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

To: SheLion
"If I can't enjoy a cup of coffee with a cigarette, I won't go out to eat," says Mary T. Gaworski.

What she really means is:
If I can't won't enjoy a cup of coffee with a cigarette, I won't can't go out to eat,"

That's the typical way selfish, inconsiderate smokers show their strong support for unwitting property owners and their "rights".

Hypocrites.

7 posted on 05/29/2002 7:28:13 AM PDT by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: lewislynn
That's the typical way selfish, inconsiderate smokers show their strong support for unwitting property owners and their "rights".

Not necessarily so. If you have something that you enjoy doing, say reading the paper, while you drink your cup of coffee. If a certain establishment says that you can't read your paper while drinking your cup of coffee because it will give everyone else the dreaded paper envy disease, would you want to spend money in that establishment?
And speaking of unwitting property owners and their "rights", are you sure that you believe that property owners HAVE any rights?

15 posted on 05/29/2002 7:38:39 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: lewislynn
That's the typical way selfish, inconsiderate smokers show their strong support for unwitting property owners and their "rights".

I don't know where you are from, but in this particular case - you're wrong.

Restaurant owners were not unwitting in this situation - they just didn't think it would happen and sat around and did nothing.

And it goes beyond restaurants and bars.

I do consultant work from my home - no one ever comes here, but I do have a home business. If I renew my business license next January - I will be unable to smoke in my home.

This is definitely a private property rights issue.

A friend of mine who owns a shop downtown has seperate offices upstairs - where the public is not invited. Under the letter of this law, and according to one of the local papers, the intent of this law - he will no longer be able to smoke in his own office upstairs from his store - and he owns the building.

anyone who doesn't think this is a private property issue - has no concept of how far reaching this ban is.

20 posted on 05/29/2002 7:49:05 AM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: lewislynn
What she really means is:

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!

22 posted on 05/29/2002 7:53:20 AM PDT by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: lewislynn
That's the typical way selfish, inconsiderate smokers show their strong support for unwitting property owners and their "rights".

  Well, we'll just have to fix that then, won't we? Maybe Delaware should pass a law requiring people to go out to eat twice per week. Hmm, or maybe just smokers...

  Yeah, that's it. When purchasing a pack of cigarettes, smokers will be issued a coupon that must be validated at a restaurant where they went out to eat. They will not be permitted to purchase another pack of cigarettes without this validated receipt.

  This way restaurants will not be penalized for passage of this law, and the only people who suffer are smokers, who are so evil that they deserve no sympathy anyway. Anyone who opposes this law will be classified as a smoker-supporter, with penalties to be determined as soon as I can figure out who to sue...

Drew Garrett

57 posted on 05/29/2002 9:25:00 AM PDT by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: lewislynn
Smokers aren't the selfish ones, it's the freedom-takers who are the danger. If you own a restaurant, it should be up to you to decide whether or not to allow smoking, and then let the customers decide whether or not to risk a microgram or two of second-hand smoke. It's about property rights, and the freedom to decide what you'll do with your own by-God restaurant. Fine, give in to those who will steal your liberty. Don't whine when the next step takes away something that YOU treasure.
65 posted on 05/29/2002 9:51:36 AM PDT by jim35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: lewislynn
Here to blowing a big puff in your face you facist @sshole!
75 posted on 05/29/2002 10:25:38 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: lewislynn
Here's a hypocrite
Reiner put River Phoenix in his movie, Stand By Me, and had him smoke throughout, Phoenix was only 14 years old. Secondary violence is much more harmful - SUPPORT THE DINGBAT-MEATHEAD BILL - STOP INDOOR MOVIE AND TV VIEWING NOW!
86 posted on 05/29/2002 11:59:38 AM PDT by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

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