|
|
|
|
| |
| |
MIKZCARDZ wrote:
Subject: Re: Smokers destroy another restaurant ----
Maryland Landmark Restaurant goes out of business due to
Ban
From: "S. O. Damocles" so@damocl.es
Date: 8/27/04 11:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <SGIXc.8$h43.16691@news.uswest.net>
Just further proof that scumbag smokers have ZERO
loyalty to anything but their drug addiction.>
No, just proof that we (smokers) wish to be treated fairly
and have taken our business elsewhere.
You are treated fairly. Smokers, as well as non-smokers,
are welcome at the restaurant, and neither are allowed
to smoke for the 1 hour or so that they are there inside.
That's about as fair as it can get. Unless your one of
those truly pathetic addicts who can't separate the
smoke from the smoker, even for a few minutes.
<snip nearly psychotic off-point rant>
Auntie mentality is the real threat and you are too stupid
to see the bigger picture.
I'd rather be a scumbag in your eyes and live my life. Who
are *you* anyway?
One of those who, along with society, has determined that
morons like you can smoke all you want -- as long as you do
it inside your OWN stinky home.
You still failed to address the fact that smokers have exactly
ZERO loyalty to anything or anyone except their own scummy
drug addiction.
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
MIKZCARDZ wrote:
Subject: Re: Smokers destroy another restaurant ----
Maryland Landmark Restaurant goes out of business due to
Ban
From: "S. O. Damocles" so@damocl.es
Date: 8/27/04 11:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <SGIXc.8$h43.16691@news.uswest.net>
Just further proof that scumbag smokers have ZERO
loyalty to anything but their drug addiction.>
Thanks very much for cross-posting this little piece of detritus, having
stripped it of any context.
In fact, scores of studies (down there in the States and up here in
Canada) have shown that the overall restaurant trade either remains the
same or actually improves under smoking bans. It's one of the selling
points of such bans.
Usually just the greasy spoons go under when smoking bans are put in
place. You know the type - where somebody's butt is ground out in the
middle of the plate.
It's under total bans that the rest of the licensed trade (pubs,
lounges, etc.) that goes down the tubes. Within a year of total bans, 30
percent of the non-restaurant licensed trade has dropped off. This is
not to be confused with going out of business. A fair number of those
that go under would have failed anyway. It's just that in most cases
another bar would have opened up to take its place. This isn't happening
under total smoking bans.
As a point of fact, I support restaurant smoking bans as much as I
oppose them in establishments where the prime trade is in alcoholic
beverages.
|
| |
| |
Whether business survives or not is totally inconsequential - smoking is
the major health hazard legalised by governments killing their own citizens
urgent action is needed to stop it, ban it and prosecute retrospectively all
government people involved - its a health crime equal to war crimes.
|
| |
| |
Steve wrote:
Whether business survives or not is totally inconsequential - smoking is
the major health hazard legalised by governments killing their own citizens
urgent action is needed to stop it, ban it and prosecute retrospectively all
government people involved - its a health crime equal to war crimes.
Ah, the voice of sweet reason. Tell the truth. Great-granny was a
hatchet-wielding member of Carrie Nation brigade, wasn't she?
|
| |
| |
MIKZCARDZ wrote:
Subject: Re: Smokers destroy another restaurant ----
Maryland Landmark Restaurant goes out of business due to
Ban
From: "Steve" jasper@mungo.net
Date: 8/28/04 12:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:
<41300dd5$0$22815$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
Whether business survives or not is totally
inconsequential - smoking is
the major health hazard legalised by governments killing
their own citizens urgent action is needed to stop it, ban
it and prosecute retrospectively all government people
involved - its a health crime equal to war crimes. >
What?
Alcohol destroys more lives than smoking.
Alcohol and Obesity cause more health problems than
lighting up a cigarette. You know, stuff like high-blood
pressure and high colesterol which translates into
heart/gall bladder/kidney/liver disease. The latest word is
the fact that diabetes is becoming more of a health risk in
the USA than lung cancer.
A friend of mine never smoked a day in his life but
suffered for years because of diabetes. Loss of sight,
limbs and he continued to eat,eat & eat and finally his
heart gave out.
PEOPLE WILL CHOOSE THEIR OWN POISONS no matter the efforts
of any auntie group.
Exasctly, which is why scumbag smokers like you are being banned from
smoking in *public* places ---because other people don't want you junkies
to choose their poisons for them.
Got it yet, addict?
|
| |
| |
Steve,
This paragraph shows your ignorance. I would think if you were truely
worried with the safety of your fellow man you would be crusading
against the automobile which kills many more individuals a year than
any other cause. Maybe you should focus on alcohol and stop people
from getting liver disease Oh wait they tried that once and it failed.
This week tobacco, next week McDonald's. Your crusade is nothing
more than a passing fad. People are going to do what they want and
nothing you or I say is going to change it. So continue to rant and I
will continue to smoke. Will see which one of us suffers a
heartattack first.
Chris
"Steve" <jasper@mungo.net> wrote in message news:<41300dd5$0$22815$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>...
Whether business survives or not is totally inconsequential - smoking is
the major health hazard legalised by governments killing their own citizens
urgent action is needed to stop it, ban it and prosecute retrospectively all
government people involved - its a health crime equal to war crimes.
|
| |
| |
In article <aa646ae8.0408280742.1e8bcb47@posting.google.com>,
calibrator <calibrator2@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steve,
This paragraph shows your ignorance. I would think if you were truely
worried with the safety of your fellow man you would be crusading
against the automobile which kills many more individuals a year than
any other cause.
Deaths from Preventable Causes
2000 % 1990 %
Tobacco 435,000 18 400,000 19
Diet 400,000 17 300,000 14
Alcohol 85,000 4 100,000 5
Microbes 75,000 3 90,000 4
Toxins 55,000 2 60,000 3
Motor vehicle 43,000 2 25,000 1
Firearms 29,000 1 35,000 2
AIDS 20,000 <1 30,000 1
Illicit drugs 17,000 <1 20,000 <1
Centers for Disease Control
|
| |
| |
MIKZCARDZ wrote:
Subject: Re: Smokers destroy another restaurant ----
Maryland Landmark Restaurant goes out of business due to
Ban
From: "Steve" jasper@mungo.net
Date: 8/28/04 12:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:
<41300dd5$0$22815$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
Whether business survives or not is totally
inconsequential - smoking is
the major health hazard legalised by governments killing
their own citizens urgent action is needed to stop it, ban
it and prosecute retrospectively all government people
involved - its a health crime equal to war crimes. >
Exasctly, which is why scumbag smokers like you are being banned from
smoking in *public* places ---because other people don't want you junkies
to choose their poisons for them.
Got it yet, addict?
Oooh, the anger, hostility, and frustration. At least the high eloquence
disguises it, right?
|
| |
| |
On 28 Aug 2004 08:42:29 -0700, calibrator2@hotmail.com (calibrator)
wrote:
This paragraph shows your ignorance. I would think if you were truely
worried with the safety of your fellow man you would be crusading
against the automobile which kills many more individuals a year than
any other cause.
Without taking sides either way WRT smoking, just looking purely at
the logic of your argument, it *could* be argued that the automobile
also saves lives, and serves a useful purpose in society, with the
deaths it creates being an unfortunate side effect.
The same could not be said of smoking.
Dave
=====
NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:36:06 -0400, "ipad@ptd.net" <ipad@ptd.net>
wrote:
Oooh, the anger, hostility, and frustration. At least the high eloquence
disguises it, right?
The same old Vox Poop. The name changes, the anger remains the same.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:03:12 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
calibrator wrote:
<snip typical smoker-addict fallacy>
Hey numbnuts, just because there are multiple
evils in the world doesn't mean good people can't
attack them one at a time, or that all the other evils
must be solved before your evil can be addressed.
Get a clue, moron.
It's the *smoke*, stupid.
And you would be one of those "good people"?
You sure sound like one.
|
| |
| |
On 28 Aug 2004 10:41:37 -0600, anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson)
wrote:
In article <aa646ae8.0408280742.1e8bcb47@posting.google.com>,
calibrator <calibrator2@hotmail.com> wrote:
Deaths from Preventable Causes
Never mind that. Death is not preventable.
You can try to delay it a bit, that's all.
You're gonna die, no matter what.
Might as well start living before it's too late.
|
| |
| |
I told you before wrote:
Here is living proof that smoking destroys all intelligence
and leaves smokers a drivelling idiots.
Yep.
Steve,
This paragraph shows your ignorance. I would think if
you were truely
worried with the safety of your fellow man you would be
crusading
against the automobile which kills many more individuals
a year than
any other cause. Maybe you should focus on alcohol and
stop people
from getting liver disease Oh wait they tried that once
and it failed. This week tobacco, next week McDonald's.
Your crusade is nothing
more than a passing fad. People are going to do what
they want and
nothing you or I say is going to change it. So continue
to rant and I
will continue to smoke. Will see which one of us suffers
a
heartattack first.
Chris
Whether business survives or not is totally
inconsequential - smoking is
the major health hazard legalised by governments killing
their own citizens
urgent action is needed to stop it, ban it and prosecute
retrospectively all
government people involved - its a health crime equal to
war crimes.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:54:59 -0400, Jamie McDonell
<seumas@sympatico.ca> wrote:
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Subject: Re: Smokers destroy another restaurant ----
Maryland Landmark Restaurant goes out of business due to
Ban
From: "S. O. Damocles" so@damocl.es
Date: 8/27/04 11:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <SGIXc.8$h43.16691@news.uswest.net>
Just further proof that scumbag smokers have ZERO
loyalty to anything but their drug addiction.>
Thanks very much for cross-posting this little piece of detritus, having
stripped it of any context.
In fact, scores of studies (down there in the States and up here in
Canada) have shown that the overall restaurant trade either remains the
same or actually improves under smoking bans. It's one of the selling
points of such bans.
And every one of these studies is sponsored and paid for by anti
smoker groups.
Here's how they do it: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html
Usually just the greasy spoons go under when smoking bans are put in
place. You know the type - where somebody's butt is ground out in the
middle of the plate.
Wrong again. Taverns of all kinds - high class, low class, and middle
class, go belly up. Bowling alleys go out of business. Bingo halls
close. Pool halls die. And the nannies, when doing their studies,
LEAVE OUT bowling alleys, bingo halls, pool halls, but are sure to
include the thousands of business that were already non-smoking, and
are not at all affected by bans.
It's under total bans that the rest of the licensed trade (pubs,
lounges, etc.) that goes down the tubes. Within a year of total bans, 30
percent of the non-restaurant licensed trade has dropped off. This is
not to be confused with going out of business. A fair number of those
that go under would have failed anyway. It's just that in most cases
another bar would have opened up to take its place. This isn't happening
under total smoking bans.
As a point of fact, I support restaurant smoking bans as much as I
oppose them in establishments where the prime trade is in alcoholic
beverages.
Those of us who support property rights oppose bans for any business.
Dave Hitt
----
If it kills so many people, why can't they name three of them?
http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html
Quick Hitts - Rapid Rants From the Hittman
http://www.davehitt.com/blog/index.html
|
| |
| |
Dave Hitt wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:54:59 -0400, Jamie McDonell
<seumas@sympatico.ca> wrote:
And every one of these studies is sponsored and paid for by
anti
smoker groups.
Here's how they do it:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html
Wrong again. Taverns of all kinds - high class, low class,
and middle class, go belly up. Bowling alleys go out of
business. Bingo halls close. Pool halls die. And the
nannies, when doing their studies, LEAVE OUT bowling
alleys, bingo halls, pool halls, but are sure to include
the thousands of business that were already non-smoking,
and
are not at all affected by bans.
Those of us who support property rights oppose bans for any
business.
So you oppose bans on #@($ting, pissing and/or @$#*ing
on the dining tables at restaurants?
Mind if I take a big greasy steaming #@($ on your dinner
table, Davey ? After all, it's "legal" to #@($ therefore,
using addict "logic", I should be able to #@($ anywhere
and anytime I damn well please, eh Davey?
Dave Twitt
|
| |
| |
Dave "Gomer" Hitt wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:54:59 -0400, Jamie McDonell
<seumas@sympatico.ca> wrote:
And every one of these studies is sponsored and paid for by anti
smoker groups.
"Every one"? No, they aren't, Gomer.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
|
| |
| |
In article <s9b2j0ph9fa7cjjao0t2nsshlhggel26od@4ax.com>,
<stanlee_98@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2004 10:41:37 -0600, anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson)
wrote:
Never mind that. Death is not preventable.
You can try to delay it a bit, that's all.
You're gonna die, no matter what.
Might as well start living before it's too late.
It's not so much death as things like being tied
to a bottle of oxygen for the rest of your miserable
life. Keep smoking and you can "enjoy" a severely degraded
existence. No one would call it living.
|
| |
| |
Dave Proctor wrote:
Without taking sides either way WRT smoking, just looking purely at
the logic of your argument, it *could* be argued that the automobile
also saves lives, and serves a useful purpose in society, with the
deaths it creates being an unfortunate side effect.
The same could not be said of smoking.
FWIW, there are some people who use tobacco medicinally. Nicotine helps
greatly with the symptoms of such things as obsessive compulsive disorder,
Tourette's Syndrome, and ADD. It has far fewer side effects than many of
the pharmacutical products used to treat TS tics.
--
MYTHOLOGY, n. The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its
origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from
the true accounts which it invents later.
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
|
| |
| |
Your statics are flawed. Read this article from the CATO inst. and it
will counter your arguement. Your crusade is nothing more than smoke
and mirrors and your arguement is full of holes. Give me proof and
not statics and I will stop smoking. But you won't be able to give me
proof because your side never puts together comprehensive studies.
They always use data collect from other sources and put it together to
support there point. That is not science and it doesn't do anyone any
good. You try to justify or arguement instead of laying out your data
and letting your data justify your arguement. Your ignorant and so is
your point of view. It is clear to me that you regurgitate what
others tell you.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-29-99.html
Regards,
Chris
Deaths from Preventable Causes
2000 % 1990 %
Tobacco 435,000 18 400,000 19
Diet 400,000 17 300,000 14
Alcohol 85,000 4 100,000 5
Microbes 75,000 3 90,000 4
Toxins 55,000 2 60,000 3
Motor vehicle 43,000 2 25,000 1
Firearms 29,000 1 35,000 2
AIDS 20,000 <1 30,000 1
Illicit drugs 17,000 <1 20,000 <1
Centers for Disease Control
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:36:52 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Mind if I take a big greasy steaming #@($ on your dinner
table, Davey ?
Why don't you try it, and see what happens?
You're welcome to do it in the #@($ting section of
any restaurant, (men's room).
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:01:44 -0700, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
Dave "Gomer" Hitt wrote:
"Every one"? No, they aren't, Gomer.
Anti-smoker industry asswipes don't call human beings Gomer.
|
| |
| |
stanlee_98@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:36:52 -0600, "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote:
Why don't you try it, and see what happens?
Ooooh! The "tough guy" response.
You're welcome to do it in the #@($ting section of
any restaurant, (men's room).
Why should I be restricted in my right to #@($ anywhere
and anyplace I damn well please?
So you don't mind if I light my #@($ on fire, filling
your dining room with the putrid, retching smoke
of my greasy turds, eh?
|
| |
| |
calibrator wrote:
Your statics are flawed. Read this article from the CATO
inst. and it will counter your arguement. Your crusade is
nothing more than smoke and mirrors and your arguement is
full of holes. Give me proof and not statics and I will
stop smoking.
We don't want you to stop smoking, addict. I want you
to increase the level of your addiction, so that your
physical and mental suffering also increases.
Just remember that the only legal place you will be able
to engage in your putrid, obnoxious drug addiction is
in the privacy of your own stench-filled home.
<snip off-point junkie whine>
Regards,
Chris
Deaths from Preventable Causes
2000 % 1990 %
Tobacco 435,000 18 400,000 19
Diet 400,000 17 300,000 14
Alcohol 85,000 4 100,000 5
Microbes 75,000 3 90,000 4
Toxins 55,000 2 60,000 3
Motor vehicle 43,000 2 25,000 1
Firearms 29,000 1 35,000 2
AIDS 20,000 <1 30,000 1
Illicit drugs 17,000 <1 20,000 <1
Centers for Disease Control
|
| |
| |
William Evans wrote:
Let me understand the logic behind this.....The
non-smokers, who complained about the smokers
No, they complained about the "smoke".
Are you too stupid to be able to differentiate
between the "smoke" and the "smoker"?
and how bad
they are, won their argument and as a result a smoking ban
was put into place.
Yep.
Once that ban was put into place, the
restaurant ended up losing over 40 percent of their
business due to
Bad business decisions.
smokers not coming into the restaurant,
Shows you that smokers have ZERO loyalty
to anything or anyone except their own
pathetic, all consuming addiction.
(where, as a result of the ban, they were no longer
welcome).
Wrong again, numbnuts. Smokers were welcome,
as always. They just weren't allowed to smoke inside
the restaurant for the 60 minutes or so it took to dine
there. Now how hard is that, really?
And they were allowed to have their smoke after their
meal, as long as they simply went outside to do so.
Just like all those millions of people who, after a good
meal, either like to or need to take a piss and/or big #@($,
they simply get up and go to the one single designated place
for doing such putrid, offensive deeds.
Now imagine back in the early days of human history,
all those people who piss and #@($ after a mean refusing
to patronize their heretofore favorite restaurant, simply
because they were no longer allowed to piss or #@($
right there at the dining table.
That's the evolutionary stage of pathetic tobacco addicts
right now, somewhere between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
End result was that the restaurant closed its
doors because it no longer made enough money to stay in
operation.
Yep, bad business practices.
Once again let me say that the non-smokers who
had been behind this ban had WON.
As they always do. The world is run by non addicts,
get used to it.
Now those same
non-smokers who had petitioned to get the ban put into
place are complaining that it is the smokers, (the ones who
no longer went to the establishment
Yep.
where they were not
welcome
You lie yet again, moron. They are welcome as before,
they, along with everyone else, are just prohibited from
smoking inside for the 60 odd minutes it takes to dine there.
How hard is that, really?
If someone told you that you couldn't piss or #@($ for
60 minutes while inside a dining room, would you not
be able to do so?
due to the victorious non-smokers) are to blame
because
they have ZERO loyalty to anything or anyone except
for their pathetic drug addiction.
they no longer felt like spending their hard earned
money at a place that did not want them there.
There you go again, lying like the scumbag that you are.
They *are* welcome there, as are people who #@($,
people who piss, people who fornicate, people who
masturbate, etc. The only simple requirement is that
all those people refrain from doing those things for
the 60 or so minutes it takes to dine inside that restaurant.
How hard is that? *Millions* of people manage it every
single day. Why are tobacco addicts so abjectly pathetic?
This is too
funny. All I can say is that I smoke tobacco in my pipe, I
don't know what they are smoking in theirs.
Smoke that pipe much in restaurants?
So you don't/can't eat out, being that you can't possibly
refrain from sucking on your putrid pipe for even 60 minutes?
Isn't victory sweet!!!!
Yep, get used to it, smoker.
Randy
Smoking Dunhill 965 in a Peterson Billard
|
| |
| |
In article <aa646ae8.0408291117.25751670@posting.google.com>,
calibrator <calibrator2@hotmail.com> wrote:
Read this article from the CATO inst.
<laugh>
|
| |
| |
OT "stanlee"...by any chance are you a decendant of either Steve or
Gene Stanlee, great "bleach blonde" pro wrestlers from the '50s? (Old
time wrestling fan from waaaaay back then here).
Ed Duncan, Batavia, NY
***********************
stanlee_98@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<h4d4j053cks19kh5243jmqbcb1b9r8l6hs@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:36:52 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Why don't you try it, and see what happens?
You're welcome to do it in the #@($ting section of
any restaurant, (men's room).
|
| |
| |
stan-LEE 98 wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:01:44 -0700, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
Anti-smoker industry
No such thing exists, asswipe.
don't call human beings Gomer.
The only human being I would call "Gomer" is Jim Nabors, and he's dead and
gone. Gomer Hitt is a psychotic with a severe repressed homosexuality
problem.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
|
| |
| |
Robert Broughton wrote:
stan-LEE 98 wrote:
Robert Broughton wrote:
Dave "Gomer" Hitt wrote:
Jamie McDonell wrote:
In fact, scores of studies (down there in the States and up here in
Canada) have shown that the overall restaurant trade either remains the
same or actually improves under smoking bans. It's one of the selling
points of such bans.
And every one of these studies is sponsored and paid for by anti
smoker groups.
"Every one"? No, they aren't, Gomer.
Anti-smoker industry
No such thing exists, asswipe.
don't call human beings Gomer.
The only human being I would call "Gomer" is Jim Nabors, and he's dead and
gone.
http://www.jimnabors.com/
Gomer Hitt is a psychotic with a severe repressed homosexuality
problem.
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote in message news:<XLqYc.142$vf3.65373@news.uswest.net>...
Mind if I take a big greasy steaming #@($ on your dinner
table, Davey ?
Why should I be restricted in my right to #@($ anywhere
and anyplace I damn well please?
So you don't mind if I light my #@($ on fire, filling
your dining room with the putrid, retching smoke
of my greasy turds, eh?
Almost every conversation about smoking leads to absurd comparison
similar to this one. Comparison is always made by non-smoker and it is
almoust always complitely against logic.
To compare your desire to #@($ and burn the result in bar is not in
slighest measure comparable to smokers habit. Smoker smokes because of
himself, because he enjoys it and part of experience is the social
surrounding which is the bar. You however would burn your #@($ to
annoy and disgust others, no smoker does that. Result might be is
similar, someone may get offended, but reason is perhaps even
opposite.
You cannot claim that you want to #@($ in public so your comparison is
a lie as well. Keep your examples within reason and perhaps we can
take them seriously.
I say it again. Smokers do not smoke because they want to expose
others to smoke, they smoke because they enjoy it and want to enjoy
themselves in comfortable surrounding as bar or restaurant can offer.
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote in message news:<%B1Yc.9$rU1.1656@news.uswest.net>...
Exasctly, which is why scumbag smokers like you are being banned from
smoking in *public* places ---because other people don't want you junkies
to choose their poisons for them.
Got it yet, addict?
I wonder why it is you anties who cannot make polite conversation?
There are 'badmouths' in our side too, I admit that. But I cannot
remember when someone has come to me expressing their opinion about me
smoking politely. Oh, right. It hasn't happened so it would have been
a dream.
Shouting and insult don't get any subject ahead but stunts it to
inpolite and fruitless arguing.
|
| |
| |
anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote in message news:<732984382.328252@irys.nyx.net>...
Deaths from Preventable Causes
2000 % 1990 %
Tobacco 435,000 18 400,000 19
Diet 400,000 17 300,000 14
Alcohol 85,000 4 100,000 5
Microbes 75,000 3 90,000 4
Toxins 55,000 2 60,000 3
Motor vehicle 43,000 2 25,000 1
Firearms 29,000 1 35,000 2
AIDS 20,000 <1 30,000 1
Illicit drugs 17,000 <1 20,000 <1
Centers for Disease Control
This kind of statistics are alway perverted in many ways. First of
all, there is not a single case of lung cancer that has been proven to
be caused by tobacco and there are several other factors that cause
lung cancer. Second, yet all cases of death caused by lung cancer are
marked as smoking related if deceaced smoked.
Same goes to many other 'causes' in this list. How many killed by
motor vehicles died because driver was drunk? Or are they listed in
both? How about firearms?
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote in message news:<AntYc.183$vf3.84784@news.uswest.net>...
William Evans wrote:
No, they complained about the "smoke".
Are you too stupid to be able to differentiate
between the "smoke" and the "smoker"?
Have you read these threads about this subject? Anties keep throwing
insults and stop to nothing. I've even been called a murderer while
smoking in smoking section of a bar.
Once that ban was put into place, the
restaurant ended up losing over 40 percent of their
business due to
Bad business decisions.
Show me a bar in ban area that can make a decision about smoking in
their establishment. I you can, I agree that the one in example made a
bad business decision.
Wrong again, numbnuts. Smokers were welcome,
as always. They just weren't allowed to smoke inside
the restaurant for the 60 minutes or so it took to dine
there. Now how hard is that, really?
If a smoker doesn't smoke in bar he is not a smoker in sence of this
conversation. Smoking in nice social situation and comfortable table
is something that cannot be replaced. Only few of us are ready to
smoke home and expose children to the smoke, curse to you to even
suggest that.
Though I agree, restaurants that serve food should have separeted
smoking areas.
And they were allowed to have their smoke after their
meal, as long as they simply went outside to do so.
How nice, cold and rain. I myself smoke cigars and cannot think
spendin 1 1/2 hours standin outside a restaurant. Nor can I smoke at
my home since I live rental.
Just like all those millions of people who, after a good
meal, either like to or need to take a piss and/or big #@($,
they simply get up and go to the one single designated place
for doing such putrid, offensive deeds.
And be disgusted themselves too? There is no sense in that. Those
non-smokers who really get annoyed of smoke are really a minority,
most would tolerate some smoke without any bad feelings.
Now imagine back in the early days of human history,
all those people who piss and #@($ after a mean refusing
to patronize their heretofore favorite restaurant, simply
because they were no longer allowed to piss or #@($
right there at the dining table.
At a point when people started to take care of their personal hygiene,
they also started to take care where they made their 'needs'. As
people started to be clean and thus not themselves smelled like #@($
they developed a disgust to those smells that before were normal
bodyodors. Same could happen to smell of smoke if alloved to develope
naturally. Now this has been forced on us so you cannot compare.
In time culture could develope into direction where smoking in
restaurants would not include. That does happen with force too, I
admit, but that way it is not fair and equal proces.
That's the evolutionary stage of pathetic tobacco addicts
right now, somewhere between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
We can speak, even read and write, which neither of those could. While
making comparisons, lets compare you anties to nazies then. And to
slavery: "no slaves allowed in free man's restaurant"
Yep, bad business practices.
As said earlier, banning smoking was not a 'decision'.
where they were not
welcome
You lie yet again, moron. They are welcome as before,
they, along with everyone else, are just prohibited from
smoking inside for the 60 odd minutes it takes to dine there.
How hard is that, really?
This too I said already earlier in this post, but since you keep
repeating yourself, so can I. Smoking is not allowed in restaurant,
therefore there cannot be any smokers in that restaurant. Smoking is
the only thing that makes you a smoker in a restaurant, not your
habits elswhere. Though if you did not understand, lets say it in a
different way: Smokers are no longer welcome to restaurants if they
want to smoke in there. Which they do. They want to smoke.
It is not hard to not smoke for 1 hour, but it is difficult to
understand why it should be totally banned when it would increace ones
personal enjoyment of that situation.
Again, I think smoking should be arranged in way that it doesn't
bother others.
If someone told you that you couldn't piss or #@($ for
60 minutes while inside a dining room, would you not
be able to do so?
Why do you keep repeating this?
they have ZERO loyalty to anything or anyone except
for their pathetic drug addiction.
At this point many smokers feel insulted and just don't feel like
'going out' because they cannot smoke. You cannot demand someone to
keep going to bar just out of loyalty.
There you go again, lying like the scumbag that you are.
They *are* welcome there, as are people who #@($,
people who piss, people who fornicate, people who
masturbate, etc. The only simple requirement is that
all those people refrain from doing those things for
the 60 or so minutes it takes to dine inside that restaurant.
There you go again, making irrelevant comparisons. Smoking has become
'bad' just reasently and not all agree to it yet. There is a law which
is being offended if you masturbate publicly, but that law was made
long after it was common sense that doing so is against good
behaviour.
When it is agreed by all civilized people that smoking is as offending
as mastur | | |
