York County out of step on smoking

fun lovin life wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, he did......

Is that right? I don't remember ever seeing him pictured with a cig. At that time every rock star smoked, so I thought he did not.

Calgary Chick wrote:

<quoted text>Now does any of us really know why he left the building. Maybe it was for a smoke.
Good point though, if his mouth already had a smoke in it, how could he do the other drugs, maybe that would have been just enough to save him.

He would NOT be a good spokesperson for the pharmaceutical companies.

The following is an open letter to the Virginia General Assembly Delegates on the House Sub-Committee on ABC/Gaming. An identical letter was sent to the 15 members of the Senate Committee on Education and Health. These legislatures have a total of eleven bills in front of them, all with the intention to ban smoking on private property.

Esteemed Delegates,

The six of you are on the Virginia General Assembly House Sub-Committee on ABC/Gaming and as such you have several bills in front of you dealing with smoking bans.  Please consider this information when debating the merits of these tyrannical bills.

There are restaurants and bars throughout Virginia which cater to the appetites and desires of every type of clientele.  As there are different themes and menus provided there are also smoking and non-smoking establishments.  The owners of these establishments are capable of making the decision for themselves as to who their target customer base is.  They are tax paying private property owners who help to maintain a growing economy in Virginia.  Everyone deserves the right to peaceably assemble on private property with like minded fellows.  Prohibition has always proven to do nothing but create criminal activity where before there was none.

There are statistical case studies that the anti-smoking movement rely on to push forth the propaganda that second hand smoke is dangerous.  OSHA disagrees, as do just as many statistical case studies that show second hand smoke is not dangerous.  The only studies that are reported openly by the media are the ones which suggest negative results.  None of these studies have shown results that have surpassed the margins of error.  It is often said that the risk of lung cancer is increased 30% if one is exposed to second hand smoke.  This sounds ominous until you read the studies and understand how the calculation is made.  If you have a 1% chance of getting lung cancer and your chance is increased by 30%, then you end up having a 1.3% chance of getting lung cancer.  So the more correct and unbiased way of reporting this result would be to say that your overall risk of getting lung cancer will increase by .3%.  No study has shown any risk by utilizing the scientific method.  You can look up any of the case studies, even the ones which were conducted by WHO (World Health Organization) and the EPA and they all have the same things in common.  They use questionnaires and correlative statistics which never escape the margin of error.  The claim that "we all know how dangerous second hand smoke is," is a politically motivated false premise that is easily spread only because most people do not take the time to investigate the facts and the research involved.

To strip away individual freedom and the 5th and 14th Amendment protection of private property from the public in the name of public health, especially when the facts disagree with the claims of the anti-smoking movement is abominable.

OSHA is the regulatory authority which sets the safe Permissible Exposure Levels (PELs) for all chemicals the public and workers can come into contact with.  Toxicity is determined by dosage.  Nitro Glycerine is toxic, yet in small doses it can ward off a heart attack.  The chemical components of second hand smoke in bars and restaurants falls far below the PEL limits set by OSHA.  While second hand smoke could be offensive to some, a hazard it is not.  People have the freedom to decide which businesses to patronize.  We don't stop restaurants from serving food containing peanuts, yet someone with a peanut allergy could die immediately if they eat the smallest amount of peanut.  It is the responsibility of the person with the allergy to maintain their due diligence with regard to peanuts.

Please understand that any ban on smoking is a ban on freedom.  We, the people, do not require government regulations to protect our health.  We are living longer lives than in all of recorded history.  Precedents have already been set in the area of diminutive and regulatory taking which have resulted in governments being required to pay property owners for losses in property values and incomes under the 5th Amendment without actually taking the property physically.  Please do not allow legislation to pass which will hurt our economy by lowering the profits of businesses or bankrupting them.  There are far more important things to spend the tax payer's money on than subsidizing diminished business profits caused by bans and policing newly created criminal activity.

Please leave us be and allow all of these smoking bans to be defeated in committee.

Thank you,

Jason Myers

http://web.mac.com/jason.m.myers

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Is that right? I don't remember ever seeing him pictured with a cig. At that time every rock star smoked, so I thought he did not.

He smoked when he was young. And then, later when he was on his way "out" I saw a picture of him in his famous white outfit with a cig. in his hand.

SassyVarmit wrote:

<quoted text>Hey, Rot Owner, you and I have a lot in common.... we both own Rots, both ex-smokers, both Anti-ban, and, we both think woof should be muzzled and kenneled!!! Glad to meet you!! lol

Yeah Boy!!! Rotties Rule!!!

See, so folks, so do agree to keep rights!!!! Rottie Rule.....

correction: some to agree to keep rights....right,wrong or indifferent. Rottie's Rule......wink!

Right To Smoke wrote:

To strip away individual freedom and the 5th and 14th Amendment protection of private property from the public in the name of public health, especially when the facts disagree with the claims of the anti-smoking movement is abominable.
OSHA is the regulatory authority which sets the safe Permissible Exposure Levels (PELs) for all chemicals the public and workers can come into contact with.  Toxicity is determined by dosage.  Nitro Glycerine is toxic, yet in small doses it can ward off a heart attack.  The chemical components of second hand smoke in bars and restaurants falls far below the PEL limits set by OSHA.  While second hand smoke could be offensive to some, a hazard it is not.  People have the freedom to decide which businesses to patronize.  We don't stop restaurants from serving food containing peanuts, yet someone with a peanut allergy could die immediately if they eat the smallest amount of peanut.  It is the responsibility of the person with the allergy to maintain their due diligence with regard to peanuts.
Please understand that any ban on smoking is a ban on freedom.  We, the people, do not require government regulations to protect our health.  We are living longer lives than in all of recorded history.  Precedents have already been set in the area of diminutive and regulatory taking which have resulted in governments being required to pay property owners for losses in property values and incomes under the 5th Amendment without actually taking the property physically.  Please do not allow legislation to pass which will hurt our economy by lowering the profits of businesses or bankrupting them.  There are far more important things to spend the tax payer's money on than subsidizing diminished business profits caused by bans and policing newly created criminal activity.
Please leave us be and allow all of these smoking bans to be defeated in committee.
Thank you,
Jason Myers
http://web.mac.com/jason.m.myers

Well said. Leave our rights....alone. What about nude beaches? I jest some here.

woof wrote:

<quoted text>spamming azzhole

WOOF: Now settle down now. It is the intelligent people who can offer up a good comment. It is the intelligent person smoker or non smoker who can render the "rights". Doesn't that make you a wee bit nervous? Are you lonely?

SassyVarmit wrote:

<quoted text>
Now, that shows a lot of class....NOT!!

Thank you. This WOOF individual must be something at home/work.....and public...GOD helps us if they allow nude beaches.....he probably has a woofer.

Right To Smoke wrote:

<quoted text>
Excellent way to put it.

I too agree.Let freedom roll. I want the carpets taken out, allergies, I want mildew out and gone, allergies, I want monthly inspections on establishments ventilation systems, allergies...do not hear many complaining about that. Huge butts make me nervous, ban them.

believe it wrote:

You just gotta love a smoker:
[[There are many dangers of smoking to the body, to the immediate family, to the society, to the environment and to the economy. More than 700 chemical additives are found in cigarettes. Some of them are classified as toxic and are not allowed in food.
Once lit, a cigarette reaches a temperature of nearly 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This high heat helps release thousands of chemical compounds, including poisons like carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide, at least 43 carcinogens, and numerous mutagens. All of these are drawn into the body when a smoker inhales.]]
[[Smoking is the main cause of death every year.
Over the years a smoker will be more likely to develop respiratory ailments, thickening of the arteries, blood clots, cancer of the lung, cervix, larynx, mouth, esophagus, bladder, pancreas, and kidney, and emphysema, as well as exhibit symptoms such as reduced stamina, poor athletic performance, wheezing, coughing, dizziness, and nausea.
In time, a smoker suffers increased resistance to the flow of air into the lungs and reduced lung capacity. Besides these serious problems, prolonged tobacco use leads to stained teeth and fingers and bad breath. Even a smoker's clothes and living quarters tend to smell of tobacco.]]
[[Facial Charm
Bad breath brought about by smoking would require gum or mints to overcome the odor. The smoker may also opt for breath fresheners, which are even more expensive. Cigarette components stain the teeth.
Having yellow teeth means extra charge from the dentist aside from the usual cleaning. Smokers were also found to have darkened gums. Smoking could also effect the wrinkling of the skin earlier than the usual.]]
Source: http://www.stop-smoking-tips.com/dangers-smok...

Oh get real here. Here is what I would like banned. Crying babies in restaurants, sick folks banned from work, no spitting in public...no spitting while driving, it messes up windshields, I want over weight folks to control the matter, it raises concerns about their health, I want whinners banned, gives me a headache. Ban taped up cars, ban people who leave Xmas lights up all year round, I want everyone to use proper manners in public, if not, ban them.Health issues are paramount, but, let that person decide, when to stop smoking.....I really want 3 day work weeks.I want to ban clothes hung out while it is raining, it is an eye sore. I want all idiots to take classes on Goverment History, Bill of Rights and Ammendments.....if not, they can not drive anymore.

Kent wrote:

<quoted text>
Whiner!

TO SURE DOES: I want all whinners to be banned from the planet, causes us grief and extra meds to curtail our headaches. I want folks to stop spitting in food....and some do. I want every vehicle washed and polished before driving, makes us that do have clean cars nervous you will hit us out of envy. I do not want to see women in curlers out in public. Does this strike a point?

Musician wrote:

<quoted text>
Gallup polls kept the Brady Bunch on TV for too many years.
Next!

MUSICIAN: I will add to yours: I want banned huge buttocks in tight pants, eye sore. I want banned whinners from public, it breaches my peace. I really want banned spitters who spit on sidewalks and at the take out joints...makes me wonder.

just candid wrote:

It's a known fact that most drunks,degenerates and other low life type riff-raff are cigarette smokers.York county now seems to wish to cater to them ,and be a good place for them to go and live.

I want "just candid" banned for making false statements. I want banned ignorants who make York County look "candid". I demand "just candid" make a public apology.....this needs to rule. Candid is profiling and I want that banned as well.

Rottweiler Owner wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah Boy!!! Rotties Rule!!!

I'm scared of dogs (no joke) they make me nervous. I don't even know the phobia name for that.

Rottweiler Owner wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah Boy!!! Rotties Rule!!!

They absolutely do!!!!!

found her and asked!

Calgary Chick wrote:

<quoted text>I'm scared of dogs (no joke) they make me nervous. I don't even know the phobia name for that.

Cynophobia.