Michigan House OKs smoking ban, exempts casinos

PreachingtheGospel wrote:

I might add that I can also use my privilage to save lives too.! For instance if Im out and about and I see a criminal, like you Goverment Foe ! About to harm someone. I can use my privilage to protect the innocent and save lives.! But first I would have to ask them if they voted for the smoking ban.! I wouldnt want to save someone who wants to take away anyones freedom, there not worth the cost of the ammunition.
One has to very wise how they use this special priviliage, becasue most of you low lifes cannot get a permit!

LMAO...still don't learn, do you. For someone who doesn't care what I think, you sure do explain yourself abundantly. With each reply, you prove how much you do care what I think...LMAO.

BTW, I have a permit, dingbat. Your assumptions once again make you appear the fool.

GF this Preacher guy is a fool. He is on his soap box preaching. I would ignore his ignorance from know on. Let him prattle on and on if he wants. The only person that really cares about what he is preaching is himself. You have proven yourself over and over. Time to let this fool go.

Government Foe wrote:

<quoted text>
LMAO...still don't learn, do you. For someone who doesn't care what I think, you sure do explain yourself abundantly. With each reply, you prove how much you do care what I think...LMAO.
BTW, I have a permit, dingbat. Your assumptions once again make you appear the fool.

You call 3 or 4 Sentences abundt.?

Dell wrote:

GF this Preacher guy is a fool. He is on his soap box preaching. I would ignore his ignorance from know on. Let him prattle on and on if he wants. The only person that really cares about what he is preaching is himself. You have proven yourself over and over. Time to let this fool go.

and your from Michigan ! Need I say more.

Pretty sure she was talking about people like Goverment Foe, TruthbeTold and Dell.!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Eugenicist

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, July 9, 2009

In a revealing interview with the New York Times, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says abortion should be used to control useless eaters and unwanted populations.






She does not say it like that, but she might as well have.

Asked out “reproductive choice”— that is, the choice to kill a fetus — Ginsburg said the Supreme Court ruling on Medicaid surprised her. In 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” said the Justice (emphasis added).

In other words, Ginsberg says abortion is a eugenics tool designed to weed out the undesirable and useless eaters, to specifically control the number of people the ruling elite “don’t want to have too many of,” i.e., the poor and specifically people of color.

“Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly,” declared Margaret Sanger, a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society and founder of Planned Parenthood.“Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born.”

PreachingtheGospel wrote:

Oh hey Freaks look here: Your fighting a losing battle
Dutch bar owners winning battle against smoking ban:
Can put-upon minorities wage battle against government regulators and win? In the Netherlands, at least when it comes to smoking bans, the answer appears to be "yes." After a year of widespread defiance of a law banning smoking in bars and cafes, and two court victories by bar owners, the Dutch government is backing off enforcement of the intrusive ban and effectively letting many smaller businesses set policies that work for them and their customers.
The key to the apparent victory appears to be cooperation. Bars and cafes across the country coordinated their defiance of the smoking ban after business dropped by as much as 30% in the wake of the law's passage. To lure back customers who wanted cigarettes with their drinks, bars put the ashtrays back on the tables.
First-hand accounts even had bar patrons using table-top candle holders for their ashes in establishments that didn;t want tomake their defiance too obvious.
The Dutch government fined hundreds of establishments, but couldn't break the back of the resistance.
The law suffered perhaps fatal setbacks when courts ruled that the the government had no authority to impose total bans on small establishments that had no staff when it let larger businesses designate smoking areas. Another court ruled in favor of a bar owner who designated a store room as the (non-smoking) bar and the rest of the establishment as a smoking area.
Now, Dutch bar and cafe owners are free -- at least for the time being -- to establish rules that attract customers and suit their businesses
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties...

And here's the rest of the story:
It's nice how the "Civil-Liberties" Weenies TWIST the story so it sounds like a HUGE break-thru and a big win for the Hard Core Smoking Addicts. How Bogus!!!

Just google Dutch Smoking Ban or Dutch Bar owners and you can read the "WHOLE" story and not the twisted version the yellow press put out.

It's a lot weaker than the putz from the civil-liberties printed.

I'll let you decide:

Fri Jul 3, 3:46 pm ET
THE HAGUE (AFP)– Dutch bar owners won a new victory in their fight against a smoking ban on their premises when an appeal court cleared two of them of breaking the law and quashed a 1,200 euro fine.
"The law contains no formal obligation for landlords of cafes, restaurants and hotels without staff to implement a smoking ban," the appeal court at Leeuwarden in the northern Netherlands said in a statement.
It overturned the verdict handed down in a lower court against the pair from Groningen who became the first to be prosecuted following the introduction of the nationwide ban a year ago.
In May the appeals court of Den Bosch, in the southern Netherlands, upheld the acquittal of the two owners of the Victoria cafe in Breda, near the Belgian border.
"The court finds that the (ban) is partly non-binding, as it lacks legal grounding" regarding establishments with no staff, said a court statement.
The ban on smoking in the hotel, restaurant and catering industry had sought to protect staff from the dangers of second-hand smoke inhalation.

Oh and let us not forget the HUGE pro smoking pro bar owners rally that Ohio did last year. What a laughable flop that was and seems like the Dutch tried the same thing over a year ago too and it was a big flop too. They bragged that it was 5000 folks when the police estimated it was 1500. Smoking is done in public and is just socially unacceptable WORLDWIDE. AMEN!!!

This was a year ago and they have basically crawled back in their holes just as the Ohio smoking addicts did.

"Dutch cafe owners on Saturday took to the streets of The Hague in protest at a smoking ban they say has seen business drop by up to a third.
Organisers said 5,000 people took part although police estimates put the number at around 1,500."

What a bunch of losers.

Trashy Smokers wrote:

<quoted text>
And here's the rest of the story:
It's nice how the "Civil-Liberties" Weenies TWIST the story so it sounds like a HUGE break-thru and a big win for the Hard Core Smoking Addicts. How Bogus!!!
Just google Dutch Smoking Ban or Dutch Bar owners and you can read the "WHOLE" story and not the twisted version the yellow press put out.
It's a lot weaker than the putz from the civil-liberties printed.
I'll let you decide:
Fri Jul 3, 3:46 pm ET
THE HAGUE (AFP)– Dutch bar owners won a new victory in their fight against a smoking ban on their premises when an appeal court cleared two of them of breaking the law and quashed a 1,200 euro fine.
"The law contains no formal obligation for landlords of cafes, restaurants and hotels without staff to implement a smoking ban," the appeal court at Leeuwarden in the northern Netherlands said in a statement.
It overturned the verdict handed down in a lower court against the pair from Groningen who became the first to be prosecuted following the introduction of the nationwide ban a year ago.
In May the appeals court of Den Bosch, in the southern Netherlands, upheld the acquittal of the two owners of the Victoria cafe in Breda, near the Belgian border.
"The court finds that the (ban) is partly non-binding, as it lacks legal grounding" regarding establishments with no staff, said a court statement.
The ban on smoking in the hotel, restaurant and catering industry had sought to protect staff from the dangers of second-hand smoke inhalation.

Your posts just reconfirms the earlier one. The Dutch bar owners no longer have to follow the smoking ban. That happened after the owners relentlessly ignored the ban and then fought their case in court....all the way to the highest court. Thanks for posting another version of the same story. It shows the amount of press this victory for owners' rights is getting.

Trashy Smokers wrote:

<quoted text>
And here's the rest of the story:
It's nice how the "Civil-Liberties" Weenies TWIST the story so it sounds like a HUGE break-thru and a big win for the Hard Core Smoking Addicts. How Bogus!!!
Just google Dutch Smoking Ban or Dutch Bar owners and you can read the "WHOLE" story and not the twisted version the yellow press put out.
It's a lot weaker than the putz from the civil-liberties printed.
I'll let you decide:
Fri Jul 3, 3:46 pm ET
THE HAGUE (AFP)– Dutch bar owners won a new victory in their fight against a smoking ban on their premises when an appeal court cleared two of them of breaking the law and quashed a 1,200 euro fine.
"The law contains no formal obligation for landlords of cafes, restaurants and hotels without staff to implement a smoking ban," the appeal court at Leeuwarden in the northern Netherlands said in a statement.
It overturned the verdict handed down in a lower court against the pair from Groningen who became the first to be prosecuted following the introduction of the nationwide ban a year ago.
In May the appeals court of Den Bosch, in the southern Netherlands, upheld the acquittal of the two owners of the Victoria cafe in Breda, near the Belgian border.
"The court finds that the (ban) is partly non-binding, as it lacks legal grounding" regarding establishments with no staff, said a court statement.
The ban on smoking in the hotel, restaurant and catering industry had sought to protect staff from the dangers of second-hand smoke inhalation.

Isn't it sad what an addiction to nicotine does to these people?I'm just glad i dont have something like this controlling my life.What a sad way to live.

Who's fat , non smokers are FAT !
Your too FAT!
How dangerous is overweight in the absence of frank obesity - the pendulum swings a bit
(December 2006)
The extent of the dangers of overweight is controversial; in contrast, the data on obesity are clear. Overweight and obesity are defined currently by the Body Mass Index (BMI)- the weight in kilograms divided by the height in meters squared (CLICK HERE for a table that allows you to determine your own BMI). A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is normal weight; 25 to 29.9 is overweight; 30 to 34.9 is mild to moderate obesity; 35 to 39.9 is marked obesity; and 40 and over (at least 60 percent overweight) is severe obesity. Two new studies in The New England Journal of Medicine, August 24, 2006, conclude that overweight, in the absence of obesity, increases risk of death.
The first article, from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, examined risk of death from any cause in 527,265 men and women, ages 50 to 71 years, who were followed for a 10-year period. During that period, there were 61,317 deaths. BMI was divided into ten categories from underweight to normal (three categories), to overweight (three categories), to obese (three categories).
Among men, there was a small (10 percent) increase in deaths among those mildly to moderately obese. Among the markedly obese, the risk of death increased by 35 percent, and among the severely obese, the risk was increased by 83 percent. BUT, the risk of death was also increased by 54 percent in the lowest third of the normal range! For those who were overweight, but not obese, there was no increased risk of death.
Then, the investigators separated smokers from non-smokers. Among overweight smokers, the risk of death was significantly reduced by 9 to 18 percent. Among non-smokers, those in the top third of the overweight category had a modest (20 percent) increased risk of death. As expected, that risk was greater (doubled) for those non-smokers who were markedly obese.
http://healthfullife.umdnj.edu/newsletter/dan ...

Trashy Smokers wrote:

Oh and let us not forget the HUGE pro smoking pro bar owners rally that Ohio did last year. What a laughable flop that was and seems like the Dutch tried the same thing over a year ago too and it was a big flop too. They bragged that it was 5000 folks when the police estimated it was 1500. Smoking is done in public and is just socially unacceptable WORLDWIDE. AMEN!!!
This was a year ago and they have basically crawled back in their holes just as the Ohio smoking addicts did.
"Dutch cafe owners on Saturday took to the streets of The Hague in protest at a smoking ban they say has seen business drop by up to a third.
Organisers said 5,000 people took part although police estimates put the number at around 1,500."
What a bunch of losers.

Guess again FREAK !
As Introduced

128th General Assembly
Regular Session
2009-2010
S. B. No. 120


Senator Schuler

Cosponsors: Senators Cates, Grendell, Schaffer, Seitz

----------

A BILL
To amend sections 3794.01 and 3794.03 of the Revised Code regarding exemptions from the smoking ban.

Look it up yourself.!

PreachingtheGospel wrote:

Who's fat , non smokers are FAT !
Your too FAT!
How dangerous is overweight in the absence of frank obesity - the pendulum swings a bit
(December 2006)
The extent of the dangers of overweight is controversial; in contrast, the data on obesity are clear. Overweight and obesity are defined currently by the Body Mass Index (BMI)- the weight in kilograms divided by the height in meters squared (CLICK HERE for a table that allows you to determine your own BMI). A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is normal weight; 25 to 29.9 is overweight; 30 to 34.9 is mild to moderate obesity; 35 to 39.9 is marked obesity; and 40 and over (at least 60 percent overweight) is severe obesity. Two new studies in The New England Journal of Medicine, August 24, 2006, conclude that overweight, in the absence of obesity, increases risk of death.
The first article, from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, examined risk of death from any cause in 527,265 men and women, ages 50 to 71 years, who were followed for a 10-year period. During that period, there were 61,317 deaths. BMI was divided into ten categories from underweight to normal (three categories), to overweight (three categories), to obese (three categories).
Among men, there was a small (10 percent) increase in deaths among those mildly to moderately obese. Among the markedly obese, the risk of death increased by 35 percent, and among the severely obese, the risk was increased by 83 percent. BUT, the risk of death was also increased by 54 percent in the lowest third of the normal range! For those who were overweight, but not obese, there was no increased risk of death.
Then, the investigators separated smokers from non-smokers. Among overweight smokers, the risk of death was significantly reduced by 9 to 18 percent. Among non-smokers, those in the top third of the overweight category had a modest (20 percent) increased risk of death. As expected, that risk was greater (doubled) for those non-smokers who were markedly obese.
http://healthfullife.umdnj.edu/newsletter/dan ...

LOL Smoker my brother and sister are smokers and FAT!Smokers are fat.

PreachingtheGospel wrote:

Who's fat , non smokers are FAT !
Your too FAT!
How dangerous is overweight in the absence of frank obesity - the pendulum swings a bit
(December 2006)
The extent of the dangers of overweight is controversial; in contrast, the data on obesity are clear. Overweight and obesity are defined currently by the Body Mass Index (BMI)- the weight in kilograms divided by the height in meters squared (CLICK HERE for a table that allows you to determine your own BMI). A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is normal weight; 25 to 29.9 is overweight; 30 to 34.9 is mild to moderate obesity; 35 to 39.9 is marked obesity; and 40 and over (at least 60 percent overweight) is severe obesity. Two new studies in The New England Journal of Medicine, August 24, 2006, conclude that overweight, in the absence of obesity, increases risk of death.
The first article, from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, examined risk of death from any cause in 527,265 men and women, ages 50 to 71 years, who were followed for a 10-year period. During that period, there were 61,317 deaths. BMI was divided into ten categories from underweight to normal (three categories), to overweight (three categories), to obese (three categories).
Among men, there was a small (10 percent) increase in deaths among those mildly to moderately obese. Among the markedly obese, the risk of death increased by 35 percent, and among the severely obese, the risk was increased by 83 percent. BUT, the risk of death was also increased by 54 percent in the lowest third of the normal range! For those who were overweight, but not obese, there was no increased risk of death.
Then, the investigators separated smokers from non-smokers. Among overweight smokers, the risk of death was significantly reduced by 9 to 18 percent. Among non-smokers, those in the top third of the overweight category had a modest (20 percent) increased risk of death. As expected, that risk was greater (doubled) for those non-smokers who were markedly obese.
http://healthfullife.umdnj.edu/newsletter/dan ...

Where i work at,almost every smoker outside puffing away has a gut.Kind of knocks your nons theory out of the water,lol.

PreachingtheGospel wrote:

<quoted text>and your from Michigan ! Need I say more.

Preacher what does my living in Michigan really have to do with the whole picture. You have proven yourself over and over again that you are ignorant.

P.S. You say that non-smokers are fat well heres a news flash for you. I HAVE SEEN PLENTY OF BIG FAT SMOKERS IN MY LIFE TIME. Oh and your being from Ohio really isnt anything to brag about!

sandy63 wrote:

<quoted text>LOL Smoker my brother and sister are smokers and FAT!Smokers are fat.

I'm willing to bet so are you, you being the biggest. With a pantry full of cookie, chocolote, chips of every kind, dips, pop. but i bet the pop is diet, most big peopl will pig out on a table full of food and have a diet pop to drink with it.
Like it makes a differance.

Dell wrote:

<quoted text>
Preacher what does my living in Michigan really have to do with the whole picture. You have proven yourself over and over again that you are ignorant.
P.S. You say that non-smokers are fat well heres a news flash for you. I HAVE SEEN PLENTY OF BIG FAT SMOKERS IN MY LIFE TIME. Oh and your being from Ohio really isnt anything to brag about!

Wow someone with a brain on here besides me.They never mention the obese smokers just non smokers who are fat.Just about everyone i know where i live is in good shape and dont smoke.More of a higher class people where i live who dont need to indulge in that trash.

D-RM wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm willing to bet so are you, you being the biggest. With a pantry full of cookie, chocolote, chips of every kind, dips, pop. but i bet the pop is diet, most big peopl will pig out on a table full of food and have a diet pop to drink with it.
Like it makes a differance.

Good try smoker.You really try i'll give you credit for that.No i'm not because let me repeat it for your pea brain I CARE ABOUT MY HEALTH SO I'M NOT OVERWEIGHT OR SMOKE.Understand dunce?No cookies or cakes in my home.We grow our own veggies and eat right.A nonsmoker that's fat,LMFAO again.Look at my pic i have a garden idiot,and we use it.Lose again and a smoker will always lose.

PreachingtheGospel wrote:

<quoted text>Guess again FREAK !
As Introduced
128th General Assembly
Regular Session
2009-2010
S. B. No. 120
Senator Schuler
Cosponsors: Senators Cates, Grendell, Schaffer, Seitz
----------
A BILL
To amend sections 3794.01 and 3794.03 of the Revised Code regarding exemptions from the smoking ban.
Look it up yourself.!

Here it is.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm...

sandy63 wrote:

<quoted text>Good try smoker.You really try i'll give you credit for that.No i'm not because let me repeat it for your pea brain I CARE ABOUT MY HEALTH SO I'M NOT OVERWEIGHT OR SMOKE.Understand dunce?No cookies or cakes in my home.We grow our own veggies and eat right.A nonsmoker that's fat,LMFAO again.Look at my pic i have a garden idiot,and we use it.Lose again and a smoker will always lose.

You accually believe all that BS. you say dont you? Doesn't take any intelligence to watch plants grow in your little garden.

D-RM wrote:

<quoted text>
You accually believe all that BS. you say dont you? Doesn't take any intelligence to watch plants grow in your little garden.

At least i have enough intelligence to not smoke!!Even my dog dont want to be around you nasty smokers.So....who's more intelligent and who isn't ?LOL.Being a nonsmoker we grow things that are good for us.You know what?You can insult me till the cows come home and leave again.But you will never convince me that a smoker that only cares about his addiction can say anything worthwhile to me.I care about much more than an addiction that's why i dont smoke.I care about my family and we're all healthy people and very active and most importantly WE DONT SMOKE and we try to avoid being around it.RM if it makes you feel more manly by insulting a female nonsmoker than go for it.That's why most of you smokers are mean and bitter because your kind is dwindling.