Smoking ban battle on city council horizon

Smokers and business owners stand up for your rights
http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Linda wants to have all smokers stand up to act dumb and stupid.

In todays world it's only the backward and slow to learn who still smoke. It's OK, if they want to harm themselves, but they don't have any right to smoke around non-smokers.

just candid wrote:

In todays world it's only the backward and slow to learn who still smoke. It's OK, if they want to harm themselves, but they don't have any right to smoke around non-smokers.

Smoking bans takes business owners property. It destroys the business and causes closures

http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Smoking has now passed from a health issue to a civil rights issue and I, for one, won't be treated like a second-class citizen any more.

Outright bans on smoking subvert the liberties of the business owners. THEY should be the ones who decide! It's called freedom, folks.

Are you for freedom or not?

Gary Capshaw wrote:

Smoking has now passed from a health issue to a civil rights issue and I, for one, won't be treated like a second-class citizen any more.
Outright bans on smoking subvert the liberties of the business owners. THEY should be the ones who decide! It's called freedom, folks.
Are you for freedom or not?

Smoking bans are a type of eminent domain abuse. Some one has a better use for your property than you are currently putting it to. So they use government authority to take control of the property. The people in St. Louis who fight smoking bans hardest are also the biggest enemies of other forms of eminent domain abuse.

For those who know who is behind the no-smoke laws and why, here’s a good one!

Johnson & Johnson sues American Red Cross over use of emblem.
Aug 8, 2007.

Snips:
NEW YORK (AP)- Johnson & Johnson, the pharmaceutical giant that uses a red cross as its trademark, sued the American Red Cross on Wednesday, demanding that the charity halt the use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public.

"For a multibillion-dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute ... simply so that J&J can make more money, is obscene," said Mark Everson, the Red Cross president.
Full story: http://www.keprtv.com/news/national/9043322.h...

Per the below, Johnson & Johnson is very mixed up on facts, including dates.

Trademark Information
The Greek Red Cross emblem and the American Red Cross name are federally protected marks of The American National Red Cross (see United States Code, Title 18, Section 706). http://www.redcross.org/copyright

Johnson & Johnson says:
Johnson & Johnson began using the Red Cross design and "Red Cross" word trademarks in 1887, predating the formation of the American Red Cross. The Company has had exclusive rights to use the Red Cross trademark on commercial products within its longstanding product categories for over 100 years. Since its creation, the American Red Cross has at all times possessed only the rights to use the Red Cross trademark in connection with its non-profit relief services. http://sev.prnewswire.com/retail/20070808/NYW...

The Red Cross says:
In October 1863, The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement was created in Geneva, Switzerland, to provide nonpartisan care to the wounded and sick in times of war. The Red Cross emblem was adopted at this first International Conference as a symbol of neutrality and was to be used by national relief societies. The symbol is composed of five equal squares, sometimes referred to as a Greek cross. It was chosen because it is a reverse of the colors of the Swiss flag and because the red cross on a background of white was easily recognized and reproducible on battlefields.

In August 1864, the Geneva Convention Treaty was signed by the representatives of 12 governments. The extraordinary efforts of Henry Dunant led to the eventual establishment of the International Red Cross.

The founding of the American Red Cross in 1881 was due to the devotion and dedication of Clara Barton. http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/pre190...

just candid wrote:

Linda wants to have all smokers stand up to act dumb and stupid.

Did someone drain your pool???

just candid wrote:

In todays world it's only the backward and slow to learn who still smoke. It's OK, if they want to harm themselves, but they don't have any right to smoke around non-smokers.

Go buy a politician!!!

Gary Capshaw wrote:

Smoking has now passed from a health issue to a civil rights issue and I, for one, won't be treated like a second-class citizen any more.
Outright bans on smoking subvert the liberties of the business owners. THEY should be the ones who decide! It's called freedom, folks.
Are you for freedom or not?

Try to get it through the antis heads its about freedom. They dont know the meaning of the word.

The complaints about smoking bans are as predictable and empty as usual. The same, stale arguments are trotted out as each city/county/state/country falls to the march of progress.

Gary Capshaw wrote:

It's called freedom, folks.
Are you for freedom or not?

You are right. I should have the freedom not to smell your smoke. If you have to smoke stay in your car and keep your smoke there. Food servers and non-smokers should not be exposed to this health hazard.

Eric Johnson wrote:

The complaints about smoking bans are as predictable and empty as usual. The same, stale arguments are trotted out as each city/county/state/country falls to the march of progress.

Falls to the march of tyranny. Not near as empty as your cranial cavity.

Sup yall wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right. I should have the freedom not to smell your smoke. If you have to smoke stay in your car and keep your smoke there. Food servers and non-smokers should not be exposed to this health hazard.

Since when are you antis our parents? Since When did you start thinking your qualified to make our decisions for us?

Antis ARE CANCER wrote:

<quoted text>
Since when are you antis our parents? Since When did you start thinking your qualified to make our decisions for us?

Hmmm...since we realised you were putting our health at risk.

Eric Johnson wrote:

The complaints about smoking bans are as predictable and empty as usual. The same, stale arguments are trotted out as each city/county/state/country falls to the march of progress.

Smoking bans have been stopped many places in part by these arguments.

What progress? Smoke exposure of nonsmokers overall is not reduced by bans and the smoke exposure of very young children is increased. What good is a smoking ban if it causes young children to breathe more smoke.

Bill Hannegan wrote:

<quoted text>
What progress? Smoke exposure of nonsmokers overall is not reduced by bans and the smoke exposure of very young children is increased. What good is a smoking ban if it causes young children to breathe more smoke.

There's another one.

Smoking bans have been stopped many places in part by these arguments.

A mere blip in the story of evolution. They'll soon come back in when they see other places do it with none of the effects the conspiracy theorists predict.

Eric Johnson wrote:

<quoted text>
There's another one.
<quoted text>
A mere blip in the story of evolution. They'll soon come back in when they see other places do it with none of the effects the conspiracy theorists predict.

Are you saying that the bar owners I am talking to in Columbia Missouri who say their business is way down due to the ban are lying to me? Why would they do that?

The propsosed laws on smoking are not smoking bans. They are mear restrictions on when and where a smoker may smoke. This is much like the restrictions many areas have about when and where you may drink beer.They are no big deal and easy to live with.

Eric Johnson wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmm...since we realised you were putting our health at risk.

Go back to oxford...you missed a class or 3.