I can Breathe

[DirtySanchez]

This thread. this thread right here

[Hawk]

People's rights ? I also wish bars would stop serving poison to their patrons.

Best point of this whole thread. The self righteous nonsmokers, led by Hawk who is apparently leading the charge to throw a big effing parade or something here in honor of this ridiculous law, are the first to tilt back an alcoholoic beverage in these wonderful, smoke-free bars.

Beer=poison. Liquor=poison.

Both will kill you, probably quicker than cigarette smoke.

Hawk, I think this is by far the most obnoxious and condescending line of posts you've ever made ... and that's saying a lot. Maybe sometime you might want to actually wait for someone to respond to your points of view before rebutting. We get it. You're smarter than everyone else.

Oh, and while we're at it, EFF OBAMA.

r:>)

Thanks Rob.

Alcohol in moderation will not poison or kill you. Unless you are driving. Which I believe there is a law to protect us from such drinkers. Or would you like to remove that oppression as well.

Am I smarter than you ? If you are actually thinking for yourself, then the answer is - no, I am not. If you just repeat what you hear without research then - I might be.

I'm not self-righteous at all. I just happened to have benefited by enjoying a smoke free environment. I LOVE IT.

How is that condescending ?

Rob, here is where your thinking went off track. If the guy sitting next to me is drinking, I do not receive any residual alcohol. You see where I'm going................

BTW I did not lead this revolution.

Go ahead and vote for McCain. It's your right. I'm cool with that.

[BDR]

Smoke in moderation will not poison or kill you.

Anybody who knows me knows I form my own opinions.

OK, so you enjoyed a smoke-free bar. Goodie. How many more times do you have to say it? We get it.

As to the condescending tone of your posts ... this is nothing new. I was just talking to someone last night about your posts (this other person brought it up — this thread in particular). This person told me he doesn't even click on your posts anymore because you NEVER concede that maybe, just maybe, someone with a differing opinion might have a point. You have a tendency to talk down to those engaging you, whether you realize it or not.

As far as my thinking going off track (obviously, since I disagree with you, I must be off track), no, it's right on track. A bar is a smoke-filled place that purveys booze. They always have been. They're privately owned and it should be up to the owner of the private business who he or she chooses to accommodate. Period. Big government = big trouble.

Oh, and EFF McCAIN.

r:>)

[Hawk]

EFF McCAIN.

r:>)

I'm finally speechless.


















But I'll get over it.

[Gallowglass]

...Alcohol in moderation will not poison or kill you. Unless you are driving. Which I believe there is a law to protect us from such drinkers. Or would you like to remove that oppression as well...

Here goes nothing... Unfortunately, I have to rush this before I rush out the door, but maybe you'll see my point...Here goes an entirely new can of worms...
My thoughts on the DUI laws are that they are redundant, retrogressive, and merely designed to capitalize on creating extra revenue for the state. After all, the aim is to prevent people from driving recklessly-which is already a punishable violation in itself. DUI laws do not necessarily punish those that have a already committed an infraction, but those that have merely enhanced their potential to commit an infraction. If someone is legitimately pulled over for reckless driving while intoxicated, then by all means punish them for whatever statute they have violated, but what is the harm when someone is over the limit and then drives home without driving recklessly, running any stop signs, etc.? No harm, no foul (not that I would EVER encourage such a thing). It just sounds like more "nanny statism" to me. Sorry I don't have time right now to elaborate more on my position. Gotta run.

P.S. Most people think I'm crazy on this. I just don't believe in enforcing a law that is designed to punish for something that ideologically assumes the infraction before it actually occurs.

[BDR]

Alcohol in moderation will not poison or kill you. Unless you are driving. Which I believe there is a law to protect us from such drinkers. Or would you like to remove that oppression as well.

Yes, because making people breathe secondhand smoke is the same as a drunk getting behind the wheel and turning his or her car into a missle to take out a family of five in a minivan ...



r:>)

[Colton]

(bunch of stuff)

An idea!

If youre an avid bar attendee, you should be able to take a test for DUI. Drink a beer, run the course, drink a beer, run the course, ect. When you fail the course, take the breathalyser and see what YOUR limit is.

Haha, brilliant!


(yeah, worst idea ever)

[Hawk]

Alcohol in moderation will not poison or kill you. Unless you are driving. Which I believe there is a law to protect us from such drinkers. Or would you like to remove that oppression as well.

Yes, because making people breathe secondhand smoke is the same as a drunk getting behind the wheel and turning his or her car into a missle to take out a family of five in a minivan ...



r:>)

Sorry man, you went right over my head. I don't get your point.

"Yes"...is that an answer to a question I posed but you did not quote ?

I never sat next to someone who was drinking and got drunk from the residual alcohol drifting from his glass. Hence - no ban needed.

But a non smoker can get sick being in the same proximity as a smoker. Hence the ban.

[songsmith]

Again, people who smoke will always support smoking, even if it pisses off other people. They have to, smoking is an addiction.
People who don't smoke think nobody should. They have to, smoking is an addiction.

Ahhh, I remember the old covers vs. originals debate so fondly now... -------->JMS

[Colton]

[Hawk]

I just don't believe in enforcing a law that is designed to punish for something that ideologically assumes the infraction before it actually occurs.

Based on history, drunks will cause accidents. So......think of the law as a "preemptive strike".

A law intended to scare one into not thinking of driving drunk. It works with many, but not all.

[lonewolf]

It doesn't look dead yet....

[Colton]

It doesn't look dead yet....

Oh well, I'm sure it'll get beat a while yet.

[DirtySanchez]

I need a glass of Glenfiddich and a Marlboro red about now.

[KyleMayket]

I just don't believe in enforcing a law that is designed to punish for something that ideologically assumes the infraction before it actually occurs.

Based on history, drunks will cause accidents. So......think of the law as a "preemptive strike".

A law intended to scare one into not thinking of driving drunk. It works with many, but not all.

I got it, let's just start a law that "we've all observed drunk drivers possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction" so we could justify the "Preemptive Strike"

[slackin@dabass]

if they outlaw smoking in bars, i will be pissed. it sucks. i won't go out as often as i do now if i can't smoke and drink at the same time. and i barely go out at all right now, unless i'm playing a show. but, the government will do what it wants. it makes no difference what i think about it. and personally, it should be up to the bar owners. if they outlaw smoking in a bar you own, then tomarrow they can outlaw it in the car you own, and then in the house that you own, and then outlaw it entirely. it's not about rights. it's like george carlin said. "folks, i hate to spoil your fun, but there are no such things as rights... rights are an idea. if you think you do have rights, where do they come from?" that applies to both sides of the argument. you don't have a right to smoke, you don't have a right to a smoke free environment. if you don't like smoking, don't go there, if you wanna smoke, and that place is non smoking, don't go there. look out for yourself. it's not the governments job to decide what is healthy for us. it's my godamn body, if i wanna smoke, i will, if you don't want to be around smoke, then don't put yourself in the position to be exposed to it.

and just to go out on a good note, i'd like to quote george carlin one last time

"so sooner or later the people in this country will relise that the government does not give a fuck about them. it dosn't care about your rights, your welfare, your safety or your childrens safety. it's interested in it's own power, keeping it, and expanding upon it where ever possible."

thank you, and goodnight

[BDR]

Beans anyone? We'll have to take them outside ...

r:>)

[slackin@dabass]

Beans anyone? We'll have to take them outside ...

r:>)

and that's my point!! if the government knew what was best for us, we'd have legal weed and illegal booze!!

let's just go get baked, man

[mjb]

smoke'm if you got'em.

[JackANSI]

I have yet to meet a smoker that cared about lighting up around other people who don't, while out in public.

So why should any non-smoker care when you're not allowed by law to light up?



Just ignore me....

[Gallowglass]

...Based on history, drunks will cause accidents. So......think of the law as a "preemptive strike".

A law intended to scare one into not thinking of driving drunk. It works with many, but not all.

If we had been able to prove the WMD tie to Iraq, would you then support the war? By that logic you should. I wouldn't, btw.

I have yet to meet a smoker that cared about lighting up around other people who don't, while out in public.

So why should any non-smoker care when you're not allowed by law to light up?



Just ignore me....

Because if we continue to approach legal issues from a purely "what do I get outta this" perspective, Jefferson's 51% mob rule metaphor concerning democracy is taken to excrutiating extremes.

[DirtySanchez]

So why should any non-smoker care when you're not allowed by law to light up?



....

Idk? Ask the OP

The answer to this question seems pretty obvious though.

People who have kids on welfare impact me directly as a working taxpayer.
Maybe we should make a law. No sex for the unemployed. I'm down.

[Gallowglass]

Again, people who smoke will always support smoking, even if it pisses off other people. They have to, smoking is an addiction.
People who don't smoke think nobody should. They have to, smoking is an addiction.

Ahhh, I remember the old covers vs. originals debate so fondly now... -------->JMS

To be perfectly honest with you John, to me this whole thread has nothing to do with smoking or not smoking.

[mjb]

this has got to be the lamest thread of the year.

[Banned]

Lame or not, this whole topic is not really about smoking.

It is about losing our FREEDOMS. This government loves taking our freedoms away, bit by bit, and Hawk has mental orgasms over it.