A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal around any child anyone under 21

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there objects to
it (assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in your
lungs).

A couple of years ago, we had an election here about allowing sales of
beer and wine. I'd much rather have cigarette sales illegal.

Of course, alcohol isn't completely harmless, but at least you don't
have alcohol fumes coming out of the user and infecting others.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with
Christianity is the Christians." [H.L. Mencken]

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal
around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there objects to it
(assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in your
lungs).

what the hell business is that of yours?

On 28/05/2016 18:17, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal
around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there objects to
it (assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in your
lungs).

A couple of years ago, we had an election here about allowing sales of
beer and wine. I'd much rather have cigarette sales illegal.

Of course, alcohol isn't completely harmless, but at least you don't
have alcohol fumes coming out of the user and infecting others.

Yeh, let's ban BBQs/ bonfires/ crop burning/ log burners, in fact
anything that gives of harmful fumes and any other activity that people
get enjoyment from.
I've got it! let's all become Puritans and ban everything.

--
Bod

On 28/05/2016 18:20, Reggie wrote:
"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal
around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there objects to it
(assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in your
lungs).

what the hell business is that of yours?


Indeed, I prefer a free society.

--
Bod

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 28/05/2016 18:17, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal
around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there objects to
it (assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in your
lungs).

A couple of years ago, we had an election here about allowing sales of
beer and wine. I'd much rather have cigarette sales illegal.

Of course, alcohol isn't completely harmless, but at least you don't
have alcohol fumes coming out of the user and infecting others.

Yeh, let's ban BBQs/ bonfires/ crop burning/ log burners, in fact anything
that gives of harmful fumes and any other activity that people get
enjoyment from.
I've got it! let's all become Puritans and ban everything.


Let's ban "pure-fume" first.

On 28/05/2016 18:34, Reggie wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 28/05/2016 18:17, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal
around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there objects to
it (assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in your
lungs).

A couple of years ago, we had an election here about allowing sales of
beer and wine. I'd much rather have cigarette sales illegal.

Of course, alcohol isn't completely harmless, but at least you don't
have alcohol fumes coming out of the user and infecting others.

Yeh, let's ban BBQs/ bonfires/ crop burning/ log burners, in fact anything
that gives of harmful fumes and any other activity that people get
enjoyment from.
I've got it! let's all become Puritans and ban everything.


Let's ban "pure-fume" first.


Ok, then we ban harmful aerosol cans and polluting air fresheners
and as for people who fart, they should be shot.

--
Bod

On 5/28/2016 9:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it

Bob needs to find a nice place in a communist ****ry.

p.s. His momma gimme good head.
LOL

On 5/28/2016 1:36 PM, Bod wrote:


Ok, then we ban harmful aerosol cans and polluting air fresheners
and as for people who fart, they should be shot.


That's bit extreme, how about subjecting them to the same rules as
smoking.

I know two guys at work that could do side work for execution in the gas
chamber.

On 05/28/2016 12:28 PM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

Indeed, I prefer a free society.


Of course, freedom IS limited when actions can harm others. Your freedom
of smoking conflicts with others freedom of breathing. If that wasn't
so, I'd have nothing against smoking (at least nothing other than
unwanted fires).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with
Christianity is the Christians." [H.L. Mencken]

On 05/28/2016 12:34 PM, Reggie wrote:

[snip]

Let's ban "pure-fume" first.

Yes, and face powder. I've seen excesses that interfere with peoples'
breathing too.

BTW, I don't REALLY want any of these things banned. Id rather people
consider the affects of what they do.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with
Christianity is the Christians." [H.L. Mencken]

On 05/28/2016 12:36 PM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

Ok, then we ban harmful aerosol cans and polluting air fresheners
and as for people who fart, they should be shot.


But only with lead-free bullets :-)

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:13:14 PM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/28/2016 12:28 PM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

Indeed, I prefer a free society.


Of course, freedom IS limited when actions can harm others. Your freedom
of smoking conflicts with others freedom of breathing. If that wasn't
so, I'd have nothing against smoking (at least nothing other than
unwanted fires).


Except of course that this was posted:

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Add your reply was:

Yes.

My smoking in my house, does not harm you and it's none of your business.
It's not up to you or big govt to force us to comply just because you
think it's bad for us. And the same libs who are out to shut down all
smoking are out to tell you how much fat you can eat, how much salt you
can have, what size soda you can buy.

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:18:39 PM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/28/2016 12:34 PM, Reggie wrote:

[snip]

Let's ban "pure-fume" first.

Yes, and face powder. I've seen excesses that interfere with peoples'
breathing too.

BTW, I don't REALLY want any of these things banned. Id rather people
consider the affects of what they do.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with
Christianity is the Christians." [H.L. Mencken]

smokers tradionally get mad and speak of their right to smoke...

they ignore all the bad effects. and everyone pays the costs of their medical care...my dad has recurrent bladder cancer, and nothing more can be done for it....

he quit smoking many years ago. but the smoking does dna damage. that only shows up years later

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 12:31:48 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it


That would amount to banning all smoking everywhere. There are people
that complain about a person smoking in their own house and think that
should be illegal too.





so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal around any child anyone under 21


That's how the anti-smoking Nazis work. First is was ban smoking in bars
and restaurants, but you could still have a private vigar dinner in a separate
room. Then they banned that too. Then they banned smoking on most of the
beach, except for a small section for smokers. Then they banned that too.
They banned smoking in public places, businesses, etc, but you could still
smoke outside. Then they objected because people stood outside, so they
made a law that you can't stand within 50 ft of the door. Then they made
a law that says you can't smoke anywhere on the entire property. See a
trend here?




we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I'd say we should extinguish liberalism first. The cost there has been
way higher.

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:32:11 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:18:39 PM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/28/2016 12:34 PM, Reggie wrote:

[snip]

Let's ban "pure-fume" first.

Yes, and face powder. I've seen excesses that interfere with peoples'
breathing too.

BTW, I don't REALLY want any of these things banned. Id rather people
consider the affects of what they do.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with
Christianity is the Christians." [H.L. Mencken]

smokers tradionally get mad and speak of their right to smoke...

they ignore all the bad effects. and everyone pays the costs of their medical care...my dad has recurrent bladder cancer, and nothing more can be done for it....

he quit smoking many years ago. but the smoking does dna damage. that only shows up years later

How about people that go skiing, and wind up dead or with serious injuries?
How about the people who go mountain climbing and wind up dead or injured
and rescue crews have to go risk their lives to save them? Hang gliding?
Every summer people drown here at the local beaches, ban that?
How about alcohol? How many does that kill a year, want to ban that too?
Been there done that. Those people know the risks and still engage in those
activities.

And paradoxically the libs that want to extinguish all smoking of tobacco
are almost all in favor of making marijuana legal. Go figure.

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:34:05 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 12:31:48 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it


That would amount to banning all smoking everywhere. There are people
that complain about a person smoking in their own house and think that
should be illegal too.





so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal around any child anyone under 21


That's how the anti-smoking Nazis work. First is was ban smoking in bars
and restaurants, but you could still have a private vigar dinner in a separate
room. Then they banned that too. Then they banned smoking on most of the
beach, except for a small section for smokers. Then they banned that too.
They banned smoking in public places, businesses, etc, but you could still
smoke outside. Then they objected because people stood outside, so they
made a law that you can't stand within 50 ft of the door. Then they made
a law that says you can't smoke anywhere on the entire property. See a
trend here?




we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I'd say we should extinguish liberalism first. The cost there has been
way higher.

jut add smoking releated illnesses of smokers must be covered by a special insurance policy they must carry.

On Sat, 28 May 2016 09:31:44 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal around any child anyone under 21

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I can always depend on "you libs".

How about you help "abortion survivors". You know. Babies burned with
salt. little chance at life.

Try looking at their network.

http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/

Get back at me.

On 28/05/2016 20:18, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/28/2016 12:34 PM, Reggie wrote:

[snip]

Let's ban "pure-fume" first.

Yes, and face powder. I've seen excesses that interfere with peoples'
breathing too.

BTW, I don't REALLY want any of these things banned. Id rather people
consider the affects of what they do.

Well put.

--
Bod

On 28/05/2016 20:20, hah wrote:
On 05/28/2016 12:36 PM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

Ok, then we ban harmful aerosol cans and polluting air fresheners
and as for people who fart, they should be shot.


But only with lead-free bullets :-)

Naturally ;-)

--
Bod

On 5/28/2016 1:17 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has spent enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in
your lungs).

A couple of years ago, we had an election here about allowing sales of beer and wine. I'd much rather have cigarette sales illegal.

Of course, alcohol isn't completely harmless, but at least you don't have alcohol fumes coming out of the user and infecting others.


Research is revealing that the refined carbohydrate and its resultant diseases (metabolic syndrome) is going to bankrupt healthcare in 20 years
or so.

Type II diabetics and dementia patients are its most expensive victims.

On Sat, 28 May 2016 20:32:07 +0100, bob haller wrote:

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:18:39 PM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/28/2016 12:34 PM, Reggie wrote:

[snip]

Let's ban "pure-fume" first.

Yes, and face powder. I've seen excesses that interfere with peoples'
breathing too.

BTW, I don't REALLY want any of these things banned. Id rather people
consider the affects of what they do.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with
Christianity is the Christians." [H.L. Mencken]

smokers tradionally get mad and speak of their right to smoke...

they ignore all the bad effects. and everyone pays the costs of their medical care...my dad has recurrent bladder cancer, and nothing more can be done for it....

he quit smoking many years ago. but the smoking does dna damage. that only shows up years later

Don't use the medical costs bull****. If you don't like the costs, then privatise health care.

--
The dress doesn't make you look fat. It's that ice cream and chocolate you eat that makes you look fat.

On Sat, 28 May 2016 17:31:44 +0100, bob haller wrote:

A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it

I smoke, you complain, that's one against one, ergo the law should take no action.

so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal around any child anyone under 21

Since when was a 20 year old considered a child?

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

Personal costs are personal to the smoker and nothing to do with you.

By the way, I've smoked about 30 cigarettes in my ENTIRE LIFE. So don't say I'm being selfish.

--
Computers can never replace human stupidity.

On Sat, 28 May 2016 20:13:09 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 05/28/2016 12:28 PM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

Indeed, I prefer a free society.


Of course, freedom IS limited when actions can harm others. Your freedom
of smoking conflicts with others freedom of breathing. If that wasn't
so, I'd have nothing against smoking (at least nothing other than
unwanted fires).

If I'm smoking in the street and you don't want to breathe it in, don't stand next to me. Does not smoking make you a stupid ****wit who can't think for himself?

--
While most Americans believe that getting rid of religion is an impossible goal, much of the developed world has already accomplished it. Any account of a €�god gene€œ that causes the majority of Americans to helplessly organize their lives around ancient works of religious fiction must explain why so many inhabitants of other First World societies apparently lack such a gene. The level of atheism throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in
terms of human development are unwaveringly religious.
--Sam Harris (An Atheist Manifesto)

On 05/28/2016 04:01 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

If I'm smoking in the street and you don't want to breathe it in, don't stand next to me. Does not smoking make you a stupid ****wit who can't think for himself?


Then you won't mind if I take a **** on your leg. If you don't like it you can move, right?

On Sat, 28 May 2016 23:33:26 +0100, Bob Beermeister wrote:

On 05/28/2016 04:01 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

If I'm smoking in the street and you don't want to breathe it in, don't stand next to me. Does not smoking make you a stupid ****wit who can't think for himself?

Then you won't mind if I take a **** on your leg. If you don't like it you can move, right?

What on earth makes you think that's the same thing?

To correct your analogy, ****ing on my leg is like me blowing smoke directly at your face without warning. Somehow you didn't know I had a cigarette.

Now, back to reality. I see you ****ing in the street as I approach, and walk away from you. You see me smoking in the street and walk away from me.

Anyway, getting covered in **** is disgusting. Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. You need to do it billions of times.

Since you're presumably an American and no doubt believe in freedoms like owning a gun, you should also accept the freedom to smoke.

If you can't reply to these point by point using some intelligence, don't bother.

--
A.I.D.S. = Arsehole Injected Death Sentence

On 05/28/2016 01:34 PM, trader_4 wrote:
That's how the anti-smoking Nazis work. First is was ban smoking in bars
and restaurants, but you could still have a private vigar dinner in a separate
room. Then they banned that too. Then they banned smoking on most of the
beach, except for a small section for smokers. Then they banned that too.
They banned smoking in public places, businesses, etc, but you could still
smoke outside. Then they objected because people stood outside, so they
made a law that you can't stand within 50 ft of the door. Then they made
a law that says you can't smoke anywhere on the entire property. See a
trend here?

Yah, smoking stinks and people that smoke are suicidal.

On 05/28/2016 04:51 PM, Jesse wrote:
On 5/28/2016 1:17 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has
spent enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison
in your lungs).

A couple of years ago, we had an election here about allowing sales of
beer and wine. I'd much rather have cigarette sales illegal.

Of course, alcohol isn't completely harmless, but at least you don't
have alcohol fumes coming out of the user and infecting others.


Research is revealing that the refined carbohydrate and its resultant
diseases (metabolic syndrome) is going to bankrupt healthcare in 20
years or so.

Type II diabetics and dementia patients are its most expensive victims.

What does that have to do with smoking? It certainly doesn't DIRECTLY
harm others, like smoking does.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with
Christianity is the Christians." [H.L. Mencken]

On 05/28/2016 05:01 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

[snip]

If I'm smoking in the street and you don't want to breathe it in, don't
stand next to me. Does not smoking make you a stupid ****wit who can't
think for himself?


It's understandable that you wish the world were simpler. That becomes a
problem when you refuse to accept that reality ISN'T cooperating.

I'm well aware that there's more to life than your cigarette, and the
dangerous particles it's emitting. And I'm not talking about you
smoking on your own property (and keeping that junk CONFINED to your
property), but in public where it IS interfering with the rights of others.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with
Christianity is the Christians." [H.L. Mencken]

On 05/28/2016 05:33 PM, Bob Beermeister wrote:
On 05/28/2016 04:01 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

If I'm smoking in the street and you don't want to breathe it in,
don't stand next to me. Does not smoking make you a stupid ****wit
who can't think for himself?


Then you won't mind if I take a **** on your leg. If you don't like it
you can move, right?

The right to **** always beats the right to be in the street :-)

--
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important
to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant
superstition." [Isaac Asimov]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 00:09:43 +0100, hah wrote:

On 05/28/2016 05:33 PM, Bob Beermeister wrote:
On 05/28/2016 04:01 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

If I'm smoking in the street and you don't want to breathe it in,
don't stand next to me. Does not smoking make you a stupid ****wit
who can't think for himself?


Then you won't mind if I take a **** on your leg. If you don't like it
you can move, right?

The right to **** always beats the right to be in the street :-)

Dog owners seem to think it's ok for their dog to **** into someone's garden hedge.

--
"Have you been hunting bear lately?"
"No, the grass tickles."

On Sun, 29 May 2016 00:08:00 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 05/28/2016 05:01 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

[snip]

If I'm smoking in the street and you don't want to breathe it in, don't
stand next to me. Does not smoking make you a stupid ****wit who can't
think for himself?


It's understandable that you wish the world were simpler. That becomes a
problem when you refuse to accept that reality ISN'T cooperating.

I'm well aware that there's more to life than your cigarette, and the
dangerous particles it's emitting. And I'm not talking about you
smoking on your own property (and keeping that junk CONFINED to your
property), but in public where it IS interfering with the rights of others.

Only if the others stay where they are and voluntarily inhale it. I'm not handcuffing you to the railings and blowing it in your face.

--
I want to lie shipwrecked and comatose
Drinking fresh mango juice
With goldfish shoals nibbling round my toes
Fun in the sun

On 5/28/2016 6:46 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
Anyway, getting covered in **** is disgusting. Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. You need to do it
billions of times.


Obviously math was not a good subject for you.

trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:13:14 PM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/28/2016 12:28 PM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

Indeed, I prefer a free society.


Of course, freedom IS limited when actions can harm others. Your
freedom of smoking conflicts with others freedom of breathing. If
that wasn't so, I'd have nothing against smoking (at least nothing
other than unwanted fires).


Except of course that this was posted:

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Add your reply was:

Yes.

My smoking in my house, does not harm you and it's none of your
business. It's not up to you or big govt to force us to comply just
because you think it's bad for us. And the same libs who are out to
shut down all smoking are out to tell you how much fat you can eat,
how much salt you can have, what size soda you can buy.

+1

bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal
around any child anyone under 21

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

Oh, look...a thread for self-righteous prigs.

bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal
around any child anyone under 21

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

Suppose no one in the US smoked or EVER smoked. Would they still die?
Seems to me, smokers die faster and (perhaps) younger thereby reducing the
financial cost. Got a light, bud?

Mark Lloyd wrote:

I'm well aware that there's more to life than your cigarette, and the
dangerous particles it's emitting. And I'm not talking about you
smoking on your own property (and keeping that junk CONFINED to your
property), but in public where it IS interfering with the rights of
others.

You mean like you driving by me walking down the street and me having to
breathe in the crud your car is spitting out?

On Sat, 28 May 2016 19:43:20 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it



so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal
around any child anyone under 21

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

Suppose no one in the US smoked or EVER smoked. Would they still die?
Seems to me, smokers die faster and (perhaps) younger thereby reducing the
financial cost. Got a light, bud?


I tend to agree. Smokers generally delay medical care until they are
on their death bed and die quickly. It is nothing compared to the cost
of the typical hypochondriacs who bleed medicare every day, linger
into their 90s and use far more medical services.
To be clear, I don't smoke but I am also not offended when people do
and I know their smoke is not harming me. Simply smelling a whiff of
smoke is harmless, it just offends a few people looking for a reason
to be offended. There seems to be a pretty long list of things that
offend these people. .

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 12:28:27 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
On 28/05/2016 18:20, Reggie wrote:
"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it

so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal
around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there objects to it
(assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in your
lungs).

what the hell business is that of yours?

Indeed, I prefer a free society.
--
Bod


That's an odd statement coming from a British subject living in a country where one can be jailed for defending himself or insulting a homosexual. What a country, glad I'm not there. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Insulting Monster

On 05/28/2016 10:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

We asa (sic) nation really need to extqunish (sic) a lot of things
completely. Smoking is way down on the list.