It is a public area. I must leave only because smokers have rights? In fact, I am denied access to or driven out of most bars only because of their addiction. You have it completely backwards. Should I have to leave only because my skin is black? No difference. Both actions are a threat to my safety only because they want to smoke? Walk away? I have been doing that too many decades only because drug addicts have all the rights?

Who gets ill right then because they are smoking? Who has a headache sometimes before I can detect the odor. They have the right to physically attack my body? I should have to walk away from my beer only because they are so intolerant, addicted, and toxic? You have it backwards. I should be tolerant of their intolerance? I should be denied access to any restaurant? Maybe they will sell me food out the back door? Who then is the nigger?

A bar or restaurant is private property, not public. If the owner wants smoking allowed, how is it anyone's business?
I smoke a pipe and/or cigar about twice a week, I am not addicted to anything nor am I "toxic", LOL!
A little insight on the "new study" and "new announcement" by the Surgeon Gen. BTW.
Sucks that part of being free is having to deal with other's acting free as well, some can't deal. Private property should have meaning.
Funny thing is that you know that most establishments would have a non-smoking area... antis just like to bitch.
Some examples of what they are like when the come into the cigar forums.
People who don't belive in freedom... just from this week:

Anti-smoker posts...

From: F~A~R~V~A: The Original Bastard - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 3 2006 6:10 pm
Email: "F~A~R~V~A: The Original Bastard" <flyhighfreeeb...@aol.compost>
Groups: alt.smokers.cigars, alt.pro-wrestling.nwo
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


you are the dumbest damn people alive....why don't you suck on the business
end of a handgun now and save taxpayers the millions they contribute to
medicare because of your stupidity....second hand smoke kills the innocent!
smokers = nazis!

--
"Kick him when he's down, he's easier to reach."
---Scott Hall


#1 ranked poster in RSPW history....


.....NEVER SHIT A SHITTER!


=> UPDATE -- NATIONWIDE SMOKING BAN coming to the U$A !! <= yeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
From: BTR1701 - view profile
Date: Tues, Jun 27 2006 8:42 pm
Email: BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com>
Groups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.smokers, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.smokers.pipes, can.talk.smoking, misc.legal, us.politics
Rating: (1 user)
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


In article <Ebdog.19$3P.45...@news.uswest.net>,
"=> Vox Populi©" <v...@popu.li> wrote:


> UPDATE -New US report calls for workplace smoking ban
> WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - Second-hand smoke clearly kills people and
> the only way to control it is to ban all smoking in workplaces, the U.S.
> Surgeon-General said on Tuesday in report that puts the Bush administration
> on the side of smoking restrictions.


I wonder if this would extend to people whose homes are their
workplaces. Could someone like Stephen King, who writes his books in his
home, be told by the government that he's prohibited from smoking there
because it's a "workplace"?

Gee, I hope so. There's nothing like the heavy hand of the government
running even the smallest aspect of one's personal life. Gives me a warm
fuzzy feeling at the thought of the possibility...


=> Lowlife Smokers out in the RAIN ! <= yeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaa VICTORY!
All 3 messages in topic - view as tree
From: => Vox Populi© - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 3 2006 12:41 am
Email: "=> Vox Populi©" <v...@popu.li>
Groups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.smokers, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.smokers.pipes, can.talk.smoking, co.general, co.politics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Bwhahahahhahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Just 24 hours after the Colorado statewide ban on
indoor smoking took effect, one can witness groups
of lowlife tobacco-sucking addicts standing OUTSIDE
IN THE RAIN, suck suck suuuuucking on their putrid
cancer sticks -- even in the seediest dirtball dive bars
on Colfax ave, the Esquire, the Squire, etc ... the maggots
are now finally kicked to the filthy gutter with the other
junkies and crackheads, where they belong!


Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


VICTORY at LAST !@!


Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space


From: Boomshiki - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 3 2006 12:59 am
Email: "Boomshiki" <RayL...@gmail.com>
Groups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.smokers, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.smokers.pipes, can.talk.smoking, co.general, co.politics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Congradulations.

A prejudice based on habbit is not exactly something to celebrate however.


"=> Vox Populi©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
news:Nc1qg.66$g34.8645@news.uswest.net...



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Bwhahahahhahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

> Just 24 hours after the Colorado statewide ban on
> indoor smoking took effect, one can witness groups
> of lowlife tobacco-sucking addicts standing OUTSIDE
> IN THE RAIN, suck suck suuuuucking on their putrid
> cancer sticks -- even in the seediest dirtball dive bars
> on Colfax ave, the Esquire, the Squire, etc ... the maggots
> are now finally kicked to the filthy gutter with the other
> junkies and crackheads, where they belong!


> Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


> VICTORY at LAST !@!



Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space


From: => Vox Populi© - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 3 2006 1:03 am
Email: "=> Vox Populi©" <v...@popu.li>
Groups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.smokers, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.smokers.pipes, can.talk.smoking, co.general, co.politics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author



"Boomshiki" <RayL...@gmail.com> wrote in message


news:uu1qg.36554$B91.35538@edtnps82...


> Congradulations.

> A prejudice based on habbit is not exactly something to celebrate however.



It's ok to be prejudiced against lowlife tobacco addicts ... since
that prejudice is deserved and accurate.

That is the mentality of who we are dealing with.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

A bar or restaurant is private property, not public. If the owner wants smoking allowed, how is it anyone's business?

Because a bar or restaurant - a privately owned facility - is a public establshment. Can they fill their bar with combustible foam on the walls and light off fireworks? You think that also is legal or acceptable?

There is nothing acceptable about a toxic drug addict blowing his fumes in another's face. Nothing. The 'slam dunk' now makes it that obvious.

When you light up, do you first ask everyone in the building, individually, for permission? Why not? They must consume your toxins? Why do you have any right to put toxins in another's body?

People sometimes are so responsible as to ask. I put them downwind. But that is rare from the drug addicts who smoke - and think it is their right to do so anywhere. After fifty plus years of being pushed around and driven out by drug addicts, I have had enough from their intolerance.

As a smoker, remember, you are endorsing an industry that even had a program ongoing to addict five year olds to nicotene. Sort of raised a question of morality. After logically deciding that smoking is not dangerous, did you then apply moral concepts to that conclusion and say addicting five year old is also acceptable?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by tw

Why do you have any right to put toxins in another's body?

Right on. I'm looking forward to getting these babies banned, too. I can't stand it when I'm outside and forced to inhale their toxins simply for their pleasure.

Originally Posted by tw

Because a bar or restaurant - a privately owned facility - is a public establshment. Can they fill their bar with combustible foam on the walls and light off fireworks? You think that also is legal or acceptable?

There is nothing acceptable about a toxic drug addict blowing his fumes in another's face. Nothing. The 'slam dunk' now makes it that obvious.

When you light up, do you first ask everyone in the building, individually, for permission? Why not? They must consume your toxins? Why do you have any right to put toxins in another's body?

People sometimes are so responsible as to ask. I put them downwind. But that is rare from the drug addicts who smoke - and think it is their right to do so anywhere. After fifty plus years of being pushed around and driven out by drug addicts, I have had enough from their intolerance.

As a smoker, remember, you are endorsing an industry that even had a program ongoing to addict five year olds to nicotene. Sort of raised a question of morality. After logically deciding that smoking is not dangerous, did you then apply moral concepts to that conclusion and say addicting five year old is also acceptable?

Your example has nothing to do with this argument. Again, I am not addicted to tobacco, nor are most that I associate with.
Again, those who run BBQ establishments, nail salons, or any other business with any other type of fume or smoke does not need to ask; because, as long as they meet OSHA air standards, it is their choice and the public decides to shop there or not.
I have always found it very humorous that the antis make it sound as if they have no choice but to be in an establishment, as if they did not know people smoke there or not... very silly. Also, just because I smoke a pipe and cigars does not mean I agree with all tobacco companies tactics any more than I agree with what Coke and Pepsi does with stealing water and polluting from third world nations, GM and Ford with economic manipulations with the same and as an American and patriot, supporting all this nation does. Just dumb.

[Ibby]

Should I have to leave only because my skin is black?

No, but THEY shouldnt have to leave for being WHITE. If you dont like, or feel uncomfortable around a bunch of smokers, then it's not THEM who's kicking you out, its YOU who's choosing to leave. I don't like people smoking around me, to tell the truth. It gives me a headache too. But if it's not my property, I can't tell him to stop or to go away. I can ask nicely, but if he doesnt want to, I cant make him. I can only leave.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ibram

If you dont like, or feel uncomfortable around a bunch of smokers, then it's not THEM who's kicking you out, its YOU who's choosing to leave.

Would you feel the same about people who like to blow air horns?

[Trilby]

"...drug addicts have all the rights..." tw?

I think I can say that that is an unqualified NO.

And how come your hanging out in all these bars? Do you have something you'd like to tell us, tw?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

And how come your hanging out in all these bars? Do you have something you'd like to tell us, tw?

Either its called dinner, or its how I stay away from another addiction called The Cellar, or maybe its is a rare treat soured by cigarette smoke. Maybe I am a part time alcoholic - or just get bouts of thirsty. I don't have numbers so I cannot say for sure. How's that for an answer chock full of perspectives.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by tw

How's that for an answer chock full of perspectives.

I like. I'm wondering right now!