Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
with a no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yes, I'm a nicotine addict.

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

Lew

In ,
Lew Hodgett dropped this bit of wisdom:
Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
with a no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yes, I'm a nicotine addict.

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

Lew

I quit a lot of time, my most recent was 1 year ago.

Every time I quit I restarted with stronger nicotine. Matinee to Players to Export A to Dumaurier and finally to Cigars. I even tried Players Navy Cut but they seemed to pass with the 50's.

I still miss my after dinner Cigar.

P D Q

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
with a no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yes, I'm a nicotine addict.

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

Lew


The revenge of the flower children. Marijuana is legal but Dad has to
sneak around to smoke his pipe.

--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA

Before Xerox, five carbons were the
maximum extension of anybody's ego.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
with a no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.

They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching fumes as
they do. They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air when
they fly. True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but there
are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or coughing, all
being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. They also beam
happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the back
of the seat in front of them. And, of course, they are so inured to their
child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might be
irritating to others. Smoke free though...

I don't eat out much anymore.

dadiOH

On Jun 1, 8:53*am, "dadiOH" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
with a no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.

They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching fumes as
they do. *They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air when
they fly. *True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but there
are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or coughing, all
being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. *They also beam
happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the back
of the seat in front of them. *And, of course, they are so inured to their
child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might be
irritating to others. *Smoke free though...

I don't eat out much anymore.

dadiOH

There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

If this happened around here, I would be contributing to the slapper's
defense fund.

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:53:26 -0400, dadiOH wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
with a no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.

They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching fumes as
they do. They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air when
they fly. True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but there
are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or coughing, all
being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. They also beam
happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the back
of the seat in front of them. And, of course, they are so inured to their
child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might be
irritating to others. Smoke free though...

I don't eat out much anymore.

dadiOH

You are saying it like it is there. Good for you.
They are also the types that go down the road talking on their cells
phones without a thought of the danger they are putting other drivers in
by not paying full attention to their driving. Also, the ones the opposes
any law that would ban cell phones while driving.
I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in this
country. It's getting so that many right are disappearing that people once
had.

Paul T.

--
The only dumb question, is the one not asked

"Robatoy" wrote in message
There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

And I've watched what amounts to the reverse. Mother and son doing some
shopping in the supermarket. The kid was pretty big, I figure about 10 years
old. He wanted his mother to buy him things as they were walking around and
she was refusing. He was punching, kicking and slapping her because he'd put
something in the shopping cart and she'd put it back on the shelf.

They weren't speaking English so there wasn't much I could say. I was sorely
tempted to slap the kid silly, but I didn't really feel like spending time
in jail.

PHT wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:53:26 -0400, dadiOH wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
with a no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are
progressing toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.

They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching
fumes as they do. They also have to indure (as do all of us) less
fresh air when they fly. True, there is no smoke in all that
recirculated air but there are whatever germs the passengers are
exhaling or sneezing or coughing, all being recirculated...and
recirculated...and recirculated. They also beam happily at their
small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the back of the
seat in front of them. And, of course, they are so inured to their
child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might
be irritating to others. Smoke free though...

I don't eat out much anymore.

dadiOH

You are saying it like it is there. Good for you.
They are also the types that go down the road talking on their cells
phones without a thought of the danger they are putting other drivers
in by not paying full attention to their driving. Also, the ones the
opposes any law that would ban cell phones while driving.
I also seldom eat out anymore. Smoker's do longer have any rights in
this country. It's getting so that many right are disappearing that
people once had.

Personally I'd like to see legislation that allows you to do _anything_ you
feel like in the way of personal mayhem to _any_ person seen talking on a
cell phone while driving. Only caveats--you must be able to prove that you
saw them talking on a cell phone while driving and you have to get _only_
the person who was talking on the phone. Never gonna happen but it's
something to fantasize about.

Robatoy wrote:
There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

Wow, did the slapper get a big round of applause before they carted her off?

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the odour
of
cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making me physically
sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my business what you smoke,
what you eat or what you do in your life as long as it doesn't have an
effect on my life. But when it does, how do you think it should be
handled?
My going out and eating in a restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You
going
out and eating in the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's
your solution?


Common courtesy

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.

"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the odour of
cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making me physically
sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my business what you smoke,
what you eat or what you do in your life as long as it doesn't have an
effect on my life. But when it does, how do you think it should be handled?
My going out and eating in a restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going
out and eating in the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's
your solution?

On Jun 1, 10:57*am, Steve Turner wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

Wow, did the slapper get a big round of applause before they carted her off?

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Probably. A few dozen people saw it, but there were no witnesses.. G

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Jun 1, 8:53 am, "dadiOH" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
with a no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.

They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching fumes
as
they do. They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air when
they fly. True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but there
are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or coughing,
all
being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. They also beam
happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the
back
of the seat in front of them. And, of course, they are so inured to their
child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might be
irritating to others. Smoke free though...

I don't eat out much anymore.

dadiOH

There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

If this happened around here, I would be contributing to the slapper's
defense fund.

When kid was younger he would pull that trick and when I said no he would
start asking me why he couldn't have what ever. I would quietly tell him
about undone chores, spent allowance and responsibility. This of course
never worked and he would whine louder, I would again explain louder, not
shouting just loud voice. After a couple of sessions of this and the
embarrassment of having everyone looking at him he quite asking after the
first no

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

If this happened around here, I would be contributing to the slapper's
defense fund.


Last year I saw a similar incident in a local grocery store except the
mother could not control the child. The kid had to be 9-10 years old. I
walked up to the mother and asked if she would like for me to take care of
the problem. She said if you can, yes. I looked at the kid and said I can,
and then walked over to the boy and simply said we are going to take this
out side where we will not be bothering any one, I suggest you straighten up
now. He shut up. I did this for a single mom neighbor about 10 years ago
also.
The trick is to make a suggestion but not explain the details, let the child
imagine what could happen. ;~)

On Jun 1, 10:20*am, "sweet sawdust"
wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...
On Jun 1, 8:53 am, "dadiOH" wrote:



Lew Hodgett wrote:
Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
with a no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.

They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching fumes
as
they do. They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air when
they fly. True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but there
are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or coughing,
all
being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. They also beam
happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at the
back
of the seat in front of them. And, of course, they are so inured to their
child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might be
irritating to others. Smoke free though...

I don't eat out much anymore.

dadiOH

There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

If this happened around here, I would be contributing to the slapper's
defense fund.

When kid was younger he would pull that trick and when I said no he would
start asking me why he couldn't have what ever. *I would quietly tell him
about undone chores, spent allowance and responsibility. This of course
never worked and he would whine louder, *I would again explain louder, not
shouting just loud voice. *After a couple of sessions of this and the
embarrassment of having everyone looking at him he quite asking after the
first no

Once upon a time, about 25 years ago (the kid is 30 now), my son
pitched a fit in a store because we refused to buy him a toy (any toy
- didn't matter). After a short tantrum, I spun the kid around and
gave him a swat on the butt and marched him out of the store as my
wife put our stuff back on the shelves - shopping trip over. Another
woman looked at me in horror and I'm probably lucky she didn't call
the cops. Even then the leftist weenies were nuts about "child
abuse".

Robatoy wrote in
:

On Jun 1, 8:53*am, "dadiOH" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant
with a no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like
Camarillo have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is
banned and now there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are
progressing toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yeah, the Smoke Nazis have won.

They still putt-putt around in their myriad cars, though, belching
fumes
as
they do. *They also have to indure (as do all of us) less fresh air
whe
n
they fly. *True, there is no smoke in all that recirculated air but
the
re
are whatever germs the passengers are exhaling or sneezing or
coughing, a
ll
being recirculated...and recirculated...and recirculated. *They also
be
am
happily at their small children as said bairns merrily kick away at
the b
ack
of the seat in front of them. *And, of course, they are so inured to
th
eir
child's wailing that it never occurs to them that the wailing might
be irritating to others. *Smoke free though...

I don't eat out much anymore.

dadiOH

There was a case where some kid was just losing it and wailing away in
a supermarket. The kids mother pretended not to hear any of it. This
kid was apparently shrieking like a stuck pig.
A woman walked up to the kid's mother and slapped her.

If this happened around here, I would be contributing to the slapper's
defense fund.

Sign me up for that fund!

Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?

My solution is that the restaurant - or other business owner - should be
able to decide what rules he wants in his/her establishment. It is *not*
the business of the government, became so because of the mind set of the
Smoke Nazis that the world should conform to *their* view of how it should
be.

dadiOH

dadiOH wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?

My solution is that the restaurant - or other business owner -
should be able to decide what rules he wants in his/her
establishment. It is *not* the business of the government, became so
because of the mind set of the Smoke Nazis that the world should
conform to *their* view of how it should be.

Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a sign on
the door with the smoking policy.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
dadiOH wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?

My solution is that the restaurant - or other business owner -
should be able to decide what rules he wants in his/her
establishment. It is *not* the business of the government, became so
because of the mind set of the Smoke Nazis that the world should
conform to *their* view of how it should be.

Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a sign on
the door with the smoking policy.


The current government policy is to mask the fact that they have been
complicit in peddling death to the citizens. When the government finds a
product that is unsafe, it is their job to make a law that outlaws it. They
have known about the (explicit) dangers of tobacco for a long time. The
only reason it has not been outlawed so far is that the tobacco lobby has
been successful at paying off enough politicians.

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.

Ed

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:14:54 -0500, Upscale wrote:

"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the odour of
cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making me physically
sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my business what you smoke,
what you eat or what you do in your life as long as it doesn't have an
effect on my life. But when it does, how do you think it should be handled?
My going out and eating in a restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going
out and eating in the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's
your solution?

It may cost the restaurant some money, but it is possible to have a vent
system that would draw the smoke out and keep it from the non-smokers. But
even then there are non-smokers that would complain no matter what the
situation. When smoking was allowed in restaurant's, there was many times
that I seen the non-smoking area filled, so a non-smoker couple would take
a place in the smoking area and sit there and complain about the smoke the
whole time. When a group of people want something, they will do anything
to get what they want, so matter how many lies it takes.

Paul T.

--
The only dumb question, is the one not asked

"Ed Edelenbos" writes:

Second hand smoke DOES, not might, affect the health of those subjected to
it. It's fact.

Like most "facts", this one too is subject to some caveats:

1) Incidental exposure (such as passing by a smoker on the street
corner, or outside an office building) has absolutely zero adverse
health effects on the passerby.

2) Long-term exposure (Stewards/Stewardesses on smoking flights,
Waiters/Waitresses, Bartenders, Spouses and Children) does have
an deletorious effect (the magnitude of which is subject to some debate).

3) Incidental exposure such as during a meal in a restaurant, likewise
has no adverse health effect on the exposee (the wait staff is a different
matter).

4) I don't like the smell either, particularly at meals and on airplanes.

5) I've never smoked.

6) That said, I support strongly the smoker's right to choose to start or quit
smoking so long has it is in their own home, auto or outdoors.

It's less clear that banning smoking outdoors has any health benefits other than
discouraging smoking.

scott

Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message

It may cost the restaurant some money, but it is possible to have a vent
system that would draw the smoke out and keep it from the non-smokers. But
even then there are non-smokers that would complain no matter what the
situation.


They had those separated and filtered smoking rooms in Ontario, but they
were eventually outlawed and it's now illegal.


The same here in Erie County. A number of years ago the county passed a
law that all restaurants, bars, etc. must provide a separate area for
smokers and non-smokers. The areas had to be completely separated
(walled off) from each other. The business owner's scrambled to hire
contractors to get their building in compliance with the new law.

About a year later the county changed the law making it illegal to smoke
in any of these businesses.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...
"Ed Edelenbos" writes:

Second hand smoke DOES, not might, affect the health of those subjected to
it. It's fact.

Like most "facts", this one too is subject to some caveats:

1) Incidental exposure (such as passing by a smoker on the street
corner, or outside an office building) has absolutely zero adverse
health effects on the passerby.

2) Long-term exposure (Stewards/Stewardesses on smoking flights,
Waiters/Waitresses, Bartenders, Spouses and Children) does have
an deletorious effect (the magnitude of which is subject to some
debate).

3) Incidental exposure such as during a meal in a restaurant, likewise
has no adverse health effect on the exposee (the wait staff is a
different
matter).

4) I don't like the smell either, particularly at meals and on airplanes.

5) I've never smoked.

6) That said, I support strongly the smoker's right to choose to start or
quit
smoking so long has it is in their own home, auto or outdoors.

It's less clear that banning smoking outdoors has any health benefits
other than
discouraging smoking.

scott

I hear you... to some extent. The "fact" is though, there is no health
benefit to smoking to anyone concerned. When the (US and some others) gov.
figured out the detrimental effects of asbestos, it was outlawed. Do you
support the right to choose to use or quit using asbestos? The same goes
for lead in paint or water pipes, for that matter... or DDT to control
mosquitos... or a bunch of other stuff currently illegal to use.

I have smoked. Up to 3 packs a day and for 35 or so years. I quit 4 1/2
yrs ago. I still love the smell of the stuff... I never cared about people
smoking in restaurants or much of anywhere. Truth be told, sometimes I
stand downwind of smokers, on purpose. What I'm saying is that my opinion
is *not* based on overzealous, holier-than-thou ex-smoker hoo-haw. The
*facts* are overwhelming against smoking. A lot of the public perception
is based on carefully orchestrated science based campaigns to sell us the
stuff.

Sorry, I think the days of smoking are numbered and I think it is a good
thing. I think that *is* the function of government.

Ed

Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
dadiOH wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life
as long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does,
how do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in
the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your
solution?

My solution is that the restaurant - or other business owner -
should be able to decide what rules he wants in his/her
establishment. It is *not* the business of the government, became
so because of the mind set of the Smoke Nazis that the world should
conform to *their* view of how it should be.

Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a
sign on the door with the smoking policy.


The current government policy is to mask the fact that they have been
complicit in peddling death to the citizens. When the government
finds a product that is unsafe, it is their job to make a law that
outlaws it.

No, it is not, it is at most the government's job to provide to the citizens
the information they need to make an informed decision.

They have known about the (explicit) dangers of tobacco
for a long time. The only reason it has not been outlawed so far is
that the tobacco lobby has been successful at paying off enough
politicians.

You seem to be ignoring the brilliant success of Prohibition and the War on
Drugs, both of which have done wonders for the income of organized crime and
diddly squat about keeping the prohibited substance out of the hands of the
citizens who want it. Now you want yet another ban. Do you work for the
Mafia or something?

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.

If you don't want to inhale "second hand smoke" then don't go into a place
that has a sign on the door that says "smokers welcome".

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a
sign on
the door with the smoking policy.

Think that is called a "No Smoking" sign.

Lew

"Upscale" wrote in
:


"PHT" wrote in message
It may cost the restaurant some money, but it is possible
to have a vent system that would draw the smoke out and
keep it from the non-smokers. But even then there are
non-smokers that would complain no matter what the
situation.

They had those separated and filtered smoking rooms in
Ontario, but they were eventually outlawed and it's now
illegal.

Let's face it. Smoking is and has been one of the most
costly (lives *and* money) blights in human history.
Whether one is a smoker or anti-smoking Nazi, the cost to
civilization at large is absolutely enormous. On a guess,
I'd wager that smoking has killed more people than all the
wars combined and cost more health care money than all the
bankruptcies (current and past) combined.

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.



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?

The government is involved in too many things they don't
belong involved in. No matter how hard you try you will NEVER
legislate a perfect world...

Larry

Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?

Let the market decide.

Smoke-free restaurants and smoking restaurants. Or separate sections in the
same restaurant.

This simple solution is, however, insufficient for the True Believer (see
the book by the same name by Eric Hoffer).

People mind their own business when it's worth minding. When it's not, they
take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by minding someone else's
business.

These folks are, nevertheless, a source of some amusement. Whenever some
granny-lady starts whacking me with her umbrella and screeching in a voice
that has not endeared her to any number of husbands: "You godless communist,
you can't smoke here!," I simply reply: "It's all right, madam, I'm French."

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a
sign on
the door with the smoking policy.

Think that is called a "No Smoking" sign.

Nope, that's the government _setting_ the smoking policy.

If someone wants to hang a sign on the door that says "smokers of pipes,
cigars, cigarettes, and tiparillos are welcome in this establishment and
anybody who doesn't want to be exposed to smoke is asked to take their
business elsewhere instead of coming in here and whining about it" they
should be able to.

The result of the current laws is that there are already smokeasies open in
some cities.

Why are you people so bound and determined to create a new income source for
organized crime?

"PHT" wrote in message
It may cost the restaurant some money, but it is possible to have a vent
system that would draw the smoke out and keep it from the non-smokers. But
even then there are non-smokers that would complain no matter what the
situation.

They had those separated and filtered smoking rooms in Ontario, but they
were eventually outlawed and it's now illegal.

Let's face it. Smoking is and has been one of the most costly (lives *and*
money) blights in human history. Whether one is a smoker or anti-smoking
Nazi, the cost to civilization at large is absolutely enormous. On a guess,
I'd wager that smoking has killed more people than all the wars combined and
cost more health care money than all the bankruptcies (current and past)
combined.

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.

HeyBub wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?

Let the market decide.

Smoke-free restaurants and smoking restaurants. Or separate sections
in the same restaurant.

This simple solution is, however, insufficient for the True Believer
(see the book by the same name by Eric Hoffer).

People mind their own business when it's worth minding. When it's
not, they take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by
minding someone else's business.

These folks are, nevertheless, a source of some amusement. Whenever
some granny-lady starts whacking me with her umbrella and screeching
in a voice that has not endeared her to any number of husbands: "You
godless communist, you can't smoke here!," I simply reply: "It's all
right, madam, I'm French."

Next time, try, "Being French, it is incumbent upon me to ask you this
question, madam. Do you screw."

With any luck she'll pop a blood vessel and the world will be a better
place.

Lew,

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


cm


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
Never thought I'd see it, bans on smoking.

When I came to California 20 years ago, trying to find a restaurant with a
no smoking section was a real challenge.

Today, smoking inside buildings is not permitted, cities like Camarillo
have totally banned smoking, smoking on the beaches is banned and now
there is discussion to ban smoking on golf courses.

Understand NYC has also banned smoking so both coasts are progressing
toward the heartland.

The recent addition of another $0.60+/pack federal tax doesn't hurt
either.

Yes, I'm a nicotine addict.

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

Lew

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
Like most "facts", this one too is subject to some caveats:

1) Incidental exposure (such as passing by a smoker on the street
corner, or outside an office building) has absolutely zero adverse
health effects on the passerby.

Not according to a number of medical scientists. Of course, you're free to
label them as caveats too.

"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.

Lew

Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message
It may cost the restaurant some money, but it is possible to have a
vent system that would draw the smoke out and keep it from the
non-smokers. But even then there are non-smokers that would complain
no matter what the situation.

They had those separated and filtered smoking rooms in Ontario, but
they were eventually outlawed and it's now illegal.

Let's face it. Smoking is and has been one of the most costly (lives
*and* money) blights in human history. Whether one is a smoker or
anti-smoking Nazi, the cost to civilization at large is absolutely
enormous. On a guess, I'd wager that smoking has killed more people
than all the wars combined and cost more health care money than all
the bankruptcies (current and past) combined.

Oh, come now. I'm not adverse to a bit of hyperbole to make a point but -
with respect - that statement is just absurd.
_______________________

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)

The guy/girl that stubs a toe at work and sees it as an opportunity for
a lifetime of disability payments

Methadone clinics for junkies

"Immigrants" that use hospital emergency rooms to get a splinter pulled
out.

Et cetera ad nauseam, you get the idea. I've been smoking for 60 years and
I've never cost society a plugged nickel except for the GI Bill after Korea.
Yes, I may get lung cancer or emphesyma. Might have gotten either if I'd
never puffed nary a fag. If I do get either, it isn't going to cost society
any more than if I was a non smoker and had heart disease or Alzheimers or
any of the many, many things to which people inevitably succumb.

You want blights, try alcohol. Try cars.

dadiOH

J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in
the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your
solution?

Let the market decide.

Smoke-free restaurants and smoking restaurants. Or separate sections
in the same restaurant.

This simple solution is, however, insufficient for the True Believer
(see the book by the same name by Eric Hoffer).

People mind their own business when it's worth minding. When it's
not, they take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by
minding someone else's business.

These folks are, nevertheless, a source of some amusement. Whenever
some granny-lady starts whacking me with her umbrella and screeching
in a voice that has not endeared her to any number of husbands: "You
godless communist, you can't smoke here!," I simply reply: "It's all
right, madam, I'm French."

Next time, try, "Being French, it is incumbent upon me to ask you this
question, madam. Do you screw."

Not a good idea, the harridan might say, "Sure, let's".

dadiOH

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:41:45 -0400, "Ed Edelenbos"
wrote:



"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
dadiOH wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life as
long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does, how
do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in the
same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your solution?

My solution is that the restaurant - or other business owner -
should be able to decide what rules he wants in his/her
establishment. It is *not* the business of the government, became so
because of the mind set of the Smoke Nazis that the world should
conform to *their* view of how it should be.

Bingo--at most the government's involvement should be to require a sign on
the door with the smoking policy.


The current government policy is to mask the fact that they have been
complicit in peddling death to the citizens. When the government finds a
product that is unsafe, it is their job to make a law that outlaws it. They
have known about the (explicit) dangers of tobacco for a long time. The
only reason it has not been outlawed so far is that the tobacco lobby has
been successful at paying off enough politicians.

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.

Ed

It's not the tobacco lobby so much as the government's dependence on
the tobacco taxes

dadiOH wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"PHT" wrote in message
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.

I admit it, I used to smoke. I quit some thirty years ago. Now, the
odour of cigarettes and the smell of nicotine comes close to making
me physically sick. I'm not being hypocritical, it's none of my
business what you smoke, what you eat or what you do in your life
as long as it doesn't have an effect on my life. But when it does,
how do you think it should be handled? My going out and eating in a
restaurant doesn't affect you at all. You going out and eating in
the same restaurant and smoking does affect me. What's your
solution?

Let the market decide.

Smoke-free restaurants and smoking restaurants. Or separate sections
in the same restaurant.

This simple solution is, however, insufficient for the True Believer
(see the book by the same name by Eric Hoffer).

People mind their own business when it's worth minding. When it's
not, they take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by
minding someone else's business.

These folks are, nevertheless, a source of some amusement. Whenever
some granny-lady starts whacking me with her umbrella and screeching
in a voice that has not endeared her to any number of husbands: "You
godless communist, you can't smoke here!," I simply reply: "It's all
right, madam, I'm French."

Next time, try, "Being French, it is incumbent upon me to ask you
this question, madam. Do you screw."

Not a good idea, the harridan might say, "Sure, let's".

Then you get to say "only if I can smoke after".

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
Why are you people so bound and determined to create a new income source
for
organized crime?

Come on! That's pretty simplistic don't you think? As long as there's any
type of society, there's always going to be criminal elements trying to make
illegal profits out of it.

"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.

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?

nb