Posted on 05/29/2002 7:09:39 AM PDT by SheLion
I don't go along with you calling smokers evil - however, I do understand your point.
So, would you agree to allowing businesses to make their own decisions - and post signs saying it a smoking or non-smoking establishment?
That way everyone entering would know just what they were walking into??
Thank you, oh Omniscient One for supplying a translation for those of us unable to read and understand the English language.
That's the typical way selfish, inconsiderate smokers dweebs like lewislynn show their strong support for unwitting property owners and their "rights".
Hypocrite!
They may be inconsiderate, unthinking, unfeeling, self-centered clods, but not evil.
Maybe slothful?
The Casinos are semi-private enterprises located at the 3 horserace tracks.
I say semi-private because technically gambling, except on site pari mutuel is illegal. The Casnos are not really casinos but "video lottery" establisments and thus under the control of the State Lottery Commission - the state gets 35% of the take.
I didn't call smokers evil. Smokers are merely dumb. I said that people who knowingly subject others to unwanted smoke are evil.
So, would you agree to allowing businesses to make their own decisions - and post signs saying it a smoking or non-smoking establishment?
Of course. Actually, I don't even like the word 'allowing' there since it implies that it's a privilege being generously granted by some authority (the state) instead of an inherent right as a property owner.
Calling smokers "dumb" is not exactly conducive to polite, rational discourse. I don't consider myself dumb, nor does anyone who knows me. I am an adult, I am aware of the risks inherent to many of the choices I have made in my life, and have made my choices accodingly.
Evil is a bit harsh - rude yes, inconsiderate, yes. Evil is pushing the issue a bit overboard.
Of course. Actually, I don't even like the word 'allowing' there since it implies that it's a privilege being generously granted by some authority (the state) instead of an inherent right as a property owner.
Of course, when it comes to this particular issue, you are among the minority in those who choose not to smoke and be vocal about their dislike of it.
According to the anti-smoker factions (I'm not saying you belong in that group) the only ones that have a right are those that choose to be smoke-free. Once the owner opens the doors he has no rights except those granted by the patrons, except if those patrons are smokers.
The Mainers downstate don't want it, though.
Read it again...its not going to be legal anymore.
I'll be perfectly honest - laws relating to Reservations and tribes is not one of the areas I've really looked into.
I just know those who buy cigarettes from the reservations are not subjected to the excise taxes added on by the states and Feds.
I agree. and I'm really planning on voting with my feet.
My house is on the market - I'm moving to another state.
Let's incorporate a sin tax for junk food since it's recently been made known that obesity is as high a risk for health problems as smoking.
Maybe restaurants and bars should add a surcharge to the bills of overweight people who come in, especially if they have thoses "all you can eat" buffet tables.
Oh, and let's apply a higher tax to activities such as bungee jumping, ATV riding, skiing, etc. because when devotees of these pasttimes get in accidents, they miss work and that adds to the cost of doing business, don't you know. Plus, if they are permanently disabled, then they can get SSI and that affects other taxpayers.
Dennis Thompson is being disingenuous with his use of statistics regarding SHS. If Thompson is a real reporter, he KNOWS that the EPA study classifying Second Hand Smoke as a Group A carcinogen has been vacated by a Federal Judge whose decision can be read in its entirety here: http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm.
The American Cancer Society knows this also but has so far refused to remove the figures of the EPA study from their website even though a court has adjudicated them false.
Mr. Thompson also relies on the 1986 Surgeon General's Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking which itself used the same unscientific methodology as the EPA and has since been discredited by the 1996 World Health Organizations SHS report, the largest study of its kind ever, which comes to the exact opposite conclusion
If a publication such as yours is striving for acceptance as an honest voice in the health care field, you should have the integrity to print the truth and not the half-baked claims of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or people who simply don't like smoking.
Thank you,
metesky
Moosegrin Falls, Maine
(Real name and address deleted to protect the guilty.)
Very nice! Thank you!!
California already has banned smoking in these places. In fact some cities, such as Palo Alto, have ordinances banning smoking within 20 feet of the entrance to a business establishment.
There's a locally famous buffet place in Bangor that's known as "The Hungry Heifer". You've never seen so many large people move so fast.
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.