Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Puff, Puff, Bash - The smoking ban is based on an agenda of lies.
Philadelphia City Paper Net ^ | June 29, 2006 | Michael J. McFadden

Posted on 06/28/2006 10:39:04 PM PDT by SheLion

Psst! Hey kid! Come over here and jump off this bridge! All the cool kids've done it 'n you're the only one left! It won't hurt, it'll be fun. Anyhow, if ya don't do it, I'm gonna come back 'n bugya, 'n bugya, 'n bugya forever till ya do.

With that sort of reasoned discourse in the background, accompanied by taunts of "You smell like an ASHTRAY!", Philadelphia finally jumped on the bandwagon and banned smoking. Well, sorta. They banned it unless you're a bar that agrees not to feed its customers anything healthy, one that's well-off enough to have a sidewalk cafe or unless you're staying at home smoking around your kids.

Don't worry though, they'll come back to clean up those scraps once the rest of the rowdies have been pacified and you're all alone. Meanwhile, just shut up and don't make waves!

If the smoking ban was actually based upon a concern for the health of the workers, if the studies supporting it were actually carried out and cited honestly, I would not complain. I might be unhappy, but I wouldn't complain.

So why do I complain? Simply because the above conditions don't hold true. Most of the studies cited at the City Council hearings were paid for by anti-smoking-earmarked funds: studies guaranteed to turn out results that ensure the researchers' future grant streams. In those rare cases where a study's results did not support the predetermined agenda, they were simply reinterpreted and massaged so it would appear they did support a ban.

Am I exaggerating? Not at all.

One of the flagship studies used to promote the smoking ban involved Helena, Mont. "The Great Helena Heart Miracle" made headlines and newscasts around the world trumpeting the news that protecting nonsmokers from smoke brought about an immediate drastic decrease in heart attacks and that removing that protection resulted in an immediate "bounce back" to the old higher rates of coronary episodes. In reality, the study itself made no analysis of nonsmokers, and the main "bounce back" actually occurred during, not after, the ban. Unfortunately, these observations received virtually no media coverage; they are known only to those who bother digging through the dusty cyberpages of the online British Medical Journal. The "miracle" was more fraudulent than miraculous, but it's universally used as proof of the urgent need for smoking bans.

Of course, Helena is just one study, and they've got thousands that support the need for smoking bans, don't they? No. Helena and a few others are their best and their brightest but are all similarly and deeply flawed. And they are all repeatedly paraded before legislators who rarely have the knowledge, conviction or inclination to question them.

Would you raise the question if you were in their place? Would you do so knowing you'd be accused of being a "Big Tobacco Mouthpiece" and realizing you'd be standing alone in mean-spirited opposition to the phalanx of innocent and pink-lunged children with whom Councilman Michael Nutter packed the balcony? And would you do so aware that you'd be sharing the TV screen with dozens of fresh-faced idealistic little girls wearing signs proclaiming the dread diseases you're condemning them to? What politician in their right mind would have the courage to stand up for truth when confronted with such opposition? Unfortunately, very few.

Last week, Lady Elaine Murphy of the British House of Lords chided me in an e-mail, saying that I had "completely missed the point" about the English smoking ban in talking to her about the science. She wrote that "the aim is to reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it." Now, that's quite different than the public posturings about "saving the health of the workers" and the images of oppressed teenaged waitresses being slaughtered by deadly toxins as they work their way through school. And, it's quite different than the cheap shows of pleading children in front of City Council's TV cameras.

The smoking ban is based on lies, even if they are lies that are often truly believed by those supporting it.

Philadelphians value freedom. Philadelphia is known as the birthplace of liberty. For Philadelphia to blithely trade away pieces of that individual freedom to heavily funded lobbying groups pursuing social-engineering goals based on lies is nothing short of a crime—a crime that we can only hope will be stopped by Mayor Street.

Michael J. McFadden is the author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains (Aethna Press) and the Mid-Atlantic director of The Smokers Club, Inc


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: addictedlosers; addiction; alveolidamage; anti; antismokers; augusta; bans; budget; butts; camel; cancersticks; caribou; chicago; cigar; cigarettes; cigarettetax; commerce; drugskilledbelushi; earlygrave; emphysema; epa; fda; fools; governor; individual; interstate; ironlung; kool; lawmakers; lewiston; liberty; livingindenial; lungxrays; maine; mainesmokers; marlboro; msa; nanystate; niconazis; orallyfixated; osha; pallmall; pipe; portland; prosmoker; pufflist; quitsmoking; regulation; rico; rights; rinos; ryo; sales; senate; smokers; smoking; smokingbans; suicidebycigarette; taxes; tobacco; winston
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-125 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2006 10:39:16 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe; Madame Dufarge; Cantiloper; metesky; Judith Anne; lockjaw02; Mears; CSM; ...

2 posted on 06/28/2006 10:39:53 PM PDT by SheLion ("If you're legal, you can fly with the Eagle!" - Michael Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

ping


3 posted on 06/28/2006 10:40:25 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

B U M P


4 posted on 06/28/2006 10:48:46 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (If you got Sowell, you got Soul !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
5 posted on 06/28/2006 10:51:53 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Anti-smokers engage in some pretty amazing statistical homeopathy. Using proper statistical methods, a person who gets lung cancer having been exposed to only a trivial amount of secondhand smoke should be regarded as a data point against the proposition that secondhand smoke is significantly harmful, in that it shows that not all cases of lung cancer are attributable to SHS. To a statistical homeopathist, however, any case of cancer by anyone with any exposure whatsoever to SHS proves that SHS is dangerous. The smaller the exposure (and thus, to a proper statistician, the more tenuous the causal relationship) the stronger the proof.
6 posted on 06/28/2006 11:00:29 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Oh the injustice of it all! Yes, some of you laugh, but what about when "they" come for everyone with a urinary tract infection? (an urinary tract infection?) What then?


7 posted on 06/28/2006 11:02:14 PM PDT by at bay ("We actually did an evil....." Eric Scmidt, CEO Google)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: at bay

then cranberry juice will be mandatory!


8 posted on 06/28/2006 11:08:01 PM PDT by CAluvdubya (What's so hard to understand about the word illegal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

9 posted on 06/28/2006 11:26:22 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Smoking, drinking, drug abusing, it's all the same bad thing. A poison is a poison.

There is an old Jewish saying: "Your body is your Temple."

Keep it clean.


10 posted on 06/28/2006 11:32:04 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (ETERNAL SHAME on the Treasonous and Immoral Democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
Like this one as well:


11 posted on 06/28/2006 11:32:57 PM PDT by SheLion ("If you're legal, you can fly with the Eagle!" - Michael Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper
Smoking, drinking, drug abusing, it's all the same bad thing. A poison is a poison.

There is an old Jewish saying: "Your body is your Temple."

Keep it clean.

Sorry.  But as a Christian, my SOUL is my temple!  I keep THAT clean.

When I die, my body will turn to ashes.  Be it clean OR dirty.  No my friend.  My SOUL is my temple and that is what I keep clean for the Lord.

Thank you!

12 posted on 06/28/2006 11:35:43 PM PDT by SheLion ("If you're legal, you can fly with the Eagle!" - Michael Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

I'm torn on this one, I don't really care to be around smoking generally, but at the same time what people do to their body is their business. And of course depending on what you are looking for at the bar smoking can be a good sign. From everything I have seen and heard, "if she smokes she pokes" is a pretty hard and fast rule.


13 posted on 06/28/2006 11:41:36 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You know, Happy Time Harry, just being around you kinda makes me want to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
I'm torn on this one, I don't really care to be around smoking generally, but at the same time what people do to their body is their business. And of course depending on what you are looking for at the bar smoking can be a good sign. From everything I have seen and heard, "if she smokes she pokes" is a pretty hard and fast rule.

You are another nasty aze.  How dare you!

And like I have said:  if you don't to be around smoke, don't GO where smokers go!  Simple enough.

I smoke so you think I "poke?"  Well, keep dreaming bud.  This is ONE female smoker that you will NEVER poke!

14 posted on 06/28/2006 11:51:28 PM PDT by SheLion ("If you're legal, you can fly with the Eagle!" - Michael Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
You talk out of both sides of your mouth....

From your About me page:

I hate to advocate drugs or liquor, violence, insanity to anyone. But in my case it's worked. --Where the Buffalo Roam

15 posted on 06/28/2006 11:54:08 PM PDT by SheLion ("If you're legal, you can fly with the Eagle!" - Michael Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
And of course depending on what you are looking for at the bar smoking can be a good sign. From everything I have seen and heard, "if she smokes she pokes" is a pretty hard and fast rule.

WARNING, Mr. B...from loooong experience certain people have NOOOO sense of humor... ;)

16 posted on 06/28/2006 11:55:50 PM PDT by paulat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde

When NYC went smoke free, it was the best. You could go out for a drink and not come home smelling of smoke. And if you went out for a few drinks you felt much better the next morning.

The smell of stale beer and urine wasn't pleasent, but that went away after a week or two.

I think it's a long term positive for businesses, more non-smokers will go out and stay out longer.


17 posted on 06/28/2006 11:57:15 PM PDT by Hong Kong Expat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
WARNING, Mr. B...from loooong experience certain people have NOOOO sense of humor... ;)

Case in point...#14 & #15....

BTW...I LOVE that quote...works for me!!!

18 posted on 06/28/2006 11:58:17 PM PDT by paulat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
It is a quote I like that is from a movie that I even credited. Not something I have lived out. I thought it was funny and thought I would share. Clearly you don't feel the same way about said quote. That's fine.

I am by no means a militant anti-smoking person. As I said I prefer to not have it blown directly at me, but I would say most people feel that way.

The if she smokes she pokes was again more humorous than anything else. Whenever smoking does get brought up amongst guys, I can guarantee you that that statement will be made. Another one that will often be repeated is Chris Rocks line if a girl has a tongue ring she will probably suck your ****. Obviously not true of all girls with tongue rings and the other is not true of women who smoke. And if you look at the number of women who do both of those activities that don't smoke or have a tongue ring it is clear that smoking and tongue rings have nothing to do with it. But everyone likes sayings, especially vaguely funny ones right.
19 posted on 06/29/2006 12:09:51 AM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You know, Happy Time Harry, just being around you kinda makes me want to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hong Kong Expat

Oklahoma recently enacted no smoking in restaurants affected one of the most popular bars in town because the law says only places where 60% of the revenue comes from alcohol sales are exempt. This bar is a restaurant during the day and so no smoking at night. The nice thing is after leaving there on 5 dollar drown nights, if you go to another bar you are probably too drunk to notice the smoke. :)


20 posted on 06/29/2006 12:12:18 AM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You know, Happy Time Harry, just being around you kinda makes me want to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: paulat
Thanks.

Sometimes it is hard to remember things that would be obvious are meant jokingly in normal conversation aren't so clear online.
21 posted on 06/29/2006 12:13:50 AM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You know, Happy Time Harry, just being around you kinda makes me want to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: supercat

>>Using proper statistical methods, a person who gets lung cancer having been exposed to only a trivial amount of secondhand smoke should be regarded as a data point against the proposition that secondhand smoke is significantly harmful, in that it shows that not all cases of lung cancer are attributable to SHS. To a statistical homeopathist, however, any case of cancer by anyone with any exposure whatsoever to SHS proves that SHS is dangerous.<<

Both of the approaches are incorrect.


22 posted on 06/29/2006 12:14:38 AM PDT by gondramB (Unity of freedom has never relied upon uniformity of opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
One thing that has never made sense to me is that people see no problem with going to a bar, drinking enough to impair their motor abilities and critical thinking, and get in their cars to drive home. It seems to me that this is far more likely to cause instant death or serious injury than inhaling second hand smoke.

If I had to choose, I'd take my chances with second hand smoke.

23 posted on 06/29/2006 12:58:44 AM PDT by basil (Exercise your Second Amendment--buy another gun today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
The smoking ban is based on lies, even if they are lies that are often truly believed by those supporting it.
Why is this shocking?
The smoking ban War on Drugs is based on lies, even if they are lies that are often truly believed by those supporting it.

Pastor Martin Niemöller still applies...
First they regulated machine gun owners, but I was not a machine gun owners so I did not speak out.
Then they regulated marijuana smokers, but I was not a marijuana smoker so I did not speak out...

24 posted on 06/29/2006 1:50:50 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
From everything I have seen and heard, "if she smokes she pokes" is a pretty hard and fast rule.

LOL!

I'm sorry, but I don't have a response to that. Just LOL!...

I enjoy a smoke every once in a while. Heaven knows I'm in for it if we ever come up with like generalizations for coffee drinkers, though. "If he drinks, he stinks"? I know it'll be something rotten...and they're coming for my caffeine. I just know it!

25 posted on 06/29/2006 2:21:37 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

I used to go out to my local watering hole around 5 -- happy hour, and enjoy a couple of those drumette buffalo wings with my O' Douls. The last time I was there the bartender said the owners stopped serving them because of some insurance thing, but I really think it was cause I'd seen some of the paper plates left outback for strays, I guess.

Needless to say, I haven't been out since. I just liked the way it was before, drink in one hand, drummete in
the other.

Oh the injustice of it all!


26 posted on 06/29/2006 3:08:00 AM PDT by at bay ("We actually did an evil....." Eric Scmidt, CEO Google)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All

Smoking is good for you...


27 posted on 06/29/2006 3:32:20 AM PDT by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
The smoking ban is based on an agenda of lies.

So what else is new? The professional busybodies have always KNOWN what's good for everyone else and feel it their God given duty to impose their will on everyone. Gun control, smoking bans, prohibition, WOD, seat belt laws, etc. all come from the same "I'm going to control your behavior" mindset. What it all boils down to is a loss of freedom.

Personally I think a few of them should be executed in a salutory fashion just to let the other know that there are consequences to sticking their long noses in other people's business. (Rob Reiner and Sara Brady come to mind along with all of the skanks in MADD)

28 posted on 06/29/2006 3:42:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Mrowrl


29 posted on 06/29/2006 3:47:21 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
all of the skanks in MADD

Few realize that this outfit's ultimate goal is prohibition.

However, SHS is a different issue. I trust Pres. Bush, I trust his surgeon general.

30 posted on 06/29/2006 4:08:52 AM PDT by at bay ("We actually did an evil....." Eric Schmidt, CEO Google)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: at bay
However, SHS is a different issue. I trust Pres. Bush, I trust his surgeon general.

I don't. It's just part of the rationale behind controlling people - claiming their actions affect the health of others. I haven't seen any studies that I'd trust linking shs to cancer. Smells bad and is annoying, but causes cancer? I'm not convinced.

31 posted on 06/29/2006 4:16:27 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

"There is an old Jewish saying: "Your body is your Temple."

Keep it clean."

A rather amusing statement, since the average American has over a rather substantial amount of human waste in it at any given moment.

How about keeping your own body any way you like, and showing others the respect of allowing them to decide how to live their own lives...?


32 posted on 06/29/2006 4:29:48 AM PDT by RavenATB (Patton was right...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
This article is the same-old same-old. More failing rhetoric by smokers who keep doing the same failing actions over and over again.

Look at what you are up against folks:

33 posted on 06/29/2006 4:39:03 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

As some of you know, I have a rather unique perspective on this one. I work part time in a bar. I've also served as Safety Manager for several of my companies, and my dad was Safety Director for two major corporations. We both have engineering degrees. I also don't smoke.

Leaving aside the debate about the dangers of ETS (aka "secondhand smoke"), and there are very serious questions about whether or not it is indeed dangerous in normally encountered concentrations, there are generally accepted methods for dealing with any kind of chemical exposure in the workplace. They are based on what is called the Permissable Exposure Limits (PEL)

A PEL is the concentration that a worker can be safely exposed to. They are often set for both instantaneous exposure, and 8 hour average exposure. Even the nastiest chemicals have PELs. For example, the OSHA established PEL for hydrogen cyanide is 10ppm.

At one point, some of the anti-smoking advocates were pushing OSHA to establish a PEL for ETS. As it turns out, ETS contains several chemicals which already have PELs. For normally encountered concentrations, the PEL for these is not reached.

Two things became obvious:

1) A PEL for ETS would not have been as low as the advocates desired.
2) Bars and restaurants would be able to easily meet it using air scrubbers and ventilation systems.

As a result, the anti-smoking lobby abandoned the PEL. In effect, they advocated a PEL of "zero". They are promoting the idea that a mere cigarette smell is as bad as heavy smoke. At this point, they should have also abandoned the entire "employee safety" argument, because the PEL is the cornerstone of all occupational chemical exposure regulations. It's sort of like saying you want democracy, but dismiss the idea of voting.

All this is established fact. It's conjecture, but easily supportable conjecture, to claim that this proves the anti-smoking advocates could give a modell about employee safety, but instead are trying to ban personal behavior which they disapprove of. That's busybodyism, and busybodyism has no place in a free society.

To make this even clearer, look at the structure of the NYC law as originally written. The smokers themselves weren't charged. The bar was charged, and fined, for "allowing" smoking. Clearly, the law was all about the money, with of course the busybodyism thrown in.

"Employee protection"? Guess who got the modelly end of the enforcement stick? Bar employees, in particular bouncers. At least one got killed trying to enforce this law.

-Eric


34 posted on 06/29/2006 4:50:44 AM PDT by E Rocc (Myspace "Freepers" group moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

"the aim is to reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it."

We had no doubt that this was their true reason. This is nothing more than a fancy way of saying, "we want to control individual's behaviour." Enemies of Liberty.


35 posted on 06/29/2006 5:02:08 AM PDT by CSM ("Most men's inappropriate thoughts end as soon as the girl talks..." - Dinsdale, 5/30/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

As the saying goes, "Is that the hill you want to die on?" You want to fight for liberty to do something unhealthy and stinky?

I used to smoke. Loved it. Then didn't love it but wanted it badly and didn't feel right without it. I paid $100 a month for the stench, the cough, the fire hazard, and the social drawbacks of being a smoker around wiser and cleaner people.

Come into the light, friends. It's a nasty habit, not a torch of liberty. Addiction isn't freedom. Old Nic is not your ally, he's just the enemy of your enemy---and he's your enemy too.


36 posted on 06/29/2006 5:45:27 AM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
The opinion of anyone who's against smoking, yet owns and drives a car, can be ignored as hypocritical.

 

37 posted on 06/29/2006 5:49:54 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RavenATB
"A rather amusing statement, since the average American has over a rather substantial amount of human waste in it at any given moment."

If you want amusement, your above statement is very amusing in an absurd way. Human waste is actually a natural occurrence, don't you know? While smoking and compiling tar in your lungs is not. To compare human waste that is eventually and naturally making its way outside the body with the effects of smoking is really laughable.

"How about keeping your own body any way you like, and showing others the respect of allowing them to decide how to live their own lives...?"

I guess you haven't noticed but this is a political boards where people exchange opinions and ideas and I was giving my opinion on smoking. Now do explain how my giving an opinion on smoking is not allowing people to live their own lives? You can agree or disagree but to ask me not to post my own opinion and thoughts on the subject shows an extreme disrespect for what this website is actually about.
38 posted on 06/29/2006 6:01:29 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (ETERNAL SHAME on the Treasonous and Immoral Democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Graymatter
How moving.

How's the air up there on Mt. Olympus?

Would it be OK if some of us continue living our own lives, or is this forbidden by the "wiser and cleaner?"

Pompous ass.

39 posted on 06/29/2006 6:50:36 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Graymatter
Amen! I see the light, Reverend!

I'm quitting right now. Well as soon as the ten cartons I just got from the redskins are gone...

Seriously, your pomposity underwhelms me.

40 posted on 06/29/2006 6:52:14 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hong Kong Expat
I think it's a long term positive for businesses, more non-smokers will go out and stay out longer.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Tell that to the businesses that went under waiting for the antismokers to come make up the business they lost when smoking bans went into effect.

41 posted on 06/29/2006 6:56:38 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Look at what you are up against folks:

Look who lies with almost every statement on SHS!

Who do YOU want to be associated with, Ray?
Liars who want to control you or people who tell you the truth that don't give a hoot what you do?

42 posted on 06/29/2006 7:01:26 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
How's the air up there on Mt. Olympus?

Clearer at least............

43 posted on 06/29/2006 7:05:41 AM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Roll your own. Flag burning is legal.

44 posted on 06/29/2006 7:08:00 AM PDT by evets (huh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AxelPaulsenJr

I'd say thinner, judging from the clarity of "thought."


45 posted on 06/29/2006 7:11:46 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
I'd say thinner, judging from the clarity of "thought."

Such as a brain denied of oxygen due to a smoker's smoke weakened lungs............?

46 posted on 06/29/2006 7:14:30 AM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Thanks for the ping!


47 posted on 06/29/2006 7:19:49 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge; metesky

>>Pompous ass.

>> Pomposity.

Don't call me names, Stinky. You know you're wrong, or you wouldn't have to resort to slurs.

You too metesky. Pee-yoo, you stink! You stink you stink you stink!!! Neener neener neener.

Unpompous enough for you unweaned butt suckers?


48 posted on 06/29/2006 7:20:06 AM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hong Kong Expat

First, smoke doesn't really bother me unless it's extremely heavy. I still bowl in a league and there are a lot of smokers.

BUT, my wife will no longer go to a bar to hear a band because of the smoke, so I don't go, either. We won't go to a restaurant that doesn't have a well segregated smoking section and she prefers smokeless ones.

Fortunately, most of the better restaurants here no longer allow smoking, although there's no city or state ordinance about it. The number of smoke-free restaurants is increasing rapidly, which tells me the policy isn't hurting business. A bar, however, might be a different matter.


49 posted on 06/29/2006 7:35:21 AM PDT by Gone GF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
the law says only places where 60% of the revenue comes from alcohol sales are exempt.

At least one entrepreneur here gets around that by selling a beer for $22.95 and throwing in prime rib dinner for free.

50 posted on 06/29/2006 7:43:55 AM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-125 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson