Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Smoking bans gain momentum in KC area

January 1, 2008

Advertisement

— Kansas City may soon join the growing list of cities in the area, including Lawrence, banning smoking in bars and restaurants.

Election officials said Monday that backers of a smoking ban have collected enough signatures to place the issue on the ballot. Of the more than 6,000 signatures submitted, 4,568 were deemed valid - about 300 more than needed.

The city council has 60 days to decide whether to enact the no-smoking provisions or let voters decide.

The proposed ban would not apply to the casino gaming floors in Kansas City. But it would snuff out smoking in bars and restaurants in the casinos as well as elsewhere in the city.

Kansas City's existing smoking ban won't include bars and restaurants until 85 percent of metropolitan-area residents live in smoke-free cities. That threshold has not been met, even though four more suburbs are preparing to ban smoking.

New smoking bans will take effect Wednesday in the Kansas cities of Overland Park, Lenexa, Leawood and Shawnee, affecting more than 500 restaurants. Add that number to smokeless eateries affected by Olathe's existing anti-smoking law and non-smoking restaurants in Johnson County total around 700.

Comments

RonaldWilson 6 years, 11 months ago

Milvovan Djilas, the late Yugoslavian author said, "There is in each of us a Communist spirit," he writes, "hunger for fair dealing and social equality." But the world, he concluded, is simply not fair, and perfection, although it must be strived for, cannot be imposed upon humanity.

Dixie Jones 6 years, 11 months ago

thank god for smokeless establishments.... what a blessing

Newell_Post 6 years, 11 months ago

It should only be legal to smoke in a restaurant if you are on fire.

Bitterfalls 6 years, 11 months ago

Is smoking allowed in skating rinks?

You know that kids need a place to go smoke.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

gl0ck0wnr (Anonymous) says:

Yet another example of people unable to make choices like adults and thus force others to conform to their standards of behavior. If you don't like restaurants with smoking, eat elsewhere. If there really is a large enough economic demand for no smoking establishments, owners will realize this and switch over. Nah: much easier to have government intrude.

My choice as an adult is not to smoke. Period. If your choice as an adult is to smoke--fine. But sorry buddy, since your choice directly impacts me (health, smell, etc.) you're the one who is obligated to find places that will accept your choice. Not me. My choice not to smoke doesn't bother anyone else. Yours does. I always find the "it's my right to smoke whenever and wherever I want" argument hilarious. Okay. Well, it's the same as me saying--'I like to play the trumpet. I think I will take my trumpet with me wherever I go. If other people are annoyed by the noise, they can find somewhere else to go It's my right to do it.' Problem being, people have a right to eat in peace as much as they do a right to breathe clean air.

RonaldWilson 6 years, 11 months ago

What about the rights of the guy who owns the property? He pays the damned mortgage. He insures the place. He probably risked great personal financial strife to open up some little club or restaurant and he can't even light up a Camel in it. When are our houses next? When will they tell you that you can't BBQ on your deck? (Too late.) When are they going to tell you you can't drive the kind of car you want? (Almost too late.) The government should keep its damn hands off the private property of its citizens. If you want a smoke free restaurant, go into debt and open one up. I don't go to a dance club and bitch about the loud music. If I don't like loud music, I go to a library. This issue is proof positive of the nanny state and entitlement mentality overtaking our culture.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says:

What about the rights of the guy who owns the property? He pays the damned mortgage. He insures the place. He probably risked great personal financial strife to open up some little club or restaurant and he can't even light up a Camel in it.

A little foresight might have come in handy. I mean really, is this a surprise? We've been headed this way for a long while now.

indythinker 6 years, 11 months ago

ronald-

by the arguement you pose: if i wanted, i could build a nuclear power plant. then when the spent uranium rods need disposed of, i could just bury them in the ground on my property. after all...it is MY property to use as i wish. i'm not really concerned about health and welfare of anyone else around me and you wouldn't have to buy my electricity if you didn't want to.

i think i'll start soliciting for investors....

tell_it_like_it_is 6 years, 11 months ago

Just more nosy goodie two shoes getting the government to control everything to their liking. Thats all it is. Same way with all the beautification laws telling ever body else how their lawn and house needs to look. I bet our forefathers are rolling in their graves....

imastinker 6 years, 11 months ago

I think it should be up to the store owner. As a non smoker, I can honestly say that I do not go to establishments that allow much smoking. I hate smelling like it. However, I am not at all damaged if I do not walk in there. I just don't feel that it's right to use the government to force business owners to do this.

I travel a lot and eat out frequently when I travel. I don't smoke and can be somewhat sensitive to cigarette smoke. That doesn't make it right though. We don't allow smoking at work, and any business that cares about your health can make that decision as well.

RonaldWilson 6 years, 11 months ago

indythinker (Anonymous) says:

ronald-

by the arguement you pose: if i wanted, i could build a nuclear power plant. then when the spent uranium rods need disposed of, i could just bury them in the ground on my property. after all:it is MY property to use as i wish. i'm not really concerned about health and welfare of anyone else around me and you wouldn't have to buy my electricity if you didn't want to.

i think i'll start soliciting for investors:.


You cannot build a nuke plant because the eco-nut lefties have already scared everyone in to believeing nuclear power is dangerous. Besides that, we're talking about cigarettes, not spent nuclear fuel. That comparison is really idiotic. No one has ever died due to secondhand smoke that didn't already have some other major contributing factor. No healthy indivdual is going to drop dead from inhaling a little ambient smoke. This issue is really about preference, as others have admitted. What's it like to go through life expecting everyone else in the world to make you happy and/or comfortable? There are so many offensive things I experience in public and smoking rates pretty low on the list. Why not ban other offensive things. I don't like the color pink. It offends me. I want the government to ban it in public. I want pink free zones. How about we ban the ugly? They are really offensive. Sometimes I can't even eat my meal when there's some big, fat, ugly person around. I demand ugly free zones.

oldgranny 6 years, 11 months ago

Personally I find whiney non-smokers offensive can we please ban them?

doc1 6 years, 11 months ago

I can't wait. Now I can eat at a resteraunt other thank Lawrence. Stupid smokers. I'm so sick of my health insurance raising becuase of you retards.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

snap writes:

Going

right

to

name

calling

,

marion

?

BTW

,

still having a wonderful internet life.

yankeelady 6 years, 11 months ago

I'd prefer the nuclear plant to smoking---and if something goes wrong with the plant at least it would be over quickly. I've seen long time smokers at the end of their lives. Not the way I'd want to go.

Bitterfalls 6 years, 11 months ago

If non smoking establishments were profitable then they would exist on their own. Non smokers just do not go to bars in the numbers to make them a worthwhile customer base.

Perhaps resteraunts and bars should be treated differently when it comes to these issues?

Business owners should be given other options such as installing air filteration systems or segregated areas. And non smokers can be given the options of staying home, or opening up their own non-smoking bars.

Smokers pay far more in taxes then other people. The taxes way more then pay for any health costs. I'd like to meet any smokers that have gotten a free lung transplant, or oxegen supply on the tax payers dime. Also, smokers die off earlier, thus not requiring benefits and welfare as long.

imastinker 6 years, 11 months ago

"Also, smokers die off earlier, thus not requiring benefits and welfare as long."

Somebody here is actually thinking. I am not being sarcastic.

weatherguy48 6 years, 11 months ago

As a smoker, I'll reply.

I smoke respectfully. I do not smoke in public (such as the wally-world parking lot), and I rarely throw my butts out of the car window.

I try to keep it to myself....and I do not take offense to any posts above, they are all quite true. Second hand smoke DOES maim non-smokers, and yes, we will likely die before the rest.

Addiction not-withstanding, it is simply a lifestyle we choose. Yes, people tend to be brash about it, but smokers such as myself are trying to respect the non-smoking world.

I choose to smoke, but I do not choose to hurt others for my own delight.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

snap writes:

Smoking appears to lead to unfortunate choices in eye-wear and posting temper tantrums on the internet.

peppermint 6 years, 11 months ago

Marion Lynn

Marion (Marion Lynn) says: The Sheeple require repressive laws to control their behaviour as they lack the personal responsibility to control it themselves.

Are you saying that you have personal responsibility and would control your own behavior so as not to inflict negative consequences of your behavior on others? That means you would refrain from smoking in public.

If so, and if all smokers are like you, then smoking bans are not needed.

hawklet21 6 years, 11 months ago

It should be up to the business owner. It does not make sense to me any other way.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Give me a list of all the specifically "non-smoking" joints in the area, and I will patronize the hell out of them. Oh wait.....

Perhaps it's not that they aren't "profitable" but that there just aren't any. Quite frankly, this argument just doesn't work. I patronize "smoking" businesses because if I want a nice meal, or a beer (in KC), I don't have a choice. Trust me on this one. Smokers will come out when a smoking ban is in effect just as non-smokers do now.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Marion writes:

Where in the constitution is it written that you are guarranteed a "choice" based on your own preferences in your places to patronise?

No where. As a smoker though, you have the same issue surrounding this line of reasoning.

RonaldWilson 6 years, 11 months ago

All of these arguments are interesting, but totally off point. It's about private property rights plain and simple. Our government, our people no longer value the rights of private property. The antismoking crowd gets their way now, and there is no stopping the confiscation of more of your rights. Those of you that are all for this ban have been duped into handing over a small piece of your God-given rights. The right to be secure in your own property, to have say-so over it, is melting faster than the polar ice caps (to use a reference the left understands). It doesn't seem like much to the average Joe Citizen, but if you own a business this kind of law gives you shivers. What's next? What will they tell me is for my own good and the good of my fellow man next? To paraphrase a great man, those who sacrifice their liberty for their safety will have neither.

RonaldWilson 6 years, 11 months ago

BTW, my business is already a non-smoking environment. By my choice. I let employees smoke at first, but others complained, so I changed the policy. I did it without government interference. But, I'll be damned if I would give that choice over to a bureaucrat to decide for me. In protest to anti-smoking laws, I think I will recind my no smoking policy in our offices, seriously. Someone needs to fight for our freedoms...

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

DirtyLinen (Anonymous) says:

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says:

"Give me a list of all the specifically "non-smoking" joints in the area, and I will patronize the hell out of them. Oh wait:..

"Perhaps it's not that they aren't "profitable" but that there just aren't any. Quite frankly, this argument just doesn't work. I patronize "smoking" businesses because if I want a nice meal, or a beer (in KC), I don't have a choice. Trust me on this one. Smokers will come out when a smoking ban is in effect just as non-smokers do now."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So your complaint is: You don't have a choice.

Your solution is: Take away someone else's choice.

Brilliant.

No. Try reading without an agenda. You, the smoker, will ALWAYS have a choice. It's called a smoke break.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

You have the same choice. If you don't want to go in a restaurant with smokers, don't. Yes, smokers can go outside for a break. So can non-smokers. My first wife, who was allergic to smoke, did it all the time.

That actually is not the same choice. My choice comes down to "go or don't go" whereas the smokers choices become "go or don't go", "smoke or don't smoke." The difference being, the smoker can always go and take a smoke break, but my only option is don't go? It's a weak argument you're making. Non smokers don't go out for a "clean air" break. That's the most ridiculous claim I have read on here all day. I don't mind the government stepping in on this one, true. Ever asked people not to blow smoke in your face? They get as pissy as some people on this forum.....

BigAl 6 years, 11 months ago

RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says: All of these arguments are interesting, but totally off point. It's about private property rights plain and simple. Our government, our people no longer value the rights of private property. The antismoking crowd gets their way now, and there is no stopping the confiscation of more of your rights. Those of you that are all for this ban have been duped into handing over a small piece of your God-given rights. The right to be secure in your own property, to have say-so over it, is melting faster than the polar ice caps (to use a reference the left understands). It doesn't seem like much to the average Joe Citizen, but if you own a business this kind of law gives you shivers. What's next? What will they tell me is for my own good and the good of my fellow man next? To paraphrase a great man, those who sacrifice their liberty for their safety will have neither.


This is pretty much what I said when the Patriot Act came about but all of you right wingers went balistic on me.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Hodgepodge's complaint was that there is no "choice" of non-smoking restaurants, not having no choice about being a non-smoker. Please try to keep up.


Well, actually my argument was that if I want to eat out in KC or go out in KC I have "no choice" BUT to go to a smoking establishment.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

In other words, it's just a matter of you want yours even if it means taking away from someone else.


Nope. Not the case. We will just have to agree to disagree because you clearly can't understand my point of view. Which is the smoker never loses his or her right to smoke in this scenario. Never. So what is being taken away from someone?

RonaldWilson 6 years, 11 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

RW says: "BTW, my business is already a non-smoking environment. By my choice."

Ron, by your choice do you provide health insurance to your employees, or do I pick up the tab via cost shifts and the ER room?


After 90 days they're covered, 100%.

Meatwad 6 years, 11 months ago

Smoking bans are great... but whomever decided that these cities should go into effect in January is an idiot. They really needed to pick April or later for the start date. But oh well!!

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

snap writes:

becareful

about

ad hominem

attacks

,

girlfriend

.

BTW

,

still having a wonderful internet life.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

Sorry DirtyLinen, I get you "the government has no right to restrict anything" types confused with each other. RonaldWilson was in fact the one that mentioned property rights.

However, I don't think using "free market" as your rallying cry is all that different from using "property rights". Both arguments are predicated on the notion that the government has no fundamental right to regulate a business owner's enterprise. That notion is blatantly false.

"Right now, non-smoking restaurants are not banned, they simply aren't economically viable, because as usual, the people who complain about it wouldn't dream of actually forcing the issue by refusing to patronize an establishment until they go non-smoking, or supporting an establishment that does. They are no different than the people who complain about the price of gas while they're filling up the SUV to tow the boat down to the lake."

-

The key difference being that people who complain about the price of gas have the choice to buy a car or non-gas-guzzling vehicle.

If you want to make that analogy more accurate, you must assume that the only available vehicles for purchase are SUVs. You must also assume that the only way for the conservationists to make their voice heard is to abstain from buying a vehicle until the market finally fixes itself and begins offering a fuel-efficient car.

Does that really sound reasonable to you?

Careful trying to use reason and logic to engage in meaningful discourse. Some people are not interested in it. They only want to win their argument, so they fail to listen or consider your point of view, but instead just continue to make the same weak argument again and again and again until you get tired of trying to explain your position.

peppermint 6 years, 11 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says: And still:::::::::..no anwer as to why smoking inside a tobacco store is OK.

Isn't this perfectly obvious? Duh!

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

" Hey, Daddy, I want an Oompa Loompa. I want you to get me an Oompa Loompa right away! I want an Oompa Loompa now!"

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

Detailing

marion's

problems

would

take

the

rest

of

the

day

.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

Well, snap, you may not like me but at least my community site does not maintain hundreds, if not thousands of open and direct links to adult porn sites, kiddie porn sites, illegal gamblling sites and sites which hawk illegal prescripotion drugs as the does other site on which you are fond of posting.

Check the "Memberlist" of that site, which ostensibly has as its purpose "community" and the best intersts of Lawrence, Kansas in mind.

Click on a few of the "www"s in the member profiles and then tell me how those direct links benefit the community.

Have a productive day.

I fail to see how this comment connects to the discussion........

Sigmund 6 years, 11 months ago

"Europe started 2008 with a raft of new laws against smoking, air pollution and even junk food adverts, but some grumbled that the New Year's resolutions from the "nanny state" cramped their style."

And it appears that socialists, conservatives, and even doctors are all not pleased by the loss of their personal freedom.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080103055145.2hj5ecot&show_article=1

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

Erin, (or hodgepodge if you prefer)

In fairness to Marion, neither did snap's comment:

True. :) And Erin is fine.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

snap writes:

I took "Does Marion have a problem smoking with the Lebanese?" as my cue.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

snap writes:

your

six-month

banishment

from

larryville

(that seems to be permanent now)

really

galls

you

,

doesn't

it?

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

snap writes:

Van

Pokol

jvÅ

,

barátnÅ?

ModSquadGal 6 years, 11 months ago

It's really just NOT that difficult to understand. The air we all breathe does NOT know how to keep smoke in one area or another. The people who CHOOSE to smoke are making that shared air unbreathable for others. Therefore, THEY are the ones who need to make the sacrifice of not smoking in enclosed places where we ALL share the air.

I love this idea that non-smokers have the CHOICE not to go to certain places because smokers want to be able to smoke and infringe on non-smoker's rights. It's like saying that if you are a non-drinker, you have the CHOICE of never leaving your home so you don't get hit by a drunk driver. It's not realistic and it's a childish argument.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ModSquadGal:

Why would you want to go to a place where smoking is allowed?

Missing the point. Gee, Marion, why would you ever want to go to a place where smoking is not allowed?

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Marion: You spew an awful lot of crap you know it? Ironic that you accuse me of throwing up red herrings. Your whole argument is a red herring.

I think ModSquadGal summed it up best. Your nasty habit infringes on my desire for clean and unpolluted air. My desire for clean air doesn't pollute you. But if you are really so dense that you need to cling to the "why would you want to go anywhere that allows smoking??" argument, allow me to answer: because I want to play with my niece in a park, because I want a nice meal, because I would like to get a beer with friends after the game, because I would like to attend a concert, because I would like to walk outside from building to building, because I would like play poker......for any number of reasons.

There. Your question has been answered. Are you satisfied.

You didn't really answer mine.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

Hodge Podge, I take it then that your preceeding post is your manifesto on the matter; indicating that you want the world to be YOUR sandbox, run by your rules; your rules to carry the force of law if you can impose them.

I sort of thought that's what you had in mind.

You find yourself incapable of resisting a "good meal" in a place which allows smoking but you don't want the smoke so the business must change its plan to accomodate you.

Got it.

Actually, nope. But I am tired of trying to explain things to you. You have a position, and an agenda, and as a smoker, I am certainly not going to convince you of anything. You're dug in. You asked me why I would WANT to go somewhere that allows smoking, and I answered. Sorry if the answer is "unsatisfactory" for you, but quite frankly, I couldn't care less. If the world were run by my rules, it would be a much better place, ;), but I digress.

I have read enough of your posts to know you feel the same way. In fact, your unwillingness to hear the other side of this issue is further evidence of that.

So now, are you going to answer my question?? Why would you ever WANT to go to a non-smoking place?

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Marion: are you really so dense that you don't see your answer is EXACTLY the same as mine?? Your question is repetitive, tiresome, and has already been answered. Moving on........

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Yes, to force the issue, to force restaurants to voluntarily become non-smoking, you would have to stop patronizing the smoking places. So what? If it's not important enough for you to be inconvenienced in order to get what you want, then stop whining.

Ha ha ha ha ha!! I'm sorry. That was hilarious. Who's whining exactly??

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

A little bird told snap about:

http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/browse_thread/thread/5cbeb1d9f648a488

Money quote is "...He has his drawers in a bunch because he was booted from the Larryville sight along with his cohort Kathy Gragg. He wants back on so he can defame more innocent people. He is also angry that he can't make any money spamming as he has been outed too many times. Ignore him and maybe he will go away."

JJHawq 6 years, 11 months ago

I am a proponent of small government (libertarian), but I still support the ban (no, I'm not a smoker).

Your rights only go as far as they inflict on someone elses. Do you have a right to smoke? Yes. Do you have a right to smoke when it impacts others rights to enjoy their own reasonalble persuit of happiness? No.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says:

A little bird told snap about:

http://groups.google.com/group/news.admi:

Money quote is ":He has his drawers in a bunch because he was booted from the Larryville sight along with his cohort Kathy Gragg. He wants back on so he can defame more innocent people. He is also angry that he can't make any money spamming as he has been outed too many times. Ignore him and maybe he will go away."


The same Kathy Gragg that goes as "Enforcer" on here? Maybe that's why she was strange to me, because she's friends with Marion?

JJHawq 6 years, 11 months ago

I am curious - for those that think this is an example of "leftist" government interfering with the rights of smokers - how many of you also support the prohibition of marijuana?

I would love to be able to spark a joint on my back porch (instead of a beer/wine/scotch) without police harassing me. I can't - the government has deemed that unlawful.

I find it interesting that often the people who scream for "small government" on an issue like this only do so when it fits their particular agenda. Change the issue - and the name calling changes from "liberal" to "hippie".

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

JJHawq 6 years, 11 months ago

I like that this is a local (not national) issue - because the voters will get to decide the issue to some extent.

The great thing about our system of government - If you don't like what the majority of the people want - then you have the right to move to a city or state where more people agree with you.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

"The same Kathy Gragg that goes as "Enforcer" on here? Maybe that's why she was strange to me, because she's friends with Marion?" One & the same.

ModSquadGal 6 years, 11 months ago

Marion:

Why wouldn't you go into a place where people run around poking you with dirty needles? Because you don't wanna get poked with dirty needles.

Why do non-smokers have to make the choice when it's smokers who are mucking up the MUTUALLY shared air in an establishment?

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Dirty: Did I name call you? No, I didn't. I'm sorry that you are so self absorbed and intent on proving yourself right (or correct) that you feel the need to hurl insults and continue on your meaningless diatribes. I guess you have really proved your point. I'm sure to listen to you now.

HodgePodge is a nickname because my maiden name was Hodges, if you must know. As far as the rest of your insults, responding to your childish drivel is beneath me. Go ahead and continue to prove me right by continued whining and bitching. And while you're at it, have a nice day!

ModSquadGal 6 years, 11 months ago

The difference here that everyone is missing is that SMOKE is a very different thing from anything you've mentioned. Smoke or not smoke is not why I'm going into these establishments. If I don't like black and white movies, then I won't go into a black and white movie theater. But if I DO like black and white movies, I don't want to go in there AND GET LUNG CANCER FROM ALL THE SMOKE. One thing has nothing to do with the other. We all have to eat, etc. The "inconvenience" should be for the people who are imposing THEIR bad choice on others.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

ModSquadGal (Anonymous) says:

The difference here that everyone is missing is that SMOKE is a very different thing from anything you've mentioned. Smoke or not smoke is not why I'm going into these establishments. If I don't like black and white movies, then I won't go into a black and white movie theater. But if I DO like black and white movies, I don't want to go in there and get lung cancer from all the smoke. One thing has nothing to do with the other. We all have to eat, etc. The "inconvenience" should be for the people who are imposing THEIR bad choice on others.

I completely agree with you. The problem is that the smokers want to smoke. Period. At any expense. They don't care about their own health so why on earth would they care about ours. I find it extremely ironic that they somehow try to twist this discussion into making the non-smokers seem selfish, when their choice is the most selfish one of all......

Veritas 6 years, 11 months ago

I like this idea because I'd really enjoy being able to go out with my boyfriend to a concert/restaurant without him freaking out about forgetting his inhaler in case of an asthma attack. I'm still irritated that after going out for less than an hour on new year's, my nice winter coat smells like a dirty ashtray (which is a totally different smell than just smelling like you had one cigarette.) I'm also embarrassed that every morning that I wear that coat to work, instead of smelling like I did post-shower in the morning...I smell worse than my chainsmoking coworker.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving ours. Again.

Veritas 6 years, 11 months ago

Will someone clear this up for me? Are we arguing that a specific group of people have the right to harm others? What makes them so special? How come some people can go to jail for harming others and others cannot? I'm confused.

ModSquadGal 6 years, 11 months ago

HodgePodge: Amen! Kill yourselves if you want (I've already lost my grandfather, my own mother, my mother AND father-in-law and just recently my sister-in-law to emphysema from smoking) just remember there are others out there you are affecting (directly and indirectly). Take friggin' responsibility for your own actions. It's just as simple as that.

Veritas: Same thing happened to us in Topeka when we went out for a meal with family there. I had a headache within minutes and had to fumigate my clothes (in the washer/dryer) after we got back. NOT my choice. And your point about one group deciding they have the RIGHT to harm others is dead on!

its_getting_warmer: I think we ought to just be allowed to wander around and spit on smoker's food in restaurants. I mean, that's our RIGHT, correct? If they don't like it, they don't have to patronize that establishment.

ModSquadGal 6 years, 11 months ago

DirtyLinen: I'm dense? Wow, you just know how to judge everybody so perfectly. How nice to be you!

Your CHOICE to smoke is in direct conflict with everybody's RIGHT to breathe clean air. Therefore, YOU need to be the party in the equasion that should give up the CONVENIENCE of giving everyone around you cancer... I mean, smoking. Non-smokers shouldn't be limited in their enjoyment of their own town just because those who smoke don't have the common courtesy (or intelligence) to understand that they are unfairly imposing their bad habit on others.

ModSquadGal 6 years, 11 months ago

And, DirtyLinen, smokers are the ones running around acting like victims. "I can't quit!!! It's addictive!!!" Then wear a friggin' gold fish bowl over your head. Why, if it is such a WONDERFUL habit and so ENJOYABLE, do smokers always look like they're trying to get away from their own smoke? Eyes squinted and face drawn up? And why do they open the windows in the car when they smoke? Even THEY are trying to get away from it!

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

And I get accused of writing manifesto's! Sheesh!

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

snap writes:

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.

fetch 6 years, 11 months ago

Oh dear. Marion and his notions of "property rights" and "control" .......

(Should someone buy Marion Lynn a constitutional history book, as well as a few World History volumes?)

Marion, if 51% of the people of (select a city here) decide to eliminate your right of smoking, how can you complain? Is not this the democracy we/you want? Please explain. Thanks.

ModSquadGal 6 years, 11 months ago

No Dirty Linen, it's YOU that doesn't get it. SMOKERS are the ones that think they are so special and privileged that they should be allowed to continue to impart their SELFISH choices on others. Yes, I expect that when I go out IN MY OWN TOWN or elsewhere, I should be able to do so without breathing in smoke from someone else's toxic bad habit. YES.

WHO is being intolerant here? Those of us who are just asking for what already exists to not be mucked up by smokers, or the smokers who INSIST they have the RIGHT and the NEED and the AUTHORITY to poison what is everybody's clean, smoke free environment?

I refuse to continue to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

snap writes:

still having a wonderful internet life

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

I love how Dirty Linen has no arguments at all so he just repeats hypotheticals ("suppose....") and then insults. Yes, truly the mark of an intellectual debater. When in doubt, call someone stupid. Always a winner. Heh.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

I like how you don't address the second part of my comment.

Again, insulting me certainly proves your point. Oh wait....... You must be really proud of yourself. I can only assume you a very insecure person-- running around on a message board calling everyone who disagrees with you stupid. Very very impressive.

I once read a brilliant and applicable quote: "Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience." I will take this advice and reserve comment.

Linda Endicott 6 years, 11 months ago

Exactly where on this planet can you go anymore, inside or outside, and find totally clean, unpolluted air?

When you find such a place, be sure to let all the air purists know.

I personally don't understand why everyone believes seconed-hand smoke is so dangerous, yet they are willing, every day, to put up with car exhaust, factory fumes, and other such things...

By the way, I'm allergic to most perfumes and colognes...so when are you going to stop dousing yourself with the whole bottle whenever you go to a restaurant?

Veritas 6 years, 11 months ago

I'm harassing you? I just asked a couple questions. Anyone can answer them for me, actually...I just assumed you might have the best ones for me. No worries. Guess I'll open it up to everyone else now.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

I love how some people always feel they have to get the last word....and keep proving me right. Must get tiring. Twarting their efforts is a real joy.

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Last word. Keep going Linen, this is fun.......

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

snap writes:

smoke,

smoke,

smoke

that

cigarette

,

girlfriend

.

Veritas 6 years, 11 months ago

Marion...I'm just curious...why do you make the decision not to smoke in your own home or around your dogs? Is it because you don't want smoke damage done to your own dwelling? Or are you renting and not allowed to do damage to someone else's dwelling? Do you care more about the health of your pets than fellow human beings? I have so many questions for you and I demand answers!

Veritas 6 years, 11 months ago

So basically, we are to treat smokers like they don't have a choice as to whether or not they smoke? In turn, we must avoid places where they go because they don't have the choice to be there and to be smoking, but the non-smokers do? Is smoking a handicap now? Were you born with a cigarette in hand, Marion? You just didn't have a choice, did you?

Veritas 6 years, 11 months ago

And I still don't think anyone has told me why smokers have the right to harm others, yet murderers and rapists don't??

Wacky!!

Veritas 6 years, 11 months ago

You get so aaaaaaaangry! Why did you not answer my questions!!?? Please come back.

Veritas 6 years, 11 months ago

Today I have learned that if Marion can't answer a question he just gets angry and defensive. It seems to me that most of you already know this. Please excuse me as I am newish to this place. Is this how we keep score? If so, +1 for me!

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 11 months ago

Veritas (Anonymous) says:

Today I have learned that if Marion can't answer a question he just gets angry and defensive. It seems to me that most of you already know this. Please excuse me as I am newish to this place. Is this how we keep score? If so, +1 for me!

That trait is not exclusive to Marion, see the rest of the thread. But anyway--good on ya! :)

Flap Doodle 6 years, 11 months ago

snap writes:

girlfriend

is

all

huffy

now

.

Veritas 6 years, 11 months ago

people that refer to themselves in the 3rd person freak me out. You should get that checked out.

Veritas 6 years, 11 months ago

You would be too if you had the freakin' cord wrapped around your neck three times. I was jump-ropin'!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.