Thursday, November 19, 2009
The American Cancer Society asks smokers to give up the habit for one day today as part of the Great American Smokeout.
A $2 million federal grant could help St. Joseph fight an anti-smoking battle of its own with longer lasting results.
The City Council gave the City of St. Joseph Health Department the green light Monday to apply for the Communities Putting Prevention to Work grant - part of the American Reinvestment & Recovery Act of 2009. If the funding is approved, the health department will work with Heartland Health, the Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services, Buchanan County, the St. Joseph School District, Missouri Western State University, the St. Joseph Youth Alliance and the University of Missouri to implement an anti-smoking marketing campaign, smoking cessation services and other programs.
City Health Director Debra Bradley provided statistics showing the severity of St. Joseph's smoking problem among young people. According to a study from the health department and Heartland Health, 56 percent of local youths age 18 to 24 smoke, while roughly one in four adults are smokers.
Council member Mike Bozarth was the most vocal opponent of Monday's resolution. As a smoker and opponent of expanded government regulations, Mr. Bozarth said he didn't want the council to take part in a program that could restrict citizens' personal choices.
City staff assured the council it would not use the grant to pursue a smoking ban.
"It's not something we would push," City Manager Vince Capell said. "There would have to be a grassroots effort to get enough signatures to put it on the ballot."
A list of programs the grant would fund contains entries for "usage bans," including a recommendation to organize grassroots efforts for a city- or countywide smoking ban in public places, increased enforcement of current smoking bans on school grounds, and possible zoning changes that would ban smoking on land zoned as a park or playground.
In a memo to the council, Ms. Bradley said the grant could be as simple as helping businesses and schools reduce smoking through education. Or, it could be more drastic.
"These changes could also be as broad as a vote of the people to make St. Joseph a smoke-free community." Ms. Bradley wrote. "The health department will be a resource to the community whichever direction the citizens choose to go."
A 2007 study from the Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services asked Buchanan County residents to weigh in on a number of issues related to smoking. Among the findings, the study showed 54 percent of residents think smoking should be banned in restaurants. However, only 24 percent of those surveyed would approve similar restrictions for bars.
Mr. Capell said Monday that the City Council had the power to pass a smoking ban on its own, but recommended the council put the decision to St. Joseph voters if it wanted to address the issue.
Stephanie Malita, administrative aide at the health department, said the city expects to find out if it has received the grant this winter, with funding coming in as soon as January.
Clinton Thomas can be reached at clintonthomas@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
rk92559 says...
City staff assured the council it would not use the grant to pursue a smoking ban.
a memo to the council, Ms. Bradley said the grant could be as simple as helping businesses and schools reduce smoking through education. Or, it could be more drastic.
Which is it? How about spending the 2 million on our damn schools?But that is ok...just let them go and use our tax money to make us do what you want. But guess what...smokers vote too, and you haven't seen a grassroot effort like you will see to get each one of you lame brains that vote a ban in...VOTED OUT!! People are pretty much fed up with the school board and the city council, so your names I will put on a billboard out on the Belt will just speed up the door hitting you in the butt on the way out.
November 19, 2009 at 1:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
I am a smoker and smoke outside of my home due to family health issues but I always honor the rights of a non-smoker and I wish they would honor my darn rights as well.But to have laws that tell me what to do when to do is just crazy.We are all grown adults and have to live together in the same community and this issue is a 2 way street.Not onesided like the non-smokers would like.I am in the process of quiting smoking and it is a very hard thing to accomplish but after I do quit I would not be like the rest of the non-smokers because they do not understand and do not wish to work with anybody all they want to do is have it their way or the highway.This is BS and the smokers have rights as well.I also agree with rk92559 go ahead and vote for a smoking ban and see how the voters that smoke and I believe in St Joseph that is pretty high vote all of you out and start over.I also believe it is time for a new city manager as well one that does not beleive he is above the rest of us or the mayor or council.A house cleaning is in order and we have the chance come election time.
November 19, 2009 at 6:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
"It's not something we would push," City Manager Vince Capell said.
A list of programs the grant would fund contains entries for... a RECOMMENDATION TO ORGANIZE GRASSROOTS efforts for a city- or countywide smoking ban in public places..."
Seriously - does anyone care if I smack these people? How absurd they don't even wait for a second article to contradict themselves!
How the hell can the government encourage a grassroots anything? By virtue it is not grassroots! This is the same liberal-mentality that called Tea Party protesters "astro-turf" because of the implied organization by the republican party.
KNOCK IT OFF! It's not your damn business, CITY COUNCIL, who decides to allow smoking in their businesses. They are not your businesses.
The only way a ban would make sense is if the businesses were publicly owned, i.e. courthouse, city hall, etc.
Now, if these people would just come out and say they are communists I would feel better at least knowing what we're up against.
THIS IS NOT YOUR CALL - if there were no choices and everything was public owned, then you'd have a valid point.
However there ARE choices, no one is forced to go anywhere and these businesses are privately owned. Go mind you some business.
I swear these people are pissing me off! Knock it off already!
November 19, 2009 at 7:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
this is a grant to provide DUPLICATION of already in place services for smoking cessation.
November 19, 2009 at 7:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
mm1967, I know we've had our differences, but please, this is a perfect opportunity to explain to you where I, and others, come from on issues of government.
Unions are an avenue towards socialism. There is no denying that and there is no denying their stronghold on Washington. Given those facts it's fair to say if unions had their way you would make $10.50 in Alabama making cardboard boxes and so would someone in NY, Washington, Los Angeles, etc.
Everyone follows the exact same rules and the US truly becomes Orwell's 1984.
You are right - all of these laws telling you what to do, when to do it, and how to do it is asinine and it's the people that have allowed this monstrous government to become so out of touch and all-powerful.
Did you hear about the SEIU representative threatening to sue a boy scout organization for cleaning up a walking trail? They want to sue because the union wasn't given the job... WHEN PEOPLE WERE VOLUNTEERING. BOY SCOUTS, no less!
If unions were benign I would have no issue with them. However malignant seems to be more appropriate and I have no intention of sitting back and allowing my country to become a communist or socialist state.
November 19, 2009 at 7:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
mm1967- Glad you take in consideration your family's health and those of nonsmokers. IF only that were the majority. I seriously don't want to be in favor of taking away everyone's right to smoke, I just want people to be repsectful with their smoking habits. Sadly, there is more "me-mentality" with most.
Good luck in quitting, I understand it is hard to do.
November 19, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Can you give me one single example of a smoker taking away your rights to clean air?
We're talking about the SMOKER, not the business owner.
Seriously - can you name just one instance?
Riding in a car with them? Get out of it.
Eating dinner out? Don't go to that place.
Having some drinks at a bar? Don't go to that place.
It's not as if you have no options - there are plenty of places that don't allow smoking. Why can't you go there?
Seriously - just one single example and I will concede the subject entirely. I bet you will either ignore this or make an attempt to declare there are no options for non-smokers.
November 19, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn says...
These smoking bans will probably go down in history as one of the greatest marketing scams ever by having drug companies using tax exempt political action committees calling themselves "charities".
Here's the beginning of the latest ban movement in the USA.
www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id...
Here are the instructions from Johnson and Johnsons' (makers of cessation products) RWJ Foundation for their tax exempt political action committees. (charities?) Page six instructs on how to organize "grassroot" efforts. Also note on page seven the "inside-out" provision, banning smoking on patios AFTER business owners spend thousands to build them for their smoking customers, clearly showing that they have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN for local issues or businesses.
Also note on the last page, they are instructed to keep returning every year until ALL exemptions, are gone. You may need to CTRL and scroll to readi it.
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals...
November 19, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ufc08 says...
I also am a non smoker,does everyone understand how much taxes are on cigarettes? Go ahead ban all smoking sign a petition to get it banned,then all the ones that sign it agree that you will make up the difference in lost taxes. You got your way why shouldn't you have to make up the lost taxes? Does it bother you enough that you are willing to do this.If it is banned where will the additional tax revenue come from? Taxing fast food.hunting,fishing license,how about taxing gas? Look it up how much revenue is brought in by cigarette tax. Maybe it should be left up to the business owners,if you don't like smoke don't go to that business. Again i am a non smoker.
November 19, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
I think I'm going to start a petition to call for legislation that forces Foot Locker to carry generic shoes and clothes at generic prices.
Why should I have to go somewhere else to buy the things I want? Foot Locker is close to home. It's my money, why shouldn't I be able to spend it where I can get what I want? Why shouldn't Foot Locker be forced to cater to my needs?
November 19, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
mm1967, now you are the pot calling the kettle black. About six weeks ago you were railing against the school district on the H1N1 Flu and should schools be open. You cited your children one of whom has a breathing issue. Asthma as I vaguely recall. Well, now we find you are a smoker. Granted not indoors. Man up and stop smoking. If I were a principal, I know if you came in my office smelling of smoke and griping about the flu and your child's breathing issues, you complaints would sound rather hollow.
For those of you complaining about the nanny state here, just think about the new report of mammograms. This is what Obama wants to roll out to all areas of healthcare.
November 19, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Leonie says...
Here's an example Lod-I am driving along the Belt Highway and a smoker throws his lit cigarette out the window and it flies into my car. Yes, it happened, I am not making it up and no one has the right to throw their lit cigarette out of their car. I don't smoke, but I would still NEVER consider throwing my TRASH out of the car. Smokers throw out their lit cigarettes, their cigarette package wrappers, their cigarette packages, the whole contents of their ashtrays, right down on the ground. And don't tell me I can go somewhere else, because smokers are such animals that they think it is their right to make a stinking mess anywhere. I have just as much right to go places as smokers do. I don't make a mess that stinks everywhere I go. Smokers are animals and that especially includes stinking pipe and cigar smokers as well as cigarette smokers.
And ufc08, I agree to pay the taxes that have to be put into place instead of taxes on tobacco if it means their are no more smokers or chewers.
November 19, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
LOD--are you for real? You expect a little kid to jump out the window of their parents car or something?
I agree the adults, smokers and non, can choose...but I was referring obviously to kids who are forced to inhale it.
It is an inherent right to expect to go out and have clean air. This is for all air carcinogens, not just smoke. Why do you think it is okay "morally" to pollute up common air space with carcinogens...especially in public family places?
Again, you make it sound like I want to take away your "right" to smoke...ALL I am asking is for people to be considerate when they smoke. I guess some people prefer to be rude jerks Michael.
November 19, 2009 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
there are rude smokers, just as there are people who have bad table manners, people who drop the f-bomb every other word, and a multitude of other socially unacceptable issues. that does not make every smoker, diner or speaker an "animal".....
i love the smell of a good havana cigar, or pipe tobacco. swisher sweets..... not so much.
i don't believe in "sin" tax, but don't lose sight of the fact that missouri has the lowest tax on cigarettes in the nation. in NY the taxes are prohibitive. even my son ( who hated smoking with a passion until he picked up the habit in college) has cut way down on smoking because it is nearly ten dollars a pack in the city, now.
mm, good for you for making the effort. my hubby still craves those darn things daily, Hourly..... and he hasn't smoked in five years. i do believe that it is the hardest habit to quit.
November 19, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Leonie- You go!! :) I completely understand where you are coming from...except for..I do know a few considerate smokers, and while I find their habit disgusting, they are respectful about it and are non-animal like :P But they are clearly in the minority of smokers.
November 19, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Whoa...did I just defend a smoker? I guess I am not the hate mongrel LOD makes me out to be.
November 19, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
drbjr-C'mon now. MM clearly said he smoked outside due to family health. Can you not respect him for that? He is also trying to quit. Even better. Even I realize smoking can be an addiction and is hard to quit. At least he is trying to and being respectful to others by smoking out of their way.
Oh man, thats twice now!
November 19, 2009 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Heritage - agree.
I remember having to speak up to a table of college aged kids/young adults and asked them to pipe it down on the F-bombs because I was at the table next to them with little ones.
Is it illegal to curse? No. But again, is it morally right to let them F-bomb drop all over the place within earshot of little ones? NO, not acceptable...same thing I'm trying to say about smoking. Smoke and curse all you want, in your own ear and air space or simply away from others...especially in family environments. Just common courtesy...what is wrong with that?
November 19, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
donaldo says...
ufc 8, do you also realize that tax money supports tobacco growers? if we didn't support growers and big cig. companies we would not pay as many tax's. i will sign a ban on smoking in all restaurants and anything else, we have to stop them from committing suicide some way.
November 19, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Leonie, you are talking about litter bugs. Go find a litter-cause and dive in feet first. I support you 100% you just need to learn the enemy.
I lvoe these blanket generalizations.
I think all black people steal. All Arabs are terrorists. All drinkers are drunks and every smoker is a "mess-maker."
And here we have a future council member admitting she has been in the presence of an illegal substance/product and ENJOYED said illegal substance/product. Sarah, do you find what you are saying to be different somehow with pot smokers? They're both illegal. Good luck in your political endevours, you're fitting right in already.
And finally, SuzyQ, that is called child abuse. Do you part as a snoop and get a plate number and turn them in. Again, this is a situation of inconsiderate people, NOT SMOKERS. I'm not even going to say "not all smokers" because it isn't necessary.
It isn't necessary to say that all black people don't steal, or all Arabs aren't terrorists.
Why am I have to explain this to you?
November 19, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Leonie says...
Oh, right LOD. I forgot, you are ALWAYS RIGHT and the rest of us are always wrong. You squirm out of every argument like the worm that you are.
November 19, 2009 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Squirming???
Tell me how I'm wrong!
The best you got is calling me a worm? You moron, if you can't make an argument just be gone already.
Anyone else?
I noticed SuzyQ thought you were "right on!" Where is she?\
Still waiting to hear one iota of a right to clean air being taken from non-smokers by smokers.
November 19, 2009 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ufc08 says...
I have no problem with smoking bans at places that sell food as their main source of income. I do have a problem at bars, pool halls, or businesses that the owners choose to allow smoking. Every day government is taking away our rights it has to stop. Smokers have rights too, there is a middle place to meet. The City nor Government needs to make up more laws it is revenue to them nothing more. Pass the law, fine people where does it end? I choose where i eat at if i go to a bar if i don't like it i don't go back. At work we have a smoking section outside at breaks even though i don't smoke i go there everyday most of my co-workers and friends smoke. It's my choice to ban smoking in publis places is taking away more of our rights.
November 19, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
I here brother, I'm here. But, I do have other things I am multitasking so forgive me if I take a piss break.
Did you fail to read where we at least AGREE in that all smokers are not animals? I notice you like to pick and twist words to fit your needs.
Your eyes are foresaking you...or your memory, but I can understand you are without meds. LOL. But please reread or refresh your memory. I did not say "right on"...I said "You go". Another case and point of you twisting.
PS: I told ya what you wanted, but I have no control over your understanding or lack of. Why are so unwilling to compromise?
November 19, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
UFC I respect your opinion but it is my opinion that allowing the, "primary source of income" clause is a step down a slippery slope.
How about a, "business that I started" clause? Regardless of the avenue of income, as long as the income is legal, it is of no business for the government, local or otherwise, to put their useless two cents in.
November 19, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
I will not compromise my liberties in the name of compromise.
Maybe that's what sets me apart from the lazy Americans who are worthless to the cause of liberty.
"Right on," "you go." Gimmie a break - yeah, word twisting at it's finest.
So you're going with the "meds" route as well? Seems to be the case when people can no longer have a dicussion, debate or argument with facts.
*rolls eyes and wonders why I even bother*
November 19, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Cuz you luv me thats why. :P
I was trying to be funny about the meds because I read that from someone else the other day. My bad. I'll retract that.
Veering off course sort of, but what you said about that being child abuse, which I do-again-agree with, but is it in the eyes of the law? I really do not think anything can or would be done about that, otherwise I would call if so. Those poor kids. At least let them grow up and give them the option ya know.
November 19, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
"I will not compromise my liberties in the name of compromise."
But when your perceived liberties impinge on anothers, there should be compromise or you risk losing said liberty.
November 19, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ufc08 says...
LOD i respect your opinion and agree with alot of what you say.
November 19, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
countryvet says...
WOW..This is crazy...everyone telling everyone what to do and where to do it.I really think consideration for others is a pretty good point to bring up,yes, I smoke, but not where it might affect someone else or children, nor do I cuss in public. It's called consideration for others. Now, I really hate it when someone wants me to change my ways for their own personal preference, I am what I am and you are what you are. Leave it at that and be considerate of your fellow person.I don't care what you make, where you live, what you drive, that does not make the person you are or think you are, nor does forcing your opinion off on others accomplish anything more than hatered for your opinion.Like people say everyone has one, does not make it right for everyone.
November 19, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
courtyvet- now I will say RIGHT ON. Common courtesy...respect...consideration.
November 19, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Which of my "percieved liberties" are impinging on others' rights?
We still don't agree on anyone except for smokers losing freedoms. How can I agree to have the discussion with you when I don't even agree on the start of it?
November 19, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rthirty2 says...
Y'all can argue 'til the cows come home. Smoking bans, whether they're community-based or state wide are coming "down the tracks" like a runaway train and there's not much you can do about it, it's only a matter of time. Smokers are in the minority and in a democracy the majority wins. Smokers will have to get used to going outside to smoke and the non-smokers will go home from an evening out and not smell like an ashtray. Businesses will adapt and survive, and the world will keep on spinnin' 'round and 'round...
November 19, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Hear that everyone?
Give up on healthcare, it's coming "down the tracks." No use fighting it.
Give up on our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan because it's coming, "down the tracks." No use fighting it.
Start handing out bailout money to everyone. Bailouts are coming, "down the tracks." No use fighting it.
Get a clue dude - if we listened to people like you we would all be speaking French. Then Russian. Then German.
Gimmie a break. Are you seriously an American?
November 19, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
michael, do you even read my posts? i am against smoking bans and against the city taking stimulus money for more programs duplicating those which we already have in place. i think proprietors of private establishments should be able to allow any legal activity on their own property, and that the market forces should be the sole influence on those decisions, not the government and their programs.
a little less hyperbole on your part would probably create less consternation and you would get your points across much more effectively. you do have some good points, btw.......
November 19, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
I read most of your stuff, but I've got to be honest, I feel like alot of what you say these days has a political ring to it as if you're taking every chance to "tell us about your platform."
You know I loathe the standard politician, and it really frustrates me that someone I used to jaw with on here might be following that same road. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but I don't think so.
As for the hyperbole - whaddyagonnado?
When I first created this account I did nothing but post philosophical responses and quotes from great leaders.
You know what the difference was?
I got a TON of thumbs up on nearly every single one of my comments. These were the exact same comments that MichaelH used to make, only they were wrapped in $20K words. These were the exact same comments that were constantly booed and hated when MichaelH made them - but LibertyOrDeath and his fancy words the people enjoyed... but garnered no interest other than to click a little thumb at the bottom of my comment.
I would rather be hated and speak the truth than to be loved because I'm talking over everyone's head.
At least when you piss people off they are generally motivated to prove you wrong. If I can get at least some people to think for themselves then I feel like there is hope.
If there is no hope then what the hell is it all for?
Ever seen Idiocracy?
November 19, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
I'm still trying to figure out why someone's "right" to smoke trumps my "right" not to breath smoke. Please explain that to me.
November 19, 2009 at 7:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
drbjr,
Yes I am a smoker and not a heavy one and yes I do smoke outside of my home because of my childrens asthma.I can complain about the H1N1 in the schools if I want because you see it affects my child as I have said my smoking does not because I am smart enough to go outside bone head.I also said I was trying to quit and this is for my children as well as my own health.So you see I indeed am not putting my children at risk and about the H1N1 flu it was putting my children at risk so I am entitled to complain about it all I want.By the way I got the H1N1 Shots for them several weeks ago and feel so much better that they have been vacinated against this flu.
November 19, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
donaldo says...
good for you mm1967, at least you admit you are trying to quit smoking. it is a hard thing to do or it would be more successful for more people. i was 23 when i quit and i smoked 4 packs a day. the hardest thing to do was what to do with my hands.i will admit, it wasn't easy but after you are through the hard part, you cant stand the smell of them. i wish more people would smoke somewhere else so us non smokers wouldn't have to be around it. you wont be sorry after you quit, i would never go back. good luck with this, i know you can do it. be the man.
November 19, 2009 at 8:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
Leonie,
I am a smoker and I would like you to know we all are not the type of people you have described.Some of us are considerate to non-smokers and some of us do not put out cig butts out on the ground I remember the military and cig butts where the tobacco could go on the ground but the filter better not hit the ground.If I remember right they called this field stripping.Some of us do not throw them out the window into your car.Sure those people are out there but you are labeling all smokers into this catagory and you are simply wrong.But I am glad you can label all of this way before you think about it.
November 19, 2009 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
mm1967, plus quit and you will be happier. Read this
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/200...
November 19, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
DRBJR, How in the world is anyone taking away your right to clean air?
I'm still waiting to hear you, or ANYONE else, explain that one.
Just one single example. Please. One small, tiny, single example.
Can you even give one? Are you capable? ANYONE?
November 20, 2009 at 6:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
By smoking in my presence without my permission. They put second hand smoke in the air I am forced to breathe.
November 20, 2009 at 7:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Okay, now we're talking.
So this happens outside? Does this happen inside?
I know you are not going to complain about carbon monoxide when you're outside, I'm certain you are aware of just some of the toxins that are in our air.
So this must happen to you inside. Well... go outside! Ask this person to leave your home with their cigarette. Oh, this doesn't happen in your home? In the smokers home? Then I would suggest not going to that persons home anymore.
Or wait - you must be talking about food establishments, right? Well I would say to you that 1). you did not open the business and 2). there are no shortage of businesses who do not allow smoking. Is someone forcing you to patronize these establishments that the rest of us are unaware of?
Do you drive a car? You ARE aware that a car releases more harmful gases into the environment in one tank of gas than 100 cartons of cigarettes... right?
Sounds like you have all kinds of issues, none of which relate to a smoker taking away your clean air.
See - this is what fascinates me about your crowd. You will bitch and moan and complain all day long yet when pressed, you give some obscure reference in which we are supposed to make our own conclusions to. I say we are supposed to draw our own conclusions because you have given this reason that begs more questions than it answers.
HOW IS ANYONE TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO CLEAN AIR? Seriously, can you give anyone anything other than, "when you smoke around me without my permission?"
I mean, what the hell? In what circumstance is this the case? We need to know so we can determine if it's the smoker, or someone else responsible. I mean, if you're going to specifically engage me why wouldn't you offer some sort of real evidence to your claims? You have no shortage of rhetoric, but apparently examples are hard to come by.
I really hope your name is Don Roberts - I hate to imagine that "DR" in your name is any kind of professional reference.
November 20, 2009 at 7:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
You know this grant could be used wiser than this.I am a smoker trying to quit but I will not be taking any advantage of it and will be doing it on my own and it may be harder but I think we have bigger issues facing us than this.Look around the last year has told us this unless you have not been paying attention to the world and the economy and job losses and people falling into poverty that have never been faced with it.
November 20, 2009 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Everything is better when accomplished on one's own accord.
Good luck, MM.
November 20, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
LOD and MM1967, I think the feds controlled the use of this grant not the city. The city just applied.
Why should I be forced to walk through your second hand smoke to get into a store? Why should I be forced to breathe your second hand smoke to go to a restaurant or bar? We regulate many things around restaurants to keep people from getting sick. Why is this different?
mm1967, just think of how much more you could put into your kids college savings if you quit. I know it is hard, but you should really do it. I'm surprised with the education the kids get at school about smoking that your kids are not bugging the c--- out of you about it. I know a couple of weeks ago my chjild asked me what I was using to sterlize something. I said alcohol. "That's bad." IT WAS A MEDICAL SWAB! That is the level of education on this.
November 20, 2009 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chara says...
lot of money that will be spent and nothing to show for it. i rank this right up there with cap and trade and global warming. just another scam to get the taxpayers money.
November 20, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
No one is forcing you to patronize a smoking establishment. That is exactly what you just said. When the U.S. government or any local government requires you to patronize ANY private establishment then you may have a case.
You walk through way more than second hand smoke ANYWHERE outside. Are you really this uneducated on what is in our atmosphere? In any case, to say that you are displaced somehow while outside by a smoker is a stretch at best, downright deseperate at worst.
Please elaborate on these regulations you speak of. Can you cite any single regulation that helps make your point?
You have failed to make any single argument with legs. Let's see if you can cite a single regulation that you say makes your point.
My guess is if you just got over yourself you would see the flaw in every single point you're failing miserably at making.
Either that or you're a straight up communist. And agian, I've no problem with communists, I just make sure they understand they live in a capitalist society.
November 20, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MizzouFan01 says...
So if I am understanding what a lot of people are saying, we should not tell business's how to run their daily operations? If they want to allow smoking in their business, it's their choice. Who are we to tell them how to run their buiness. So we should just do away with food safety regulations? Let's say that restraunt "A" cooks too much chicken for a Saturday night. They keep it in a cooler for a week, reheat it, marinate it so that you can't taste the difference. Why this is not illegal, it endangers anyone going to this business and consumes that product. It's another regulation. Do we like the govt putting their two cents in...no, but sometimes it has to happen to help the whole.
As far as a grassroots effort, I actually was involved with one. The head of the effort was the late Mike Hirter. He thought that a state wide smoking ban would come from the state. When that didn't materialize, he started to process of getting volunteers to get signatures to put in on the ballot to let the people vote for it. I hope that someone can find the time to continue this cause. As much all of the people who are against it on here, if it gets put to a majority vote, it's going to be tough for it to fail.
November 20, 2009 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Serving unsuspecting patrons raw, undercooked or expired foods is harmful the their health.
I see no correlation to your chicken story and the obvious, "we allow smoking" concept.
In any case, selling raw, undercooked or expired chicken as anything other than raw, undercooked or expired chicken is illegal.
Selling cigarettes is not.
Next...
November 20, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
I find it interesting that of all the naysayers, including a self-proclaimed activist, there is not one single valid argument being presented.
I mean, who the heck were you protesting to? In all your protests the best argument you can generate is some obscure reference to selling undercooked chicken to unsuspecting patrons?
I never said I'm 100% right - but seriously, where is ANYONE even coming close to proving me or anyone else wrong?
I've debunked each of you arguments, some better than others and all I get in return is smart-aleck name-calling or you fail to respond at all, effectively conceeding your argument (or lack thereof).
None of you, including an activist, has had a single decent argument as to how your rights to clean air are being taken from you.
I have to imagine this is why the attempt you spoke of failed. You can't just come up with something that sounds good, you have to be able to articulate your points.
November 20, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
And no, the government is not needed. The government picks up where the lazy American leaves off.
Attribute each one of these expanding arms of government to a lazy population. It truly is pathetic which is exactly why my goal is to get people to think for themselves. Not some ridiculous talking point you over heard at a failed anti-smoking rally (or any issue for that matter, not just smokers).
You're telling me the state of Missouri is not only incapable of regulating themselves, but they lack access to the same studies that our government receives their data from? So you're saying if we had the data on dangerous foods for instance, we would lack the ability to legislate it? OR, you're saying that if we had the ability to regulate then we lack the ability to find the data?
This just doesn't make sense. It seems you've all but given up on your fellow Missourian. Hang in there, I am.
November 20, 2009 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MizzouFan01 says...
You have your opinions and that is great. I don't think anyone in this world could convince you other wise. I think that we should agree to disagree on this. I would just brace, a smoking ban is coming. It may not be 2010, but when all of the surrounding towns in the state and others around the country are doing it...it's just a matter of time before St Joseph has one.
My example was a comparision of Food Safety Regulations with a smoking ban, not that specific example.
November 20, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I have no problem with banning smoking in most public places. I have every bit as much a right to go to a restaurant or place of entertainment as anyone else, and I have a right to not being forced to participate in the smoker's nasty and unhealthy habit. However, I do feel there are some non-smokers who carry the entire "ban" thing way too far. I think smoking outside is fine. I think smoking in your car is fine, or in your own home. I do NOT think it's OK to smoke around your kids. Again....if you do, you're FORCING them to participate in your unhealthy lifestyle. Not a very responsible thing for a good parent to do.....
Any non-smokers out there....it's ok to ban smoking in restaurants, theaters, stores, libraries, and other public places. Bars, bowling alleys, outside (such as streets, sidewalks, parks, etc) smoking should still be allowed. I don't understand those of you who advocate an outright ban on smoking. In that regard, you're going WAY too far.
November 20, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Pops, you have failed to read anything above.
You, nor the federal government, have any right to tell any private company to ban smoking.
Last I check no one ever forced you to go to any food establishment. EVER. Can you give me any example of when you were forced to sit through someone's filthy smoking habit in a private venue?
Mizzou, you can agree to be wrong. I don't agree with you and I will not agree to disagree. I wonder where we would be if we just told the king, look, we don't see eye to eye on taxes, let's just agree to disagree.
Jeez louise...
November 20, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
Try this from the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_info...
"Findings in the report indicate that there is about a 25 to 30 percent increase in the risk of coronary heart disease from exposure to secondhand smoke."
and more:
# Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.
# Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 2530% and their lung cancer risk by 2030%.
# Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.2
# Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2
# Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2
# There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.
Is that enough regulation for you?
Also Scotland has gone smoke free.
November 20, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
"You, nor the federal government, have any right to tell any private company to ban smoking"
But thats whats gonna happen LOD. Precisely because of people who think like you and think it is alright to puff in someone's elses space.
Is it legal? Sure-for now. Your right to smoke in public places. Is it rude, obnxious, and inconsiderate to do so? You bet it is in particular in family environments. If somkers would just be responsible smokers, maybe it wouldnt come to a ban. But sadly, there are too many aren't respectful with their habit.
Pops, I agree with you on what you said.
People should have a reasonable expectation that they can go to public places and not have their health jeopardized. Simple as that.
November 20, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
So, umm... what the heck does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
Your studies show that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Did we switch topics when I wasn't looking? You have still failed to address the topic of discussion: how are your rights to clean air being displaced by a smoker?
And seriously... Scotland? What the hell?
Yeah well damn near every drug known to man is tolerated in Holland. What's your point? Even if you had one I fail to see what Scotland has contributed to the advancement of mankind. No offense to our Scottish readers, he brought you into this, not me.
I will give you credit for making an attempt. An attempt to squeak out of addressing any of my points.
Sounds like your goal should be to ban the sale of cigarettes. I've got no problems with that but that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about private business owners being forced to accommodate your wants. That is NOT capitalism.
Next...
November 20, 2009 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
Scotland has produced at least two great things ... scotch and Sean Connery. It is also a major producer of oil (the north sea.
Holland doesn't make me smoke pot or hashish, it doesn't make me shot heroin in my veins.
The research shows second hand smoke is dangerous to my health as it pollutes the air. I have a right to clean air. A smoker who pollutes my air should be stopped.
November 20, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
We don't let business owners do lots of things. Food hazards are controlled. We regulate the drinking age. We do not allow them to let children in a place that serves more than a certain percent of their business as alcohol after a certain time. It is called a police power. "Police power is the capacity of a state to regulate behaviors and enforce order within its territory, often framed in terms of public welfare, security, health, and safety." It is only checked by the constitution (both state and federal). We don't allow prostitution which is arguably a less pervasive problem since only the participants are harmed. Smoking on the other hand harms all those who breathe the second hand smoke.
November 20, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
SuzyQ, when have I ever said I have the right to smoke in someone's space who doesn't approve? We're not talking about consideration at the bus stop. We're talking about smoking bans in private establishments. The solution to your problem lies in a simple sign on the door, "SMOKING ALLOWED or PROHIBITED."
DRBJR, The United States doesn't make you enter any privately owned establishment and inhale second hand smoke, it doesn't make you hang out with people who smoke.
I never disputed health risk claims, and I never said you didn't have a right to clean air. Again, I'm asking how a smoker is taking that right from you? When responding, keep in mind that in the real world, we don't get to have an invisible shield around us wherever we go.
The only thing I could add that I haven't already addressed in your last comment is, "police state."
If you want a smoke free world, that's something I could envision. But you're not going to sit here and tell me that this is the way it should be while you're doing nothing more than sticking your boot on your fellow man's neck by regulation or taxation, removing liberty. To me everything you've said addresses the federal government, take away their claws - not the local businessman for crying out loud.
The business owner didn't ask your permission to open shop, I don't know why you think they need to consult you or anyone else on preference to continue to operate. It blows my mind that you've actually convinced yourself that any random privately owned business must cater to your needs or be forced to change their business structure. No one asked you to go there in the first place, your tax dollars aren't funding it and you have no expectation that any business owner will provide you with good service let alone cater to your specific dining requests.
How about getting vocal about the things the citizens ARE funding? How about recalling one single instance where you were forced to breathe smoke in a privately owned establishment?
November 20, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I have an idea, LOD. Let's do exactly what you say....let's allow smoking at all "private" establishments....like Applebees, HyVee, WalMart, Cheddars, Olive Garden, etc. Let's even include the library, the driver's license office and Lanham Music. How about Lowes, Menards and Home Depot.
Let's let the public decide. Now.....since MANY of those places I mentioned are places I HAVE to go to....really have no choice....would you agree, were smoking allowed in all those places....I'd be FORCED to breath polluted air....polluted PURPOSELY by smokers?
OK....let's just say that all restaurants, bars and entertainment establishments (theaters, bowling alleys, arcades, etc) are wide open to smoking. Places people HAVE to go to, such as grocery stores, quasi-government establishments, etc. would still be no-smoking. What if the non-smokers banded together and generated a concerted boycott, which would place the business owner in a position to either ban smoking in his/her establishment, or go bankrupt? Would you feel that is unfair?
When will smokers understand their conscious choice to smoke affects everyone else around them? Why can't smokers understand that I have made a conscious choice NOT to smoke, and if I'm in a place where their nasty habit is allowed, I am FORCED to either LEAVE or put up with it?
I can tell you for a fact.....the next time I'm in an enclosed space, and some numbskull is blowing his/her smoke all over the place, I think I'm going to walk up next to them, and give them a bit of the byproduct of my lunch. Wonder how methane and cigarrette smoke will smell???
November 20, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Pops, I am done with you. You have to go to none of those places.
HyVee could allow smoking if they wanted to - they don't - what are you whining about? I got through you first paragraph and couldn't take it anymore.
ASIDE FROM THAT - SMOKING IS ALREADY ALLOWED AT PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS FOOL. It's also not your place to force them to allow smoking...
THATS THE WHOLE POINT! Jeez you're dense.
November 21, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I'm dense? Really!!! Let's just acknowledge you and I won't EVER see eye to eye. I have read and heard smokers for YEARS whine about their rights being violated because they can't light up whenever and WHEREVER they want. If many smokers had their way, there would be ZERO non-smoking areas. My POINT, my hard-headed friend, is if that were to happen, I wouldn't be able to go ANYWHERE without being inundated with smoke. That's unacceptable. The problem here is NOT non-smokers taking away the rights of the smokers. It's brain-dead, inconsiderate, selfish smokers who want to spread their nasty habit over all of us.
I don't want to smell smoke when I eat at a restaurant. I don't want to smell it when I shop at Walmart. You are correct....there ARE places that allow smoking and I don't GO there. I think it's sad when people who appear to have some marginal intelligence, such as yourself, can't see that this entire debate wouldn't even be HAPPENING if it weren't for the stupid, dense, ignorant, selfish, inconsiderate smokers demanding to light their little cancer sticks around EVERYONE! Do it at home, in your car, or out on the sidewalk. Do NOT do it when you're in a public, enclosed space. That's very simple....even for you...
November 21, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
Well they just can't open up wherever they want. It's called zoning. They have to meet various codes like building and health. They have to kvrain various licenses.
The concept is police powers not police state.
November 21, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
LOD- I get what you are trying to say. That its not right (Gov) to tell business owners to ban smoking, but rather to let them make their own business decisions whether it be smoke or nonsmoking. But what I am trying to say, is because there are too many smokers that do not respect others or smoke responsibly and with considerations, that it will eventually come down the pipes with a smoking ban especially since smoking/second hand smoke has been proven to be harmful.
While I would enjoy the freedoms (personally) that a smoking ban would allow for my family, I wish it weren't at the expense of a forced ban. I wish people would just take their smoke outside and away from the entrance. I wish people with little ones in the household would not force it upon the children. Have you tried to go in Heartland? You have to go through a fog just to get in. Funny thing though, there is a ban there.
I wish alot of things though.
Good day LOD. I have a house to clean and Thanksgiving to plan.
November 21, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Orliandor says...
On another note, how about outlawing leaf blowers within the city limits. I should not have to walk out of my house into that kind of noise pollution. Those things are extremely obnoxious!
And what is it that people have against leaves? They are part of nature, and harmless as far as I can tell. Next thing these neat freaks will be in their yards with wet-vacs every time it rains.
November 21, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I feel Heartland should ban smoking within 50 feet of the entrance.
I also feel that NONE of this would be necessary if smokers weren't so idiotic, selfish and inconsiderate.
Not all of them.....but certainly the bulk of them.
Just took a drive down Frederick this morning. Saw folks out walking, and out of about 10 people, at least half were smoking. Not a problem....they're outside and that should be fine. However, I'm sure it was just timing, but all but ONE of those smokers tossed their spent cancer stick into the street....littering. Now....I'm sure, were I to become acquainted with those folks, they are all decent, upstanding citizens. However, they're ALL LITTERBUGS!! What on EARTH makes a smoker feel it's ok to toss their filth into the street or onto the sidewalk? Why not squash out the ash on the end, and put the stupid thing in your pocket, or find a trash can?? Just one more indication of the lack of consideration from the smokers.
November 21, 2009 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
So in one sentence you say not all smokers are litterbugs. In the very next sentence you capitalize your declaration that, "they're ALL LITTERBUGS."
Do you see why it's pointless to even attempt a conversation with you?
I can't tell what the hell Orliandor is talking about but I think he is serious, further backing up my previous statement.
November 21, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Don't read well, do you LOD. The ones I saw today ARE ALL LITTERBUGS!! It doesn't matter to me if they were smoking outside, but they are LITTERBUGS!! EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM ON FREDERICK!!
If you like, I can draw you a picture since you seem to have that comic book mentality.....
November 21, 2009 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
You know go ahead and make smoking illegal in places,go ahead and take it a step further and make smoking illegal all together and see how much uproar you all will have.think when the goverment tried to making alcohol illegal and all of the problems that brought.Then go ahead and make smoking illegal and see what problems you all have.
Pops what makes you or anybody think you have the right to tell people what to do be it smoking or drinking or walking in the street.Point this is america home of the free and home of the brave.Not communist people telling us what we should or should not do.
November 21, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
mm1967...
I now see why apple/sense has difficulty with you. You don't read any better than LOD. I don't CARE if they smoke when they walk down the street. I SAID that. Yeah...take a quick break and go back and re-read what I wrote. I have stated, and will CONTINUE to state, that I dislike smokers who force non-smokers to particpate in their nasty little habit when they're INDOORS...and I don't really care WHERE indoors. If they're inside, and the place is enclosed, it's the height of arrogance and insensitivity for others to light up.
As for the remarks about the street smokers....my comment was MORE directed at the idea of them being litterbugs. When I see several smokers on the street, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them toss their cigarrette on the ground, I'd call that a problem. It's LITTERING!! It only compounds the nastiness of their habit, and further indicates how inconsiderate they are.
November 21, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
terrebatu says...
Following LOD's logic it should be perfectly acceptable for me to dump Formaldehyde or Benzene, both known carcinogens both perfectly legal, on my property regardless of how adjacent property owners feel about it. Who cares if the poison seeps into their well or if they have to breathe the fumes. If they don't like it they can move. It is my property and I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me I can't dump DEADLY substances on my own private land.
Oh wait, there is regulations against me dumping POISON into OUR COMMUNITY? Wow, imagine that.
Let's not forget about what we are talking about. KNOWN CARCINOGENS!!!! This is POISON we are talking about not a foul odor, this is something PROVEN to kill. Seems like a no brainer.
November 21, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
I did not say these people were not littering and that is not right but it is not our place to tell them they cannot if they get caught they will be fined for littering.Like I said in several post I respect the non-smokers rights and always will I do not throw my cigerette butts down on the ground this is a practice from the military you do not do that.But if these people want to then that's their right and if they get caught for littering then they will pay the price.
You want to join apple and find fault in my opinions just because they do not fall into line with your opinions that just fine.I am my own person and do not follow people like puppets just because someone in power or thinks they are in power say this is the way it should be.But it is plain and simple a bunch of the people on here that do not think the goverment should either do this or that and we need less goverment are the same ones who want the goverment to tell us when to smoke or not to smoke and where and to tell business owners that they have to ban smoking.
November 21, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
Smokers (as a group) have a habit of not helping themselves. Yesterday one choose to empty the ashtray of his vehicle in my parking lot next to my car. Good thing that his vehicle was a company van with the name of his company all over it. I pick up butts in my front yard. Smokers light up next to someone without asking if it bothers them. They make people walk through a haze of smoke to get into some buildings. Many are inconsiderate as all get out. They make it easy to hate smoking and want to restrict smokers. Smokers are their own worst enemy.
November 21, 2009 at 6:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
drbjr,
There are inconsiderate smokers but you have inconsiderate people in anything in life.We do not have to like it but to take anybodys rights away from them smokers or non-smokers is just wrong.This is not a communist country.I have said I am considerate to the non-smokers but to be labeled like the inconsiderate ones is absured.To tell a business owner you cannot allow this or that in their own business in my opinion is a form of communisum and goverment controll over them.I understand that people do not want to eat smelling smoke and I do not even like to smell smoke when I am eatting and there is the fact people have health issues such as asthma.I also would hope that the establishments that want to allow smoking would actually divide the room and have the smoking section its own ventilation for the non-smoking side did not see it or smell it.This could be done and has in some establishments in the country.There has to be some middle ground.Nobody likes being told what to do and you have to admit that.It is human nature.But like anything if you take it away and make it ilegal people are going to do it look at probition people still got their alcohol and look at all of the crime that came with it.
People should be considerate to non-smokers but the fact remain if you treat people badly because of a smoking habit they have they will retaliate against you and this is what is happening now think about it.I also can tell you first hand trying to quit is a very hard thing to do and the mood swings and the withdraws are a pain as well as trying to find things to do with your hands.
November 21, 2009 at 8:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
No one's going to get fined for tossing a cigarrette butt into the street. Why? I've seen cops do it. It's an accepted practice....and that's, perhaps, one of the most unfortunated, albeit, telling things about our society.
Anyone who would even remotely defend the inconsiderate smoker/literbug isn't worth my time....
November 21, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
Pop's nobody is defending them for their actions.I was simply telling you it is their right to trowq it out of the window or drop it on the ground if they want.Now if they get a ticket or not for littering that is a different story in itself.And if police officers are doing this they should know better.
Pops you have inconsiderate drivers,rude people,people who think they are better then others and so forth are we giving them as hard of a time.No we are not we are labeling all smokers to be bad inconsiderate people and that is just not a true statement.Not all smokers are inconsiderate plain and simple but you want to label all as such.
November 21, 2009 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Orliandor says...
LoD, I AM serious. What is this obsession people have with destroying (or blowing around) dead leaves? What a waste of time and energy.
November 21, 2009 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Pops, I believe Heartland does ban smoking within 50 ft of their entrance, in fact, it is banned on all Heartland property including parking lots....the problem is, its not enforced. What good is a ban if it is not enforced? I believe 110% that especially in the case of the hospital this should be enforced I give Heartland big kudos for having a ban, but please, please enforce it.
November 22, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
mm1967,
Are you serious? You feel these smokers have a RIGHT to toss their cigarrette out the window? People have a RIGHT to litter? People have a RIGHT to break the law?
Surely you aren't saying that!! Regardless how we disagree at times, I certainly think you're smarter than THAT!!
November 22, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ApparentlySo says...
So M, I take it by your comments that you are unhappy about the decision that allows black persons the right to enter and be served in establishments since it was the government that made that happen. If you would only have been born 30-40 years earlier, your life would have been so much better.
Most people need to quit confusing "rights" with privileges. We have a right to a healthy environment, which includes air free of harmful toxins; it is a privilege to smoke. Even if it were a right to smoke; no one's rights should be able to infringe on anyone else's when their actions have a negative affect on other people. It is no one's right to litter or discard their waste in an inappropriate manner. Cigarette butts included.
MM, I'm wondering; do you ever take your children anywhere that there is smoking?
November 23, 2009 at 6:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
ApparentlySo
Do not put words in my mouth and I never said anything as you have stated above.
I do not see how you could say smoking is a privilege.
And you know my children have asthma and the answer your question no I do not take my children where there is smoking.
But it is not my right or yours to tell people what they can or cannot do get that point in your head.
Did you ever think one reason smoker rebel is because of people like you?
November 23, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
mm1967,
Did it ever occur to you that if smokers were considerate of others around them, this issue might not even exist?
It's smokers who don't give a flip about anyone else's feelings, who litter their nasty butts on the street/sidewalks/grass, etc. that irritate people. It's smokers who continually complain about their "rights" and have little or no concern about the non-smoker rights.
Get THAT through YOUR head....
November 23, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
Get this in your head you people label all smokers as bad people and inconsiderate which is far from the truth.Some smokers are concsiderate to the non-smokers and you all fail to see that.
Life is full of choices and rights and you can make any you want some just happen to come with repercussions for your actions.This is america people if you want to dictate I suggest you live where dictatorship exist.
November 23, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ufc08 says...
It looks to me that drbjr should make up all the rules, he seems to own everything just read his comments, his air, i guess he owns the air, his parking lot, let us know what business you own so we can avoid it. I am a non smoker and yes some smokers are rude so are alot of non smokers some of you will complain no matter if a smoker was 50 feet away, outside, or in your parking lot. If it is your business then you have the right to ban smoking even in the parking lot. I agree with no smoking at food establishments or by the entrances of all businesses. I do believe it should be up to the owners not the government. If i don't want to be around smoke i stay away.
November 23, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ufc08 says...
Before the city tries banning smoking they need to look at themselves first.Have any of you been behind a city bus and breathed them fumes? If they ban smoking in public places than they also need to get rid of all the buses and get vans or something that don't pollute drbjr's air.
November 23, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
APPARENTLY SO: "Most people need to quit confusing "rights" with privileges. We have a right to a healthy environment, which includes air free of harmful toxins; it is a privilege to smoke. Even if it were a right to smoke; no one's rights should be able to infringe on anyone else's when their actions have a negative affect on other people. It is no one's right to litter or discard their waste in an inappropriate manner. Cigarette butts included."
GUESS WHAT? I'm inclined to agree with you in this matter.
November 23, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
mm1967,
Show me a considerate smoker and I'll show you a rarity.
November 23, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
pops, I know a few considerate smokers so I know they do exist, but I agree, rarity.
November 23, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
suzyQ,
I see ONE of those considerate smokers has tagged BOTH of us with a "thumbs down". Guess they don't appreciate being a rare commodity!!
November 23, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Pops- How "inconsiderate" of them!!
I'd like to know why I got a thumbs down?
November 23, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
All "butts" aside, seriously?
November 23, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
SuzyQ, you're asking for logic in a conversation seriously lacking in it.
Why are you surprised?
I can't even bother with these people anymore. I lock them down to their own comments, ("smokers taking away their rights") and all they can retort is health studies, blanket generalizations, etc.
When faced with the opportunity to validate their claims they refuse and instead insist of changing the subject to whether or not ciggy's are healthy.
The 21st century has brought with it a new catch phrase for these sheeple...
"Epic Fail."
November 23, 2009 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
LOD, please give me some authority for your "RIGHT" to smoke.
November 23, 2009 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Realityck says...
Lets all just try to get along an take a page from Obama" hand book an sit down over a beer an a smoke
November 24, 2009 at 3:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
drbjr,
You know I have said I am working on quiting smoking but I have to tell you it not very easy and I am also considerate to the non-smokers and have been.I do not throw my butts on the ground so I do not liter with them either.Now I would like for you to show us where it is not our right if we chose.Is it not legal to buy tobacco products and use them?It is not like it is crack which is illegal.
I am not saying that smokers should not be considerate to non-smokers but come on now it is a two way street.This has got way out of hand and instead of telling people they cannot smoke we should be working on solutions that work for both sides of this issue.
November 24, 2009 at 6:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
mm1967,
NO ONE has said you can't smoke if you so choose. NO ONE has said it's illegal for you to buy the products if you so choose. NO ONE has said you don't have the right to make those choices....FOR YOURSELF!!
I am gratified to know that you, sir, may, in fact, be the rarity that I mentioned before.
November 24, 2009 at 6:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
Prove a negative ... good one!
This is really a clash of what are called liberty rights, your right to smoke versus my right to not smoke or breathe second hand smoke. When it comes to an exercise of one right infringing on the other right the one with the least harm wins.
This is contrasted with civil rights like the freedom of speech, etc. Not the same kind of animal.
November 24, 2009 at 6:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
Thanks pops and I have always respected the non-smokers rights and will as long as I have this habit.Which is a real pain in the butt to quit.It makes one have a very bad mood and I have to say withdrws are not any fun either.But if everybody would just respect everyones rights we would not have this issue but as with anything people are never going to see eye to eye.There seems as if there has to be a middle ground and everyone has to have a open mind on this issue as well as others in our community.We will get a lot further together then divided.
November 24, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
mm1967, you are right, there is no problem when everyone respects others right ... no one gets killed ... no one gets robbed ...
We need laws when too many fail to respect others rights. Should I smoke (used to do the occassional cigar) around your children or mine (all with asthma) then I have failed to respect their rights. Problem is that too many fail to give this respect in enclosed places. I have no problem if you smoke, just don't do it around me or my children.
November 24, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
drbjr,
I do not even smoke around my children i smoke outside on the deck and as I have said I am trying to quit at this point altogether,but not a easy task.And I do not smoke in eating establishments and so forth.When we leave the house I do not smoke in the public.I cannot smoke in the car and would not because of my children and what light up to walk to a store from the car.It is a waste of money and time to smoke in the public.
Thank you drbjr and have a good Thanksgiving with your family.
November 24, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
MM- have your tried Chantix? I have a friend that is having good luck with that. In fact, she is about to go off her Chantix after not smoking in quite awhile. Not sure of the cost though. Good for you for trying to quit! It affects the body in so many ways you dont even realize until you are sick and compromised. Ive seen that first hand with a loved one. Keep up the good job, for you and for your family.
November 24, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
I am going to get the new nicotrol inhalers this hopefull will help with the cravings and the withdraws and at the sametime give me something to do with my hands.It is horrable sick to my stomach and on and on.Thanks for the words of support SuzyQ.If I had known this years ago I would have never smoked but hind sight is 20/20.
November 24, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMike says...
Wow, I just sat here and read all the comments. I can't believe that people don't see how simple this is. I have seen a lot of people talk about "My Right.." My right to smoke.. My Right to not breathe your 2nd hand smoke. Etc.. I have also seen the term "Considerate." I know I am not telling you anything that you don't already know. But those seem to be the common themes to this issue. The smokers say they have a "Right," to smoke and the non-smokers believe they have a, "Right," to clean air. Some are just saying that if the smokers would have been more considerate, this wouldn't be an issue.
I just can't believe that some people just can't see how clear the answer is. In the case of smoking bans.. The only people who are having there, "Rights," trampled on are the business owners. Period. End of story. Pops said something earlier trying to nail down his point but it actually proved mine. Pops said, "What if the non-smokers banded together and generated a concerted boycott, which would place the business owner in a position to either ban smoking in his/her establishment, or go bankrupt? Would you feel that is unfair?"
Now I know you were trying to prove your point but you just proved mine. To answer your question.. No I would NOT feel that was unfair. That is exactly what we are saying should happen. If the non-smokers want a place to be smoke free they should go to the business owner. You just proved, at least, my point. That is exactly what should happen.
November 24, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ApparentlySo says...
"To tell a business owner you cannot allow this or that in their own business in my opinion is a form of communism and government control over them"
M, there is one direct quote from one of your responses. Tell me how I put words in your mouth? I only gave you one of many examples where government has told private business what what they can or can not do in their own business, contrary to what you believe should be the government's right. Unless I misunderstood your comment and you are saying you would like to go to communism. Which way is correct?
By the way, congrats on your attempt to quit. I know it was very hard for my father. Unfortunately it wasn't until a few months before his death from lung cancer, attributed to smoking.
MM. not to harp on you, but even if you smoke outside and even if there weren't still toxins on your clothing that you are exposing your kids to; this concept that smoking hurts no one else is ridiculous. Unless you people that say that are also saying that when family members die that there is no suffering. I know M doesn't believe that, or he wouldn't be so admirably fighting for his kids.
LOD, they gave you two examples. The smoke burning off the cigarette, whether exhaled or not, is still tobacco smoke. And it is not considered child abuse in the State of Missouri. Either way, I didn't see your concession that you promised.
The other thing about "laws" that tell us what and when; are you saying that clean air laws, clean water laws, property maintenance laws, murder, drunk driving, and a myriad of others do just that. People however choose to ignore them.
November 24, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
ApparentlySo
I also lost my Father to lung cancer but it was caused from asbesto and lost my mother to heart and respitory problems as well and they both were young.It is very hard to see them pass this way and suffer and fight for their next breath.I have been stuborn about quiting but I know it is the right thing to do for myself and my children.NBot to mention my wife works in the medical field and has been on my butt for several years.No I do not believe in communisium that's for darn sure.
November 24, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
What does anyone make of the 300 million award to an ex-smoker in a recent lawsuit against a cig maker.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domest...
November 25, 2009 at 8:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
Crazy we know what we are doing and the risk involved when we start this habit.Nobody is going to make us sick but ourselfs so we need to be responsible for our own behavior.
November 25, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
mm1967,
Just from your last post, I can see you fully understand the dangers of smoking. Yes....YOU know the risks and YOU understand that the habit has tremendous potential for making you sick, and you understand that is YOUR responsibility. I see all that in your post.
That said....what about the non-smokers in an enclosed area, who have made a conscious decision NOT to smoke, and NOT to do harm to themselves, and yet, the smokers insist they have a right to smoke, and basically FORCE their habit on someone else? While I understand non-smokers have a right to NOT go to a place where smoking is allowed, sometimes, that's unavoidable. I just feel smokers should restrict their habit to their own home, their own car, or the outdoors. Anything other than that...smokers should have enough personal responsibility to refrain from smoking, don't you agree?
November 25, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Pops, for the last time...
Please explain how you are forced to go ANYWHERE. Remember, we're not talking about hospitals, court house, etc.
Define unavoidable, please.
November 25, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
LOD,
With people like you, liberty is only for you....people like you want to do whatever you want, with no restriction based on OTHER people's feelings or desires. In your eyes, no one has a right to tell YOU what to do.
I guess, basically, you're saying that I can either forfeit going to a restaurant, bar, or other entertainment establishment, or keep my mouth shut, and not complain about the smoke.
That, sir, is unacceptable. Places like that should be open for use for ANYONE. No one is restricting the smoker from smoking....only from doing it in an enclosed space where smokers AND non-smokers are sharing the same air. To smoke in that environment is the height of irresponsibility and indicates an extreme level of inconsideration for others. The same goes for those idiots who toss their spent cig onto the street, sidewalk or grass.
Freedom comes with responsibility and civility....something you seem to lack....
November 25, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
So you don't believe in, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"
And yes, I am basically saying that. You can either "forfeit" the dining experience or go and deal with it.
How is that unacceptable? Places like what should be open for use to anyone?
You still fail to elaborate on how you are forced to go anywhere. Or was that simply poor wording on your part and you didn't really mean it?
"Places like that" ARE open to anyone. And if ANYONE doesn't like it, they can choose to leave just as the OWNER has the right to refuse service to ANYONE.
November 25, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Owners cannot refuse service to ANYONE.....do you dispute that? They CAN refuse service to someone in certain instances, but discrimination is not tolerated in this country.
I asked you before....what would you do if you had your way, and ALL restaurants, etc, were totally open to smokers, and the non-smokers enacted a boycott, forcing restaurants and other such establishments into bankruptcy? THAT, sir, is what you're advocating...whether you understand it or not.
I like to drink soda, coffee, tea, lemonade, etc. The natural byproduct of my "habit" is...well...pee. Would you find it acceptable for me to be sitting next to you in a restaurant, and wet all over you? I also like eating, and occasionally, depending on the menu, the food causes certain "greenhouse gasses" to build up inside me. I'm guessing, using your logic (if you want to CALL it that), you wouldn't find it offensive if I blew my gas your direction?
I find it terrifically unacceptable that you maintain that either I let a certain segment of the population do whatever they wish with the byproduct of their nasty and dangerous habit, or just don't go out. I find that a very insensitive, illegitimate, illogical, and ignorant thought process, my poor, dillusional friend.....
LOD's OBVIOUS credo:
"As long as I'm free to do whatever I wish, I don't care if the freedom and liberty of others is eliminated."
November 25, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
pops, you are travelling down the road of incivility yourself. look at the language you reduce yourself to using in your frantic need to "win" this discussion.
the owner of an establishment most certainly can refuse service to anyone except on the basis of certain parameters.
i don't smoke. i choose not to go to some places here in town, even though i really like the venues. that is my decision. there are any number of places you can choose to go to and avoid contamination.
urinating on someone in public is against the law. farting is not.
as to the florida judgement. typical of florida juries, and it will be thrown out or decreased. the smoker is 61 years old, and is certainly of the generation who with a certainty knew that smoking is lethal. she chose to smoke, and the judgement is outrageous.
November 25, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Sorry, heritage....don't care if you approve of my "language" or not. I CERTAINLY don't care if LOD approves. I'm ALSO not attempting to "win" an argument....I'm attempting to make a point with an individual who is unconcerned about the feelings of others, and more concerned about his personal freedom.
If you don't like what I write, don't frequent the posts. That's LOD's version of "freedom". I'd suggest you take his advice.
November 25, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
you make absolutely NO headway with your attempt to "support" your argument by saying that non-smokers should demonstrate their displeasure by boycotting. don't you see that you have that option now? do you not grasp the fact that IF there was such a groundswell of anti smoking brigands who were willing to boycott ( choose ) then market forces would eliminate those establishments which currently allow smoking?
you just are not making any sense ( and you are also starting to sound like her, too).
November 25, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
IF it is determined that second hand smoke is hazardous, don't you think there ought to be some sort of regulatory rules regarding such in public?
BTW-Peeing on someone might be overlooked if they were stung by a jellyfish. LOL.
November 25, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
heritage, you miss the point completely. What I've been TRYING to get across to some of you is that IF non-smokers WERE to exercise the right to boycott, and drive people out of business who refuse to restrict smoking, the smokers would have a FIT! Don't you see....this is a no-win situation.
Bottom line....MOST smokers are inconsiderate, selfish, stinky, boorish clods. Sure, there are exceptions, but ANY smoker who feels they have a "right" to light up indoors, next to non-smokers fit my vivid description above.
Any smoker who IS considerate and thoughtful....my apologies, and my hat's off to you for being the exception to the rule.
November 25, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
pops. all non-smokers already have the ability to "boycott" by not going to smoking establishments. why don't you follow that plan? the next time you are bothered by smoke in a business simply tell the management that you will not return until it is smokeless. tell all your friends to do the same.
smokers would not have a "fit" if any establishment chose to go non-smoking because they were unable to sustain themselves economically as a smoking establishment. i personally would not want to see government regulation of a private enterprise for or against the usage of a legal substance.
you want to inflict your own personal preference through government regulation on private enterprise. that is the point, and i am not missing it. we disagree.
November 26, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
Pops, and I mean this with the utmost sincerity, boycott to your hearts content!
I would have MUCH more respect if you chose to excersise your right to protest and peaceful demonstration. Instead, you are opting for government to solve YOUR problem.
When will you learn that the government is not now, and never has been your friend.
I can't believe that you seriously think I would throw a fit for you to excersise your Constitutional rights.
What the heck does my username imply to you?
The same government that you think does nothing but help you subsidizes the hated tobacco companies, you do know that, right? These same people take HUGE payments in the form of lobbies to legislate in favor OF tobacco companies. Do you not understand this?
Please, go out and be an American. Tell people how you feel and see if you can get them to understand. Petition business owners for what you're looking for.
I find it more than humorous that you throw your hands in the air when presented with a real possibility: organizing a grassroots boycott. You can't be bothered because you'd prefer the government do it for you.
If you can't be bothered to take a stand why in the world should I believe you have any emotion behind this at all? Why in the world shouldn't I believe that you are either a communist or an agent provocateur?
I also find it humorous that you personally attack me for what you THINK I am, yet I approach you on only what you say. I have not one single time in this entire conversation thrown a generalization towards you or anyone expressing similar views yet you and the rest draw your own conclusions and launch attacks based off of poor generalizations.
If you can't stick to the facts and what I've said then it would appear your argument is null without them. If your points are useless without interjecting your own perceived notions of me then what point have you really made?
November 26, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I AM exercising my consititutional right by demanding redress from my government...i.e. asking for ordnances making a dangerous and disgusting practice/habit illegal in public places. That, sir, is my constitutional right.....boycotting a business is in no way a guaranteed right in any of our national documents.
This whole stupid discussion is pointless in that we're talking about people who have zero consideration for the welfare of others....or they wouldn't SMOKE AROUND THEM! Additionally, we're talking about people who think nothing of tossing their nasty, smoking litter onto the ground. I will admit...legislating a conscience is, perhaps, an impossibility. I can't even believe we're having this conversation. It's the SMOKERS who are careless, thoughtless, inconsiderate and unfeeling....NOT the non-smokers. Yet, who is it being castigated????
LOD, I think I was a bit harsh with some of my remarks to you, and for that, I apologize. I am VERY passionate about this situation....I have several friends who are dealing with lung cancer right this second, and a direct result of smoking. The habit disgusts me, and it angers me to think there are people who absolutely will not think of the safety and health of others when they light up. After all, if they do it in public, its no longer a habit that only affects THEM.
November 26, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hehateme says...
The only place people should be allowed to smoke is in their own house as long as there are no occupants under the age of 18. They should also have to pay more for health care because of the future complications that practically every smoker has.
It is horrible to see a pregnant woman smoking or a parent holding a infant in one hand and smoking in the other...just plain trash, and this city is full of it. It would be no different than if I had Aids or HIV and slit my wrists then went into the mall and sprayed everyone with my blood...I bet smokers would have a problem with that!
November 26, 2009 at 7:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
monk_ironman says...
It is horrible to see a pregnant woman smoking or a parent holding a infant in one hand and smoking in the other...just plain trash, and this city is full of it. It would be no different than if I had Aids or HIV and slit my wrists then went into the mall and sprayed everyone with my blood...I bet smokers would have a problem with that!
LOL thats f*&kin classy
November 26, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ddmk001 says...
keep it up....keep demonizing the smokers.
I am going to laugh it up when it's your turn.
November 27, 2009 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_O says...
I am a non smoker but consider THIS,, when you hard core non-smokers succeed in getting EVERY ONE to quit smoking, be prepared to Open up your Wallet.
Smokers pay Billions, with a B, of dollars in taxes per year, now after you get everyone to quit, Where do you think THAT money will come from ? You don't seriously think that the Government will just FORGET about it Do You ? Heck NO, it will be passed, in one form or Another, Right on down to YOU and ME ! So every time you smell a little Cigarette Smoke, just Think of the MONEY $$$$ You are Saving !!!!
November 30, 2009 at 5:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rthirty2 says...
19 states have indoor smoking bans. A total statewide ban hurts NO business because they all have to comply. The argument about the government "telling" you what you can or cannot do is no different that having to belt up every time you get behind the wheel of your car.
November 30, 2009 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Rthirty2,
While I agree with your post....for the most part....I would point out that if you violate the seatbelt ordnance, you're only hurting yourself, in case of an accident. To violate a no-smoking ordnance, you're hurting everyone around you.
November 30, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )