I admit that people have the right to smoke, but they don't have the right to do it in a public place where they can affect other people's health. If someone wants to ruin their health, I say go for it, but they're not taking me down with them.
On Mar 12, 6:10 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Now that is just wrong and a lie. Most smokers are conscious of their > environment. If I am at a table in a restaurant smoking and you CHOOSE > to sit there instead of a different table (whether there is one or > not) or a different restaurant that is YOUR choice. You choose instaed > to impose your belief on me by outlawing my harmless vice. Again and > again and again, there IS NO PROOF that second hand smoke does ANY > harm. Your personal likes and dislikes are YOUR, NOT my, problem. > > Other side of the coin if I enter and see no ashtray at your table I > politely ask if you mind... if you do I either don't smoke or I change > my locale. > > It works. > > If I go into a bar with smokers it is my problem, not that of the > smokers. Same with anywhere else that permits smoking. > > The BIG problem with these laws is they do not allow establishments to > choose their status... smoking or not, it does infringe on my and the > establishments to choose.. > > On Mar 12, 2:48 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The difference between smoking and those other vices, is that when you > > choose to smoke, you also choose that I smoke is well. When you choose > > to harm your health, you also choose to harm my health, when you > > choose to stink like a dead carcass, you also choose that I stink like > > a dead carcass.... > > > On Mar 12, 3:45 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My 87 year old, three pack, a day father just died of "natural > > > causes'. His 97 year old Mother died of the same cause... 2+ packs a > > > day. They are not the exception. Your are or are not pre disposed to > > > cancer, it is that simple. > > > > as for the rest I agree with Keith entirely.... There is NO proven > > > link between cancer and second hand smoke and a LOT of money has been > > > spent and a lot of rats, pigs, dogs and cats have died trying to prove > > > it. > > > > On Mar 12, 1:22 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > By the way, my wife's non-smoking 90-year old great-grandmother is > > > > still with us. > > > > > On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > My wife just watched her 63-year old mother waste away and die of lung > > > > > cancer after smoking most of her adult life. I then went to the > > > > > funeral of a 47-year old smoking coworker who died of lung cancer. > > > > > Don't tell me that smoking is not harmful. > > > > > > On Mar 12, 1:56 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The tobacco companies were so profitable it is no wonder the > > > > > > government and insurance companies went after them. It might happen > > > > > > to > > > > > > liquor, as well// I am from a very healthy generation and all the > > > > > > parents smoked and so did we. The rise in autism and breast cancer > > > > > > can > > > > > > be traced to children abandoned to childcare by working mothers and > > > > > > the "pill".//You fail to address lung cancer in non-smokers- from > > > > > > various industries, sealed air in offices and homes, other > > > > > > exposures- > > > > > > or 90 year olds who continue to smoke. > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 12:23 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > from my local paper > > > > > > > > With regard to the recent letters about smoking bans at > > > > > > > restaurants > > > > > > > and other public accommodation venues, I would prefer to think of > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > not as an issue of freedom of economic choice for the restaurant > > > > > > > owner. I prefer to think of it as an issue of workplace health and > > > > > > > safety. > > > > > > > > As long as leading health experts not funded by tobacco companies > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > in agreement that smoking and second-hand smoke are indeed > > > > > > > injurious > > > > > > > to the health of those affected by both, it would behoove > > > > > > > government > > > > > > > to set the health and safety requirements for people who do not > > > > > > > smoke > > > > > > > but find themselves employed by these venues. > > > > > > > > The person working in such venues should not have to choose > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > keeping their job or their health. I, for one, would not want my > > > > > > > tax > > > > > > > dollars paying for the health care of a person who wished only to > > > > > > > work > > > > > > > for a living, but ends up contracting a smoking-related illness. > > > > > > > A ban > > > > > > > on smoking in public venues is not an intrusion on private > > > > > > > enterprise > > > > > > > as much as it’s minimal government interference in a personal > > > > > > > habit > > > > > > > that affects the health and pocketbooks of innocent citizens. > > > > > > > > Robert Munro, Angleton- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
