Lew Hodgett wrote:
"cm" wrote:

Lew,

Good for you kicking the habit. I quit when I was 13.
32 years ago!

Thank you.

Actually it was the 2nd time I quit.

1st time quit for 2-3 years then went on a brewery trip and in a weak
moment had a cigar.

That was it for another 6-7 years.

No direct experience with drugs other than nicotine, but I'm convinced
that nicotine is the most addictive drug on the planet.


Mark Twain said he could quit anytime. He'd done it often.

Twain was quite proud of the fact that the only thing that could overcome
his iron will to remain tobacco-free was his determination to overcome his
iron will.

Oh, and he didn't smoke when he was asleep.

One of his best lines:

"The differences between a James Fennimore Cooper Indian and the Indian that
stands in front of the cigar store are not many."

sweet sawdust wrote:

Try not to annoy anyone and try not be too easy to annoy.

I was smoking in a field one day talking to some friends. Couple comes over
to the group and stands upwind of me to avoid the smoke. They decide to
move down wind and I move to keep the smoke out of their area.They move down
wind of me again and complain about me smoking upwind of them. Non smokers
very often go out of their way to be annoyed.

I don't smoke but go out of my way to avoid non-smokers. I guess I
should say avid, fanatical, hysterical pia non-smokers. You know, the
ones that seem to have taken over Amerika.

These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
football stadium, and guess what, no smoking. For a number of years,
you had to go INSIDE at a Pirate game to smoke, no smoking in the
outdoor stands. It's not about smoking, it's about controlling others
lives. The first 4 states to ban smoking in public restaurants, bars,
pool halls were red socialist states, aka, blue states (not counting
Utah). This is no accident, the socialist *******s want to control your
entire life.

Whiny non-smokers whine about every damned thing, too hot, too cold, too
much sun, not enough sun and so on and on and on. That's why I try to
avoid non smoking bars (we have both in PA) It keeps the chronic
whiners out of my face, so I only go to smoking bars, even though I
don't smoke.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

Upscale wrote:

I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in this
country. It's getting so that many rights are disappearing that people
once
had.

Sure, you've got plenty of rights. Smoke all you want, burn your lungs out,
it's none of my business. Just don't do it where it bothers me when I'm
going about my business.
You going

out and eating in the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's
your solution?

My solution would be to let the restaurant owner decide if he wants to
ban smoking or allow smoking. I think about 75% don't smoke so you
would think a restaurant owner would be around that would cater to the
non smoker IF enough people really cared.

On the other hand, I don't smoke nut would stay far away from the non
smoking restaurant to avoid the chronic bitcher's that are so annoyed by
others smoking habits. For public buildings owned by the government, I
guess a public referendum would be nice.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

Yes, I'm a nicotine addict.

I quit smoking in 1978, but once an addict, always an addict.

Lew

Hear ya. I quit smoking a little later than that, and admittedly
slipped in a puff, now and then, in later years. I allow myself a
celebratory cigar about once a year. but I have been pretty clean for
the past 15 years.

We had a couple of bars in the Wichita area that make wonderful, old-
fashioned hamburgers. I really enjoyed the hamburgers, but secretly
enjoyed the smoke.

Addict.

RonB

Jack Stein writes:


Not sure whats next, but the hand-wringers have a never ending list of
things they want the government to force YOU to do. They're too
freaking simple to understand sooner or later, THEY will be included
in one of the lists.

Whatever it is, you can be sure it will benefit some profitable
enterprise and, likewise, the pol that created the legislation.

nb

Ed Edelenbos wrote:

Second hand smoke DOES, not might, affect the health of those subjected
to it. It's fact. Get over it. The Smoke Nazis, those who feel like
they still have a "right" to smoke anywhere are the ones in the wrong.

This is bogus. Studies have shown that if you work in a smoke filled
environment, a bar for instance, it is equivalent to smoking 6
cigarettes A YEAR.

If you smoke 2 packs a day for 40 to 60 years, their is a CHANCE you
will get lung cancer or emphysema. I know this because I grew up when
EVERYBODY smoked and it generally took this long for anyone to get these
diseases, smoker or not, and plenty didn't, and don't get them now. To
me, the studies that show no link to second hand smoke make sense, the
other stuff is pure bull****.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

These are just two quick ones I've found. The World Health Organization
also did a HUGE study over a long period and couldn't find any evidence
either, even though plenty have tried like hell to skew the statistics.

The good news is if you are worried about second hand smoke, the
worrying will surely be more deadly than the smoke, and my guess is if
you are wringing your hands over second hand smoke, you are wringing
your hands over a TON of stuff, global warming would be a guess, and
probably won't last all that long anyway...

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

wrote:
Jack Stein writes:

These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
football stadium, and guess what, no smoking.

It has become pretty silly, hasn't it. One of the most absurd
anti-smoking laws is no smoking on the beach. What's next? No
breathing under water?

Not sure whats next, but the hand-wringers have a never ending list of
things they want the government to force YOU to do. They're too
freaking simple to understand sooner or later, THEY will be included in
one of the lists.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:

sweet sawdust wrote:

Try not to annoy anyone and try not be too easy to annoy.

I was smoking in a field one day talking to some friends. Couple comes
over
to the group and stands upwind of me to avoid the smoke. They decide to
move down wind and I move to keep the smoke out of their area.They move
down
wind of me again and complain about me smoking upwind of them. Non
smokers very often go out of their way to be annoyed.

I don't smoke but go out of my way to avoid non-smokers. I guess I
should say avid, fanatical, hysterical pia non-smokers. You know, the
ones that seem to have taken over Amerika.

These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
football stadium, and guess what, no smoking. For a number of years,
you had to go INSIDE at a Pirate game to smoke, no smoking in the
outdoor stands. It's not about smoking, it's about controlling others
lives. The first 4 states to ban smoking in public restaurants, bars,
pool halls were red socialist states, aka, blue states (not counting
Utah). This is no accident, the socialist *******s want to control your
entire life.

Whiny non-smokers whine about every damned thing, too hot, too cold, too
much sun, not enough sun and so on and on and on. That's why I try to
avoid non smoking bars (we have both in PA) It keeps the chronic
whiners out of my face, so I only go to smoking bars, even though I
don't smoke.



Well said. It's too bad you don't live near AZ -- would love to sit on
the porch and shoot the breeze with you.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jack Stein wrote:

wrote:
Jack Stein writes:

These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
football stadium, and guess what, no smoking.

It has become pretty silly, hasn't it. One of the most absurd
anti-smoking laws is no smoking on the beach. What's next? No
breathing under water?

Not sure whats next, but the hand-wringers have a never ending list of
things they want the government to force YOU to do. They're too
freaking simple to understand sooner or later, THEY will be included in
one of the lists.


You'll probably enjoy the following:
http://assets.comics.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/80000/4000/500/284583/284583.full.gif
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita writes:


You'll probably enjoy the following:
http://assets.comics.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/80000/4000/500/284583/284583.full.gif

I hadda 1 bicycle kills symbol painted on my van, but I only winged
him.

nb

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

sweet sawdust wrote:

Try not to annoy anyone and try not be too easy to annoy.

I was smoking in a field one day talking to some friends. Couple comes
over
to the group and stands upwind of me to avoid the smoke. They decide
to
move down wind and I move to keep the smoke out of their area.They move
down
wind of me again and complain about me smoking upwind of them. Non
smokers very often go out of their way to be annoyed.
I don't smoke but go out of my way to avoid non-smokers. I guess I
should say avid, fanatical, hysterical pia non-smokers. You know, the
ones that seem to have taken over Amerika.

These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
football stadium, and guess what, no smoking. For a number of years,
you had to go INSIDE at a Pirate game to smoke, no smoking in the
outdoor stands. It's not about smoking, it's about controlling others
lives. The first 4 states to ban smoking in public restaurants, bars,
pool halls were red socialist states, aka, blue states (not counting
Utah). This is no accident, the socialist *******s want to control your
entire life.

Whiny non-smokers whine about every damned thing, too hot, too cold, too
much sun, not enough sun and so on and on and on. That's why I try to
avoid non smoking bars (we have both in PA) It keeps the chronic
whiners out of my face, so I only go to smoking bars, even though I
don't smoke.


Well said. It's too bad you don't live near AZ -- would love to sit
on
the porch and shoot the breeze with you.

Well I'm VERY opinionated, and every single one of them is "liberal", or
as Obama Ben Laden would stereotype me, far right wing... I'm thinking of
moving to Russia, land of flat tax and growing freedoms... Pravda thinks
the USSA has gone too far Marxist... Hard to disagree.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

Sounds to me as though you got short changed on your education. It's not
too late.

Ed

On Jun 3, 8:07*am, "Ed Edelenbos" wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
[blather]
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

Sounds to me as though you got short changed on your education. *It's not
too late.

Ed

Don't feed the troll. Ed.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

sweet sawdust wrote:

Try not to annoy anyone and try not be too easy to annoy.

I was smoking in a field one day talking to some friends. Couple comes
over
to the group and stands upwind of me to avoid the smoke. They decide to
move down wind and I move to keep the smoke out of their area.They move
down
wind of me again and complain about me smoking upwind of them. Non
smokers very often go out of their way to be annoyed.
I don't smoke but go out of my way to avoid non-smokers. I guess I
should say avid, fanatical, hysterical pia non-smokers. You know, the
ones that seem to have taken over Amerika.

These assholes want smoking banned everywhere. Go to an outdoor
football stadium, and guess what, no smoking. For a number of years,
you had to go INSIDE at a Pirate game to smoke, no smoking in the
outdoor stands. It's not about smoking, it's about controlling others
lives. The first 4 states to ban smoking in public restaurants, bars,
pool halls were red socialist states, aka, blue states (not counting
Utah). This is no accident, the socialist *******s want to control your
entire life.

Whiny non-smokers whine about every damned thing, too hot, too cold, too
much sun, not enough sun and so on and on and on. That's why I try to
avoid non smoking bars (we have both in PA) It keeps the chronic
whiners out of my face, so I only go to smoking bars, even though I
don't smoke.


Well said. It's too bad you don't live near AZ -- would love to sit on
the porch and shoot the breeze with you.

Well I'm VERY opinionated, and every single one of them is "liberal", or
as Obama Ben Laden would stereotype me, far right wing... I'm thinking
of moving to Russia, land of flat tax and growing freedoms... Pravda
thinks the USSA has gone too far Marxist... Hard to disagree.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

If smoking *only* affected the individuals doing so, then what they
smoke would be their business only. But, it's not true and never will
be. Society always shoulders the lion's share of the inevitable
health care costs that smoker's bring onto themselves.

So if those folks had never smoked they would never get sick? I'm part of
society and I've been shouldering other people's burdens for better than
50 years...

Young/unwed mothers

Baby daddys that won't spend a dime to support baby(s)


Clipped for brevity...

Yeah!, and y'know what really ****es me off? Having to shoulder the burden
of heath care for old people. Do you realize that they are responsible for
something like 95% heath care costs? Somebody ought to teach the heath care
industry about "return on invetsment".

(I'm only 95% kidding)

-Steve

Jack Stein wrote:

I'm thinking of moving to Russia, land of flat tax and growing
freedoms...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Lew

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Jack Stein
wrote:

My solution would be to let the restaurant owner decide if he wants to
ban smoking or allow smoking. I think about 75% don't smoke so you
would think a restaurant owner would be around that would cater to the
non smoker IF enough people really cared.

I smoked for a long time, quit about 7-8 years ago. I really notice the
smoke, but don't bitch about it.

I agree with you. Let the market decide.

The businesses that catered to smokers would attract that business, and
vice-versa.


Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a restaurant
owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club". To a reasonable
person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots of restaurants in
Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would be walking into if you
entered this person's establishment. To a reasonable person. Reality?
Full force of the law came down on this guy's head. How dare he think that
he could run HIS business as he saw fit?!


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Jack Stein
wrote:

My solution would be to let the restaurant owner decide if he wants
to ban smoking or allow smoking. I think about 75% don't smoke so
you would think a restaurant owner would be around that would cater
to the non smoker IF enough people really cared.

I smoked for a long time, quit about 7-8 years ago. I really notice
the smoke, but don't bitch about it.

I agree with you. Let the market decide.

The businesses that catered to smokers would attract that business,
and vice-versa.


Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a
restaurant owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club".
To a reasonable person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots
of restaurants in Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would
be walking into if you entered this person's establishment. To a
reasonable person. Reality? Full force of the law came down on this
guy's head. How dare he think that he could run HIS business as he
saw fit?!

But just think what could have happened if they had allowed it...

The club is a rousing success, filled with patrons happily puffing away.
One of them opens the door to leave and at that very moment an innocent
non-smoker is passing by. WHAM! That innocent inhales - ACTUALLY INHALES -
a whiff of the transient smoke and now has to live with the certain
knowledge that his/her life has been shortened and may end painfully and
slowly from lung cancer.

Arizona - and California, Washington, New York, Florida, et al - knows best.
So does big brother.

dadiOH

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a
restaurant owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club".
To a reasonable person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots
of restaurants in Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would
be walking into if you entered this person's establishment. To a
reasonable person. Reality? Full force of the law came down on this
guy's head. How dare he think that he could run HIS business as he
saw fit?!

Wonder what would happen if you advertised for something (a job, selling
chia plants, tutoring, offering a kitten for adoption, etc.) and said in
your ad "smokers only need apply?" That is, who would get their panties in a
wad if you discriminated against non-smokers?

HeyBub wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a
restaurant owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club".
To a reasonable person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots
of restaurants in Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would
be walking into if you entered this person's establishment. To a
reasonable person. Reality? Full force of the law came down on this
guy's head. How dare he think that he could run HIS business as he
saw fit?!

Wonder what would happen if you advertised for something (a job, selling
chia plants, tutoring, offering a kitten for adoption, etc.) and said in
your ad "smokers only need apply?" That is, who would get their panties in a
wad if you discriminated against non-smokers?

Yeah, but was anybody preventing a "well behaved" non-smoker from
walking into that smoking club and having a good time in spite of the
smoke? I doubt there was there a sign on the door of the club that said
"Non-smokers not allowed", so I don't see now they could have shut it
down because of discrimination.

--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Steve Turner wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a
restaurant owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club".
To a reasonable person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots
of restaurants in Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would
be walking into if you entered this person's establishment. To a
reasonable person. Reality? Full force of the law came down on this
guy's head. How dare he think that he could run HIS business as he
saw fit?!

Wonder what would happen if you advertised for something (a job, selling
chia plants, tutoring, offering a kitten for adoption, etc.) and said in
your ad "smokers only need apply?" That is, who would get their panties
in a wad if you discriminated against non-smokers?

Yeah, but was anybody preventing a "well behaved" non-smoker from
walking into that smoking club and having a good time in spite of the
smoke? I doubt there was there a sign on the door of the club that said
"Non-smokers not allowed", so I don't see now they could have shut it
down because of discrimination.


Nope, there was no requirement that people entering that club had to
smoke, just that they could.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Upscale" wrote in
:


"Larry" wrote in message
I'd be willing to wager that obesity is killing/costing as
much or more. Do you want the government telling you what
you can eat? Closing fast food restaurants?

Another outlandish rebuttal. People eat to survive. They
don't have to smoke. As to amount that people eat, well,
that's a discussion for another day.


How it that so outlandish? The discussion was about doing as
one pleases unless it affects others. If you're obese society
shoulders the burden of your healthcare and therefore affects
everyone that pays taxes. They should then be able to tell you
to push away from the dinner table and get your fat ass on the
treadmill using your logic. Since there are far more obese
people than smokers, seems like low hanging fruit to me.

Personally I would prefer the government stay out of my
private life entirely contrary to what you believe.

Larry

"Larry" wrote in message
Personally I would prefer the government stay out of my
private life entirely contrary to what you believe.

If the government and order of society was as out of your life entirely as
you prefer, you'd most likely be dead a long time ago from someone killing
you for the food you were eating.

"Larry" wrote:

Personally I would prefer the government stay out of my
private life entirely contrary to what you believe.


Then you best find a deserted island to live on.

As long as you CHOOSE to live in society, government WILL be iinvolved
in your life.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
:


"Larry" wrote:

Personally I would prefer the government stay out of my
private life entirely contrary to what you believe.


Then you best find a deserted island to live on.

As long as you CHOOSE to live in society, government WILL
be iinvolved in your life.


I'm not advocating abolishing government. What part of PRIVATE
can you not understand? Maybe you should review the Bill of
Rights...

Larry

Larry wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
:


"Larry" wrote:

Personally I would prefer the government stay out of my
private life entirely contrary to what you believe.


Then you best find a deserted island to live on.

As long as you CHOOSE to live in society, government WILL
be iinvolved in your life.


I'm not advocating abolishing government. What part of PRIVATE
can you not understand? Maybe you should review the Bill of
Rights...

So how do you propose to get from here to a sitaution in which government
stays out of your private life completely?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
I'm not advocating abolishing government. What part of PRIVATE
can you not understand? Maybe you should review the Bill of
Rights...

So how do you propose to get from here to a situation in which government
stays out of your private life completely?

As well, where do you draw the line between private and public? The two are
so intertwined that it's all but impossible to separate one completely from
the other.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Back several years ago when AZ went the "smoke-free" path, a
restaurant owner wanted to turn his restaurant into a "smoking club".
To a reasonable person, this seemed pretty reasonable, there are lots
of restaurants in Tucson and there would be no doubt what one would
be walking into if you entered this person's establishment. To a
reasonable person. Reality? Full force of the law came down on this
guy's head. How dare he think that he could run HIS business as he
saw fit?!

Once upon a time, a fried-chicken joint in Kentucky applied for a Service
Mark ("Ford has a better idea" "Coke's the real thing") from the
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. Several groups objected the the
issuance of the service mark and a notice was placed in the Federal Register
regarding the form and times for commentary.

In my view, the service mark "Jack's Fried Chicken, where a breast in the
mouth is as good as a thigh in the hand" would have been a self-correcting
problem. Either Jack would have made a fortune or somebody would have burnt
his place to the ground.

But noooo! We had to have notices in the Federal Register, meetings
hearings, documents in triplicates, writs by the wagon full, twelve lawyers
singing, notaries public without number.

Oh well.