We were basically able to get grass easier than tobacco when I was 14, so the cigarettes never took firm hold of me. If I had a chance to smoke a joint and smoke a cigarette, I'd catch a buzz . . . and then forget about . . . uhhh . . . whatever that other thing was . . .
Obama to sign sweeping anti-smoking bill "As president, George W. Bush opposed the legislation and threatened a veto after it passed the House last year. The Obama administration, by contrast, issued a statement declaring strong support for the measure. Obama has spoken publicly of his own struggles to quit cigarettes." that is nice of obama to transfer his idiotic personal struggles to his public policy.
You had me until that last part. I agree - stay out of my bedroom, my pocket book, and my ash tray (I don't smoke). But idiotic? I'm sure you're a paragon of virtue...
i think the medical community has made it pretty clear that smoking is idiotic. if you decide to start smoking, at any age, you are an idiot, unless of course you have no concern for your health, in which case, yunno, go for it, live it up. barack obama, he once smoked. why did he start? was he too stupid to realize that he would regret it? idiot. most smokers i know are willing to freely admit they are idiots and they regret their decision to start. anyways, the point is that i dont care how stupid something is, i dont like barack telling me what is a good idea and what isnt. barack is an idiot.
Why not just cut to your main point. This is what you really are wanting to say, correct? I think he's a Socialist. I think he's terribly naive in his political philosophy. I think he's dangerously arrogant and out of touch, like most far left Liberals. An idiot? :lol: No. He doesn't get off that easy.
of course, i agree 100%. i dont smoke, as i said, i think it is a stupid idea. but the idea that i should tell you what to do is so crazy, the attitude behind it is so wrong, it makes me uncomfortable. and as i read this article: it really makes me hate him. manage your own lives, liberals.
Can't the same be said of drinking? Why isn't drinking viewed in the same light? What are its health benefits? What is the cost to the state of drinkers? In health costs - in lives lost - in public nuisance? If you're going to govern one, you should govern both in my opinion.
i certainly agree with your point, and when i really sit and think about it i am stunned that prohibition ever existed, but i guess i shouldnt be. but i think drinking is actually pretty good for you, if done correctly, ir that is what the media has led me to believe. i get drunk once a week or so and i feel like my doctor would approve of it if i told him. i realize that has nothing to do with the topic, and your point is certainly still valid. if we are to ban smiking, why not ban twinkies or cheese fries?
Because then no one could ever stop smoking???? Oh wait.... With a serious point and one i am sure has been made, but since I am lazy and "new" I will make it again cuz I don't feel like reading everything on this thread tonight! I am working in a bar that "tried" to go non smoking a couple years ago. He almost went under in about 4 months. It is a busy neighborhood bar and has now gotten its customers back (thank goodness) but he won't try it again! Granted they serve a little bit of food but it is a bar mainly and not smoking in it is not good for the business. During lunch hours he doesn't put ashtrays on the tables, to discourage it but if you ask you get one. He honestly would go under if he couldn't allow smoking at his bar.
I usually don't post on free speech alley much, but I want to explain why most restaurant owners are for the smoking ban in bars and casinos. It's kind of a paradox because of conflicting agendas by the restaurant, bar and casino lobby groups. The smoking ban for restaurants got passed by the anti smoking zealots who believe it is their God given right to go into any restaurant and not smell smoke. When, in fact, no such right exists. When...in fact...a restaurant can refuse servuce to anyone. Dress codes, offensive behavior, rudeness, for example are valid reasons to refuse service. No one has a right to be served at any establishment, so the premise of the law is baseless...namely that someone's rights are being trampled on by a smoking policy. The restaurant owners have taken the position that the government has no reason to tell business owners how to run their business. I agree with this position even though I wasn't affected by the law at all. I have smoking outside at the tables under the front porch and no smoking at all inside. It's always been like that so...since the law...no change. I have no axe to grind. But I think that if I wanted to change my policy and sell cigars and have a cafe for smokers only, I should have a right to do so. The free market will determine my success as a business. Ah, that word free...the owner should be free to decide what type of restaurant to run and what type of customers he targets. When the smoking ban for restaurants was being ushered through our state legislature, the Louisiana Restaurant Association tried to enlist the bar and casino cunterparts to vigorously join the fight and we got mostly moral support. Good luck, we're with you, etc. They were only concerned with their own self interests and not concerned with what is right and just. We got crushed, the law passed, and overnight there became no difference between a restaurant that sells liquor aned a bar that sells food. Well there's one BIG difference, you can smoke in one but not the other. The legislature in it's infinite wisdom defined a bar as a place where more than 50% of sales is alcohol, and a restaurant is a place where more than 50% of sales is food. These are figures that can be manipulated by the whim of the owner. No bar owner will ever report more than 50% of sales to be food because overnight they got all the business from the smokers...overnight almost every bar started selling food. So the LRA is now put in the position of vigorously backing the smoking ban for bars and casinos so that when the smoking ban passes the bar and casino groups will be forced to join us so we can gang up on the legislators. But for now they are protecting only their own interests and to heck with the restaurants. This bill failed in the house because the legislators don't have the balls to tell the casinos how to run their business...because it's none of their business!! They just caved in to the anti smoking nazis because they didn't want to be politically incorrect so they wouldn't suffer at the polls. And in the process, some very fundamental freedoms got trampled on !!!
