/dev/null Posted December 17, 2005 Posted December 17, 2005 http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051215-112826-9119r.htm
Mickey Posted December 17, 2005 Posted December 17, 2005 I would say that this is ridiculous but that would be an insult to ridiculosity. I think Bill in NYC put it best when he said that when we have jailed the last terrorist, murderer and rapist, then maybe we can spare some resources to round up those who smoke in inappropriate places.
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted December 17, 2005 Posted December 17, 2005 Freedom is another word for nothing left to lose.... Not for even a millisecond, did I imagine I would ever live to actually see the demise of so many freedoms here in the land of the free and home of the brave. It is with horror and a heavy heart that I tell you that this threat comes from within; from the very ones we thought were our protectors; the very men and women held in esteem and regard; learned men and women; men and women we, the American public voted into office.
Bill from NYC Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 I would say that this is ridiculous but that would be an insult to ridiculosity. I think Bill in NYC put it best when he said that when we have jailed the last terrorist, murderer and rapist, then maybe we can spare some resources to round up those who smoke in inappropriate places. 534790[/snapback] Thanks Mick, and Mr. Cheeseburger! I am going to spare you guys another rant, whereas there is nothing left for me to add on this topic. What I WILL say is that those who support this type of insanity, as well as the stripping of away of the rights of private property owners will some day see your own chickens come home to roost as the rug is swept away from the freedoms that you now enjoy. Idiocy like this, smoking in bars, and steroids in baseball are simply smoke screens (pun intended) brought to you by empty and corrupt politicians. They are nothing more than a diversion from things that do matter, like taking homes from citizens to open shopping malls, terrorism, violent crime, etc. I rarely post here these days because I have all but given up. My views on this stuff remain, but my stength to "fight the fight" is waning, because there is little sanity in sight, nor any on the horizon. I hope that the next generation is not as easily misled nor as self absorbed.
Adam Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 I hate smoking- and I'm violently allergic to it (coughed up blood once), so I guess my opinion can be taken with a grain of salt....KEEP IT THE HECK AWAY FROM ME!
Berg Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051215-112826-9119r.htm 534700[/snapback] Good. Maybe smokers will eventually get the hint that their individual rights do not extend to people around them, especially kids. And by the way, I'm a recovering (smokeless) tobacco user - 17 years.
Alexander Hamilton Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051215-112826-9119r.htm 534700[/snapback] The article is a little vague, but the way I read it, it sounds like this is a condition being put on foster parents. Foster parents are supposed to meet a lot of requirements in order that a court consider them adequate role models and caregivers for children. It actually doesn't strike me as unreasonable that a court require foster parents be non-smokers. Now, the language of the article is confusing on other points, because it also says that some parents (with "foster left out on purpose or just as a matter of sloppy writing) are forbidden from smoking around their kids. It wasn't clear whether this was something the parents agreed to as a condition of their visitation. For example, if my wife smoked and we divorced, I might place a condition for visitation that she be forbidden to smoke around my daughter. If she agreed to that condition, it's a contract between us, not government intrusion into the issue.
Ned Flanders Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 Mrs. Silvius, a waitress at a truck stop (shocking) in Doswell, Va: "My children know not to come around when I'm on the front porch with my morning coffee, tending to my cows...because I'm having a cigarette," she said.
Ghost of BiB Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 Well, in the spirit of things I just went out and blew some cigar smoke into a baby carriage. Have to do my part for freedoms and rights.
X. Benedict Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 Well, in the spirit of things I just went out and blew some cigar smoke into a baby carriage. Have to do my part for freedoms and rights. 540950[/snapback]
stuckincincy Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 The third highest revenue source for the State of Ohio is cigarette taxation. Stop beliving this myth of cigarettes "costing" society. Smokers tend to die young. They go fast - no long, dragged out costly convalesence. They tend not to cash in their pensions; they don't get that social security $$$. Lucky you. Forget those two garbage "side-smoke" studies that failed statistical validity but crowed about by the previous administration. You who hate smokers, and are bent on restricting and punishing folks using a legal product, should get up some b*lls and endeavor to make it illegal. And don't cry when you fork over a thousand or so to make up budget shortfalls in your State, that jack being currently forked over by smokers. Enjoy your smoke-free McDonalds while you slam down double cheeseburgers or enjoy other venues with fat-laden wings or whatever. And open up your wallet, pals. Go ahead and push your representives to make them illegal. I dare ya...
meazza Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051215-112826-9119r.htm 534700[/snapback] I hate cigarettes with a passion as it has been the result of the loss of a family member, but this is just too much.
meazza Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 The third highest revenue source for the State of Ohio is cigarette taxation. Stop beliving this myth of cigarettes "costing" society. Smokers tend to die young. They go fast - no long, dragged out costly convalesence. They tend not to cash in their pensions; they don't get that social security $$$. Lucky you. 541056[/snapback] They do in the sence that the medical cares are expensive. Cigarettes in Canada are taxed at close to 50% and that goes directly to covering the medical costs for smokers who are in the hospital or the medication.
stuckincincy Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 They do in the sence that the medical cares are expensive. Cigarettes in Canada are taxed at close to 50% and that goes directly to covering the medical costs for smokers who are in the hospital or the medication. 541074[/snapback] Cigs kill. You and I know that. But the bottom line is that non-smokers and governments reap monetary advantage, and their protest is hollow. Like I say...make 'em illegal. But neither of the "anti" crowd - goverrnment or citizen, pushes for that..money in their sanctimonious pockets trumps health. The anti-smoking crowd are whiners in my view until the day they match their mouths with deeds.
meazza Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 Cigs kill. You and I know that. But the bottom line is that non-smokers and governments reap monetary advantage, and their protest is hollow. Like I say...make 'em illegal. But neither of the "anti" crowd - goverrnment or citizen, pushes for that..money in their sanctimonious pockets trumps health. The anti-smoking crowd are whiners in my view until the day they match their mouths with deeds. 541085[/snapback] what i'm trying to say is, the costs of the health expenses to smokers during the age of 50 when smoking really begins to take its effects is paid by the taxpayer. This is evident here in Canada as a result of free health care. When a smoker has a smoking related illness, the taxpayer has to pay the bill for the medical expenses. In the US, i'm not too familiar with the health plans but i'm guessing it's similar to insurance coverage. Therefore, the more insured members that smoke who get sick and need to go to the hospital, the higher the other insured members have to pay of premiums. Therefore it is a big cost to society. The Canadian government uses high taxes to cover these costs by taxing the smoker in tremendous amounts. I personally am a non-smoker (although I do smoke marijuanna) and I can't go anywhere without being surrounded by second hand smoke. It doesn't bother me that much but I can understand some people's point of view.
KD in CA Posted December 23, 2005 Posted December 23, 2005 This is evident here in Canada as a result of free health care. Free health care? You don't pay taxes up there?
meazza Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Free health care? You don't pay taxes up there? 541097[/snapback] shh don't tell anyone
Berg Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Cigs kill. You and I know that. But the bottom line is that non-smokers and governments reap monetary advantage, and their protest is hollow. Like I say...make 'em illegal. But neither of the "anti" crowd - goverrnment or citizen, pushes for that..money in their sanctimonious pockets trumps health. The anti-smoking crowd are whiners in my view until the day they match their mouths with deeds. 541085[/snapback] I am against any of the so-called "sin" taxes - in fact I'm against lots of taxes, but I digress. My problem with smokers is strictly that I don't personally like to smell it, have my eyes water, or have my clothes and hair smell like it. Anyone can smoke anything they want, just do it in a way that doesn't infringe on my clean air and clothes. I don't think that's much to ask, but apparently many smokers think it is. Again, as a tobacco addict myself, I understand how hard it is but I went to great lengths to keep my use strictly personal.
Recommended Posts