Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme Court

Apr 8, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Business First of Columbus

The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a Columbus-based case that challenges the constitutionality of the state's indoor smoking ban, the Dayton Daily News reports .

Comments (Page 1,017)

Showing posts 20,321 - 20,340 of21,325
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22806
Apr 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the pro-health folk are compromising--bending over backwards, actually--at the level where the tobacco industry is permitted to continue to market their products. No amount of effort to mitigate the damage done by those products is fanaticism.
Try a test for me. Stop saying "smoking" when you discuss that activity. Instead, substitute something that describes the reality of it. Don't repeat concepts. Don't filter by whether they will make it sound good or bad. Don't count "It isn't THAT bad" as something "good" about it. See how much more quickly you run out of good things to say about it than bad. Then take a look at how much more serious the bad things are.
No denialist crap here.
Include descriptions of the actual process itself--such as burning factory-made paper-wrapped sticks of dried, toxic, deliberately-polluted leaves for the sake of sucking the hot smoke produced deep into your lungs.
Include the causal links--accepted by virtually all medical science--between both active AND passive smoking to each of the associated diseases.[The fact that YOU don't want to accept it does NOT negate the virtually universal agreement within the medical community.]
Include the fact that it is rated the #1 preventable cause of death in many countries.
Include the fact that it is believed to have been causal in more Americans' deaths in the last decade (to be very conservative in the death rate) than were all the wars our country has fought put together.
Include addiction.
Include its position as the #1 cause of apartment fire fatalities year after year.
Include that it helps you relax when you are tensed (so long as you acknowledge that a large part of that effect has to do with easing withdrawals).
Include the reckless endangerment people put themselves through, such as going outside in sub-zero weather rather than do without a smoke for a while.
Include that it allows you to blow smoke-rings (through your ear, if your eardrum is gone on that side).
Include its spot as #1 source of radiation exposure in America.
Include that it creates some level of bond with others who indulge.
Include that it creates a barrier between you and people who can't or won't deal with the smoke.
Include its spot as #1 source of littered items in virtually every major beach cleanup globally.
Include the fact that using their products supports and rewards the criminal organization that the industry became at least by 1952.
==========
Marketing AND/OR smoking of tobacco products is simply insupportable if viewed dispassionately. Both should be illegal. Neither could be carried out in quantities that would sustain the relevant level of addiction without being noticed. A few weeks without those products would reduce the instance of addiction to where no one (outside of the tobacco companies and their dependents) would any longer CARE that it wasn't permitted. No one would WANT to smoke.
OMG!

You make the fanatical control freaks over at PETA seem reasonable.

Are you sure you are not the reincarnation of Carrie Nation?

History knows your kind.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2006/05/...
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22807
Apr 13, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

ROTFLMAO wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Nice back peddle - dip shit. Now you're saying you were being sarcastic?!!! Get a life- the only idiot's would believe that shit are MORONS....seems like your dropping off like the flies you are too.:)
There is a HUGE difference between me going in and ordering a steak that the cook prepares compared to an innocent family wanting to sit down at a restaurant- only to be harmed by the toxic smoke that YOU force them to breathe in. Yes- you smoking in public is FORCING people to breathe in your stench. That is why there is a smoking ban. Go cry me a river you liberal-closet case douche bag!:)
Could you become any more intellectually dishonest if you tried?

I thought this was supposed to be about the so called "right to smoke free air in the workplace"?

So you have the "right" to smoke free air, but the workers do not?

So the workers have a choice as to where they work, but the patrons have no choice as to who they patronize?

LMAO!

The amount of self righteous hypocrisy you are capable of is beyond pathetic.

The real solution is to act like adults by using your right to freedom of association, rather than acting like a Fascistic control freak who demand everyone and every place cater to their desires.

Tell us, what kind of person seeks to force everyone to see life their way...or else?

Hhhhhmmmm.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22808
Apr 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>I can't speak for all smokers, but I always use an ashtray when one is provided
First, you clearly are NOT representative, given the billions of butts hitting the ground every year. Second, an ashtray is ALWAYS provided--even if it is a mile away. If the inconvenience is an excuse for dropping the butt where you happen to have no further abuse for it, I don't see that you are claiming anything particularly admirable.

You are generating waste. Bag it and discard it appropriately if that is what it takes, and THEN come tell us what a good boy you are.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22809
Apr 13, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG!
You make the fanatical control freaks over at PETA seem reasonable.
Dump the ad hominem.
If you think you add to the list and make smoking look like a good--or even excusable--activity, give it a shot. I don't believe I came close to exhausting the negatives.
No Smoking Sign

Fort Collins, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22811
Apr 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought this was supposed to be about the so called "right to smoke free air in the workplace"?
So you have the "right" to smoke free air, but the workers do not?
So the workers have a choice as to where they work, but the patrons have no choice as to who they patronize?
Hhhhhmmmm.
mmmmmm. do you have to pay for air to smoke?? or can you not smoke free air - I'm thinking a hyphen between "smoke" and "free" would have gone a long way toward making this a comprehendible post. But entertaining, nonetheless.
The Canadian Sympathizer

Victoria, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22812
Apr 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the pro-health folk are compromising--bending over backwards, actually--at the level where the tobacco industry is permitted to continue to market their products. No amount of effort to mitigate the damage done by those products is fanaticism.
Try a test for me. Stop saying "smoking" when you discuss that activity. Instead, substitute something that describes the reality of it. Don't repeat concepts. Don't filter by whether they will make it sound good or bad. Don't count "It isn't THAT bad" as something "good" about it. See how much more quickly you run out of good things to say about it than bad. Then take a look at how much more serious the bad things are.
No denialist crap here.
Include descriptions of the actual process itself--such as burning factory-made paper-wrapped sticks of dried, toxic, deliberately-polluted leaves for the sake of sucking the hot smoke produced deep into your lungs.
Include the causal links--accepted by virtually all medical science--between both active AND passive smoking to each of the associated diseases.[The fact that YOU don't want to accept it does NOT negate the virtually universal agreement within the medical community.]
Include the fact that it is rated the #1 preventable cause of death in many countries.
Include the fact that it is believed to have been causal in more Americans' deaths in the last decade (to be very conservative in the death rate) than were all the wars our country has fought put together.
Include addiction.
Include its position as the #1 cause of apartment fire fatalities year after year.
Include that it helps you relax when you are tensed (so long as you acknowledge that a large part of that effect has to do with easing withdrawals).
Include the reckless endangerment people put themselves through, such as going outside in sub-zero weather rather than do without a smoke for a while.
Include that it allows you to blow smoke-rings (through your ear, if your eardrum is gone on that side).
Include its spot as #1 source of radiation exposure in America.
Include that it creates some level of bond with others who indulge.
Include that it creates a barrier between you and people who can't or won't deal with the smoke.
Include its spot as #1 source of littered items in virtually every major beach cleanup globally.
Include the fact that using their products supports and rewards the criminal organization that the industry became at least by 1952.
==========
Marketing AND/OR smoking of tobacco products is simply insupportable if viewed dispassionately. Both should be illegal. Neither could be carried out in quantities that would sustain the relevant level of addiction without being noticed. A few weeks without those products would reduce the instance of addiction to where no one (outside of the tobacco companies and their dependents) would any longer CARE that it wasn't permitted. No one would WANT to smoke.
Why should I stop saying "smoking" when describing that activity? That is what it's called, isn't it?

The test that you want done could be applied to anything that some people do not like. But when you do the test, you would not be calling the activity by the name that people who enjoy it use. You are putting a very strong bias on your discussions of smoking.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22813
Apr 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>Why should I stop saying "smoking" when describing that activity? That is what it's called, isn't it?
The test that you want done could be applied to anything that some people do not like. But when you do the test, you would not be calling the activity by the name that people who enjoy it use. You are putting a very strong bias on your discussions of smoking.
Excuse me, but you are dodging. There is nothing else in your response.
I simply suggested that, in order to become a little more aware of the reality, you consider the activity itself rather than simply dismissing it with a label.
By insisting on using nothing but the label, you are putting a very strong bias on your discussions of the #1 preventable cause of death worldwide.
"Anything that some people don't like"? You're equating the global medical community's evaluation of the links between smoking and dozens of diseases with a simple "dislike" of "some people"? Talk about a "very strong bias on your discussions"!
You think supporting and rewarding a criminal organization CONVICTED of having defrauded the nation and its people for half a century is something that can be said of "anything some people dislike"? You don't think your assertion shows a "very strong bias"?
Please note that I asked you to perform the exercise yourself. YOU are free to put any positive elements of smoking that YOU perceive into the mix.
In fact, if you want to trot out all the positives you can come up with first, and move on to the negatives only you run out, go for it. Just don't ignore the negatives. Just don't impose a "very strong bias on your discussions".
Or, try alternating. See how long you can match the one with the other (without refusing to acknowledge those that are not part of your desired worldview). If you wish, qualify whichever negatives you believe you can justify it for with the preface that "the medical community claims" or "some people believe". So long as you also qualify any statement that the activity is in some way pleasurable by saying "some people believe".
I'm asking you to be honest with yourself.
Take notes, if you wish, of the descriptions you come up with for the activity. Look at them after you've amassed a list and consider weighing each for significance.
I'm not asking you to say anything about what should or shouldn't be done about public smoking. I am asking you to stop tossing a label around and THINK about exactly what it is that this forum--not this thread or this subthread--is about.
Yes, I'm asking you to be honest with yourself. I am not saying you should share the outcome with anyone, here or elsewhere.
In one of your posts in the last couple days, you seem to be saying that you value reason. It is, I think, quite reasonable to ask you to examine this activity and its merits in juxtaposition with its drawbacks. Are YOU reasonable enough to do that, or are you UNreasonable enough to refuse on the grounds that I "have no right to make you"?
This challenge is there for anyone on either side of the argument. The better understanding each individual has of the topic of our discussions, the better we will be able to reason together.

I confess that I had difficulty going more than a few rounds coming up with "good" things about smoking. Given that the medical community says it harms every organ in the human body, I think it would be fair to say that there would be no difficulty in finding at least a dozen to a score of things to use from the negative column.

Your mileage may vary. Of course, if the only reason I am having problems finding as many positives that are as SERIOUS as the negatives is that I am imposing a bias, then engaging in the exercise should not be objectionable for you.
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22814
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hugh Jass wrote:
This challenge is there for anyone on either side of the argument.
I'm sure this will go over your head...but anyway...

http://www.pbs.org/marktwain/learnmore/writin...

I have achieved my seventy years in the usual way: by sticking strictly to a scheme of life which would kill anybody else. It sounds like an exaggeration, but that is really the common rule for attaining to old age. When we examine the programme of any of these garrulous old people we always find that the habits which have preserved them would have decayed us; that the way of life which enabled them to live upon the property of their heirs so long, as Mr. Choate says, would have put us out of commission ahead of time. I will offer here, as a sound maxim, this: That we canít reach old age by another manís road.

I will now teach, offering my way of life to whomsoever desires to commit suicide by the scheme which has enabled me to beat the doctor and the hangman for seventy years. Some of the details may sound untrue, but they are not. I am not here to deceive; I am here to teach.

We have no permanent habits until we are forty. Then they begin to harden, presently they petrify, then business begins. Since forty I have been regular about going to bed and getting up-and that is one of the main things. I have made it a rule to go to bed when there wasnít anybody left to sit up with; and I have made it a rule to get up when I had to. This has resulted in an unswerving regularity of irregularity. It has saved me sound, but it would injure another person.

In the matter of diet-which is another main thing-I have been persistently strict in sticking to the things which didnít agree with me until one or the other of us got the best of it. Until lately I got the best of it myself. But last spring I stopped frolicking with mince-pie after midnight; up to then I had always believed it wasnít loaded. For thirty years I have taken coffee and bread at eight in the morning, and no bite nor sup until seven-thirty in the evening. Eleven hours. That is all right for me, and is wholesome, because I have never had a headache in my life, but headachy people would not reach seventy comfortably by that road, and they would be foolish to try it. And I wish to urge upon you this-which I think is wisdom-that if you find you canít make seventy by any but an uncomfortable road, donít you go. When they take off the Pullman and retire you to the rancid smoker, put on your things, count your checks, and get out at the first way station where thereís a cemetery.

I have made it a rule never to smoke more than one cigar at a time. I have no other restriction as regards smoking. I do not know just when I began to smoke, I only know that it was in my fatherís lifetime, and that I was discreet. He passed from this life early in 1847, when I was a shade past eleven; ever since then I have smoked publicly. As an example to others, and not that I care for moderation myself, it has always been my rule never to smoke when asleep, and never to refrain when awake. It is a good rule. I mean, for me; but some of you know quite well that it wouldnít answer for everybody thatís trying to get to be seventy.
--------
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22815
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I smoke in bed until I have to go to sleep; I wake up in the night, sometimes once, sometimes twice, sometimes three times, and I never waste any of these opportunities to smoke. This habit is so old and dear and precious to me that I would feel as you, sir, would feel if you should lose the only moral youíve got-meaning the chairman-if youíve got one: I am making no charges. I will grant, here, that I have stopped smoking now and then, for a few months at a time, but it was not on principle, it was only to show off; it was to pulverize those critics who said I was a slave to my habits and couldnít break my bonds.

To-day it is all of sixty years since I began to smoke the limit. I have never bought cigars with life-belts around them. I early found that those were too expensive for me. I have always bought cheap cigars-reasonably cheap, at any rate. Sixty years ago they cost me four dollars a barrel, but my taste has improved, latterly, and I pay seven now. Six or seven. Seven, I think. Yes, itís seven. But that includes the barrel. I often have smoking-parties at my house; but the people that come have always just taken the pledge. I wonder why that is?
As for drinking, I have no rule about that. When the others drink I like to help; otherwise I remain dry, by habit and preference. This dryness does not hurt me, but it could easily hurt you, because you are different. You let it alone.

Mark Twain, 1905.
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22816
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mark Twain

The Moral Statistician

Originally published in Sketches, Old and New, 1893

I don't want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it.

I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years' indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc. etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc. etc. You never see more than one side of the question..

Of course you can save money by denying yourself all those little vicious enjoyments for fifty years; but then what can you do with it? What use can you put it to? Money can't save your infinitesimal soul. All the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life; therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment where is the use of accumulating cash?

It won't do for you to say that you can use it to better purpose in furnishing a good table, and in charities, and in supporting tract societies, because you know yourself that you people who have no petty vices are never known to give away a cent, and that you stint yourselves so in the matter of food that you are always feeble and hungry. And you never dare to laugh in the daytime for fear some poor wretch, seeing you in a good humor, will try to borrow a dollar of you; and in church you are always down on your knees, with your ears buried in the cushion, when the contribution-box comes around; and you never give the revenue officers a full statement of your income.

Now you know all these things yourself, don't you? Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age? What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you? In a word, why don't you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as ornery and unlovable as you are yourselves, by your villainous "moral statistics"?

Now, I don't approve of dissipation, and I don't indulge in it either; but I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices. And so I don't want to hear from you any more. I think you are the very same man who read me a long lecture last week about the degrading vice of smoking cigars, and then came back, in my absence, with your reprehensible fire-proof gloves on, and carried off my beautiful parlor stove.
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22817
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hugh Jass wrote:
.
I simply suggested that, in order to become a little more aware of the reality, you consider the activity itself rather than simply dismissing it with a label.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.

This very kindness stings with intolerable insult.

To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we 'ought to have known better,' is to be treated as a human person made in God's image."
-- C.S. Lewis
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22818
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities.

But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant ó society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it ó its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries.

Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own."

John Stuart Mill
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22819
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

ROTFLMAO wrote:
<quoted text>
Smoking KILLS. FACT!
Go ask Linda.:) Oh wait! You can't, can you?? LUNG CANCER.
You've never given even a retarded attempt at even lying like the rest of your ilk because you are dumber than THEY are.:) That makes you pretty much brain dead.:) Go on. Try it. Give us a 'smokers' fact there bent kent!
Fk- you don't even know the difference between the WORD "EWE" and "YOU"!!!!!!! I know 6 year olds that are smarter than YOU!!!
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
gay sex kills also

how much time do you have left?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22820
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

smoking ban= illegal law

healthcare by Obama = illegal
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22821
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be the group of folks who put the determination of constitutionality into the hands of the Supreme Court, right?
Absolutely, however it is clear that those who are now holding that office are no longer paying any attention to what the document that is intended to provide the rules they must abide by actually says.

The courts have become every bit as corrupted as the rest of this collectivist failed system, and they have convinced the Sheeple that the Constitution means whatever they say at any given time.

The very concept of a "living document" has ZERO grounds for justification based on the actual writings of the founders, and it's beyond obvious that they had a much better understanding of what they actually meant when they wrote the Constitution.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson
----------

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
--------

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln
-------

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes.
A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
Abraham Lincoln
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22822
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, but you are dodging. There is nothing else in your response.
I simply suggested that, in order to become a little more aware of the reality, you consider the activity itself rather than simply dismissing it with a label.
By insisting on using nothing but the label, you are putting a very strong bias on your discussions of the #1 preventable cause of death worldwide.
"Anything that some people don't like"? You're equating the global medical community's evaluation of the links between smoking and dozens of diseases with a simple "dislike" of "some people"? Talk about a "very strong bias on your discussions"!
You think supporting and rewarding a criminal organization CONVICTED of having defrauded the nation and its people for half a century is something that can be said of "anything some people dislike"? You don't think your assertion shows a "very strong bias"?
Please note that I asked you to perform the exercise yourself. YOU are free to put any positive elements of smoking that YOU perceive into the mix.
In fact, if you want to trot out all the positives you can come up with first, and move on to the negatives only you run out, go for it. Just don't ignore the negatives. Just don't impose a "very strong bias on your discussions".
Or, try alternating. See how long you can match the one with the other (without refusing to acknowledge those that are not part of your desired worldview). If you wish, qualify whichever negatives you believe you can justify it for with the preface that "the medical community claims" or "some people believe". So long as you also qualify any statement that the activity is in some way pleasurable by saying "some people believe".
I'm asking you to be honest with yourself.
Take notes, if you wish, of the descriptions you come up with for the activity. Look at them after you've amassed a list and consider weighing each for significance.
I'm not asking you to say anything about what should or shouldn't be done about public smoking. I am asking you to stop tossing a label around and THINK about exactly what it is that this forum--not this thread or this subthread--is about.
Yes, I'm asking you to be honest with yourself. I am not saying you should share the outcome with anyone, here or elsewhere.
In one of your posts in the last couple days, you seem to be saying that you value reason. It is, I think, quite reasonable to ask you to examine this activity and its merits in juxtaposition with its drawbacks. Are YOU reasonable enough to do that, or are you UNreasonable enough to refuse on the grounds that I "have no right to make you"?
This challenge is there for anyone on either side of the argument. The better understanding each individual has of the topic of our discussions, the better we will be able to reason together.
I confess that I had difficulty going more than a few rounds coming up with "good" things about smoking. Given that the medical community says it harms every organ in the human body, I think it would be fair to say that there would be no difficulty in finding at least a dozen to a score of things to use from the negative column.
Your mileage may vary. Of course, if the only reason I am having problems finding as many positives that are as SERIOUS as the negatives is that I am imposing a bias, then engaging in the exercise should not be objectionable for you.
the label = illegal law

next
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22823
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Dump the ad hominem.
If you think you add to the list and make smoking look like a good--or even excusable--activity, give it a shot. I don't believe I came close to exhausting the negatives.
like abortion, it is a choice

want some negatives regarding abortion?

Abortion for fact kills......smoking can

so in closing, this is a illegal law that infringes upon property rights protected by the US Constitution; and will be struck down.
The Canadian Sympathizer

Victoria, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22824
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you clearly are NOT representative, given the billions of butts hitting the ground every year. Second, an ashtray is ALWAYS provided--even if it is a mile away. If the inconvenience is an excuse for dropping the butt where you happen to have no further abuse for it, I don't see that you are claiming anything particularly admirable.
You are generating waste. Bag it and discard it appropriately if that is what it takes, and THEN come tell us what a good boy you are.
If the ashtray is a mile away, one is not being provided. Do you really believe your own statements? That has got to be one of the most moronic statements you have made.
The Canadian Sympathizer

Victoria, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22825
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Freedom wrote:
I smoke in bed until I have to go to sleep; I wake up in the night, sometimes once, sometimes twice, sometimes three times, and I never waste any of these opportunities to smoke. This habit is so old and dear and precious to me that I would feel as you, sir, would feel if you should lose the only moral youíve got-meaning the chairman-if youíve got one: I am making no charges. I will grant, here, that I have stopped smoking now and then, for a few months at a time, but it was not on principle, it was only to show off; it was to pulverize those critics who said I was a slave to my habits and couldnít break my bonds.
To-day it is all of sixty years since I began to smoke the limit. I have never bought cigars with life-belts around them. I early found that those were too expensive for me. I have always bought cheap cigars-reasonably cheap, at any rate. Sixty years ago they cost me four dollars a barrel, but my taste has improved, latterly, and I pay seven now. Six or seven. Seven, I think. Yes, itís seven. But that includes the barrel. I often have smoking-parties at my house; but the people that come have always just taken the pledge. I wonder why that is?
As for drinking, I have no rule about that. When the others drink I like to help; otherwise I remain dry, by habit and preference. This dryness does not hurt me, but it could easily hurt you, because you are different. You let it alone.
Mark Twain, 1905.
You shouldn't smoke in bed. It's dangerous.

It's interesting, that with all the "secondhand smoke" propaganda, the real danger of smoking is seldom mentioned by the anti-smoking fanatics; that it causes fires. They talk about everything that their overactive imaginations can come up with, while ignoring the most obvious, and most real, danger of smoking.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22826
Apr 14, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure this will go over your head
Oh, no. I got it right away. You know you have nothing to scrape all the egg off your face and so you are coming back disparaging and tossing in the words/reasoning of a humorist from over a century ago as if it were somehow definitive in a serious discussion regarding conditions of today.
Does that about cover it?
Sorry, rerun, but you're a bore, boor.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 20,321 - 20,340 of21,325
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••