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

Skip to comments.

Smoking foes need to butt out
The Arizona Republic ^ | 5-14-03 | Craig J. Cantoni

Posted on 05/14/2003 12:20:24 PM PDT by SheLion

Edited on 05/07/2004 5:21:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Warning: Reading this may give you stress, especially if you are in favor of outlawing smoking in Scottsdale bars and restaurants. You see, I'm not very nice to those who believe that liberty means having the freedom to take away other people's freedom.


(Excerpt) Read more at azcentral.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: antismokers; bans; butts; cigarettes; individualliberty; niconazis; prohibitionists; pufflist; smokingbans; taxes; tobacco; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-345 next last
To: SheLion
Anti-smoking ordinances deny privately owned establishments the right to cater to smokers on their private property.

Count me as a non smoker who believes a restaurant/bar should allow the market to dictate their own policy. Case in Point:

I live in small town USA in the SF Bar area. Years ago their were two places in town that had live music on weekends. One allowed smoking, one did not. We choose to go to the non smoking establishment and let others go to the smoking establishment. Everyone was happy and out air was clean. The smoking place, soon went out of business (for many reasons). but not because of the policy.

41 posted on 05/14/2003 1:20:24 PM PDT by Michael.SF. ('I'm voting Republican, the democrats left a bad taste in my mouth.' - M. Lewinsky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; *Wod_list; jmc813
At least the nomads can inhale the smoke from burning yak dung in the privacy of someone's tent without busybodies yakking at them. If a nomad does not care for the smoke of yak, he simply stays out of the tents of yak smokers.

I'm sure all those who applaud this liberty-minded position as applied to tobacco also applaud it as applied to other recreational substances, such as marijuana. Right?

42 posted on 05/14/2003 1:22:13 PM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptRon
I don't care if cigarette smoke is harmful or not. I agree that issue is a red herring. Again I'LL be the judge of what I think is harmful to me and my kids. Maybe it's just unpleasant. I'ts MY call. I don't need any studies.

Meanwhile, as long as smoker's keep saying "it isn't harmful so what are you complaining about" I'd like to subject them to some fumes and then tell them to PROVE to me with exhaustive scientific studies that said fumes aren't harmful to humans. Get back to me in 15 years when all the studies are done.

43 posted on 05/14/2003 1:22:36 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
"I've heard that about broccoli and cheese, but I can't bring myself to eat it. Like beets. yuk"

Luckily, I like steamed, fresh broccoli, especially with cheese...Hubby's been bugging me for it and I'm making it with supper tonight. Now BEETS I can agree with you on...at least those DISGUSTING pickled ones, anyway.

44 posted on 05/14/2003 1:25:39 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
That study has already been done by the World Health Organization. They admit there is no increase in health problems, although they put that information in their footnotes. In fact, they state that drinking unpasteurized milk is more harmful by a factor of almost 10. I think the report is on FR. I will attempt to find it.
45 posted on 05/14/2003 1:27:16 PM PDT by CaptRon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CaptRon
I think you missed my point. I don't need WHO to tell me what I can breath safely. I'll determine that for myself. The health issue is completely besides the point. I can wear ounces of the stinkiest perfume I can find and get on an elevator and make people swoon and want to wretch. Whether it is harful to heath hasn't been proven. Whether it is rude and arrogant and incites very negative feelings towards me needs no proof.
46 posted on 05/14/2003 1:30:46 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SheLion; mrfixit514
Now, Now. I'm sure that mrfixit514 would have NO problem if a state that had a majority who smoked('40's-'50s) enacted laws that would prohibit any business or local governments to ban smoking. Even a business owner who can't stand smoking could not ban the smoking and would be required to supply ash trays in all establishments and offices. I'm sure that mrfixit514 would not oppose such a law, because the title of hypocrit would arise.
47 posted on 05/14/2003 1:30:52 PM PDT by Mark (Treason doth never prosper, for if it prosper, NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Well give me back my taxes and you can have the whole place. Roofing tar melters is one of the things you should worry about more than a passing cigarette. You can pull your "hot tarmalie machine" all over town in most cities. But heaven forbid a smoker walks the same street in the wake of a diesel fuming bus. Hope to pass you on the street someday and see how in my face you think you can be.
48 posted on 05/14/2003 1:31:31 PM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Will Rogers never met me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CaptRon
Your missing Lorianne's point. Me too. If you figure it out please let me know.

Thanks
49 posted on 05/14/2003 1:34:56 PM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Will Rogers never met me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
"In fact emmissions and unpleasant odors ARE restricted, banned, etc. companies are fined and there are emmissions standards. In short, these things ARE regulated, sometimes on a health basis, sometimes on a purely nuisance basis"

Emissions are restricted and they are regulated yes. However, though the eventual goal may be to ban emissions from vehicles and factories, the human race does not posess the technology to achieve this, and there is no government on Earth that does not realize that.

Natural emissions, from forest fires, volcanos, mammals, sulfur springs and the deadlier emissions from budding volcanos (in the US, most of these are on public property) cannot be banned, regulated or restricted, no matter how hard we try to enforce them. Al Gore wanted to ban, regulate or restrict cows, because he believes their flatulance contributes to global warming. Look at how far he got with that brilliant idea.

50 posted on 05/14/2003 1:36:17 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Flurry
Hey, as long as everyone is free to create whatever fumes and smells they want on public property, what's to complain about? That was my point.

Again, it's not about health. It's about arrogance. I can be just as arrogant as any smoker and force people in public places to inhale fumes that I create. Smokers aren't the only ones who should be allowed to create fumes in public property. I'm thinking they expect "special rights" and would try to enforce laws against my fumes on public property.
51 posted on 05/14/2003 1:37:20 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: mrfixit514
"Instead of behving like selfish brats who have to get their way, they should simply smoke on their own property."

Would that sentiment include the bar or restaraunt owner, who would be, after all ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY?

52 posted on 05/14/2003 1:39:42 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Flurry
The point is, "ME".
"YOU" doesn't figure in the mix.

I don't know about you, but I have been in the situation where a person gets in another person's face. The one who yells the loudest always looks the most foolish. In the meantime, it makes the rest of us uncomfortable.

ME, ME, ME!
53 posted on 05/14/2003 1:40:43 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Bush/Rice 2004- pray for our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
By the way, Paint Thinner and Fertilizer are a legal products. I'll use them wherever I want. Okay with you?

Sure!!! And I drive an SUV. Is that ok?

54 posted on 05/14/2003 1:40:43 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I'm extremely allergic to perfume. I hope you will refrain from wearing it in public places so that I will not be offended either. The problem is, however, that no one seems to care that I can't stand perfume. So I am just polite to perfume wearers and put up with my itching eyes and runny nose. You see, we don't all turn into little Nazis when we are offended by someone else's habits.
55 posted on 05/14/2003 1:40:50 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I'd hate to be in a battle on the same side as you. While everyone else was keeping the enemy penned down with fire power you'd be jumping up swatting at flies and gnats.
56 posted on 05/14/2003 1:40:52 PM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Will Rogers never met me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
”I don't care if cigarette smoke is harmful or not. I agree that issue is a red herring. Again I'LL be the judge of what I think is harmful to me and my kids. Maybe it's just unpleasant. I'ts MY call. I don't need any studies.

I don’t need any studies either. I believe that perfume, cologne, and deodorant fumes release toxins that are harmful to passers-by and should be restricted to home use. I also experience nausea at the smell of body odor so you’ll all have to stay inside indefinatly. I think that contrails from commercial jets are causing the world-wide evaporation rate to slow and this could have long term health ramifications so as arbiter of what I feel I should be exposed to I am for banning jet aircraft from the skies.

Banned… Banned… Banned! Everything must be banned!

Tinfoil hat off/

57 posted on 05/14/2003 1:41:03 PM PDT by SouthParkRepublican (God bless our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
BTTT!!!!
58 posted on 05/14/2003 1:42:29 PM PDT by Beck_isright (When Senator Byrd landed on an aircraft carrier, the blacks were forced below shoveling coal...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
My SUV is bigger than your SUV
59 posted on 05/14/2003 1:43:13 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Flurry
Hope to pass you on the street someday and see how in my face you think you can be.

You go, Flurry!!!!


60 posted on 05/14/2003 1:43:17 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-345 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