RRC Archives

Wes wrote:Well, I went to a show in Lexington Saturday and was totally please to have it a non smoking place. It made the show much better to me, and I didn't smell like smoke the next day. So, as far as I am concerned, the ban is super cool, and should have been in place years ago.

Wes

"the ends justify the means"

Amen, Wes!

I went out and did my part to support the ban. And enjoyed my smoke free dinner and beer while doing it.

I'm with you guys. I support the ban and will probably go out more because of it. I wish Lynagh's was still open. There were so many great shows I passed up because how awful the smoke was in there.

I well remember not so long ago when there where no smoke free businesses, period. Grocery stores, department stores, restrauants, bars, night clubs, government buildings. Even, of all places, doctor's offices, hospitals, airliners, and schools. We non-smokers literally had no choice. By your logic UBG, I guess those of us who don't want to be exposed would all have to grow our own food, make all our own consumer goods, never go to the doctor, or school, and drive ourselves everywhere. Grow up. We live in a society, not some private waste land.

Sunshine wrote:I well remember not so long ago when there where no smoke free businesses, period. Grocery stores, department stores, restrauants, bars, night clubs, government buildings. Even, of all places, doctor's offices, hospitals, airliners, and schools. We non-smokers literally had no choice. By your logic UBG, I guess those of us who don't want to be exposed would all have to grow our own food, make all our own consumer goods, never go to the doctor, or school, and drive ourselves everywhere. Grow up. We live in a society, not some private waste land.

First Sunshine, if you expect me to grow-up... well don't hold your breath. I pay my bills and pull my weight, but I'm terminally immature. That's as close as I'm going to get. I suspect that you mean it in the context of chastising me. However, as shown by your inabilty to follow my logic (you only see choices 'A' and 'B' and not 'C'...), you're not qualified to do so. Your "logic" was addressed in an earlier post and there's no need to be repetitive.

You and others appear to be upset by me calling this deal what it is. It's hard to reconcile the truth of what you're supporting ('pissing on property rights' so you can get your way) with wanting to appear to be a "good joe". Don't worry, I believe that it was Ben Franklin who said something along the lines of "human beings can rationalize anything."

Also, please support your assertion that my ideal world would be a "private wasteland."

Piano, you do not have the right to kill yourself. If that were true, it would be legal for someone to assist you, which it is not in most of this country. If you fail in your attempt to kill yourself, you will be prosecuted and/or forced into therapy.

Saxman wrote:Piano, you do not have the right to kill yourself. If that were true, it would be legal for someone to assist you, which it is not in most of this country. If you fail in your attempt to kill yourself, you will be prosecuted and/or forced into therapy.

Saxman, your argument has one very fundamental flaw to it. You are basing your rationalization on the current legal statutes, which, as most of us understand, are primarily subjective, particularly when INDIVIDUAL'S rights are under scrutiny. These same laws are almost entirely defined by a very small group of people, many of which participate in an organized religion which explicitely damns anyone commiting such an act.

A person's right to commit suicide is not anyone's f*ck^ng business but their own. Telling someone the LAW says they don't actually have control over their own mortality and so that makes the law RIGHT is just asinine. DEFENDING said law as the absolute and undeniable truth is even worse.

SikMonkey and I had a discussion about this very thread on the drive to the Red, Saturday. What we saw was that there are essentially two types of people walking around; those who believe in and practice the "ideal" and those who live in several shades of gray. I, myself, live in and try to practive the "ideal". I adhere to very clear individual rights and belief in the human spirit and expect the best from people (though I rarely see it). I expect people to be responsible for themselves and NOT look to someone else to run their lives or toss muscle around when they don't get their way about something that they ultimately have control over. Others, well, they go the other way. They WANT big brother to push people around for them. They WANT personal decisions to be made for others, because a group of people know what is best for each individual better than that individual could ever possibly understand or know for themselves. You appear to fall into this second category. Normally, I wouldn't care if someone doesn't like something that someone else does. The problem here is those people who DON'T like said act (any act, smoking, anal sex, suicide, gay marraige, pot, alcohol..oh, wait, NO!! leave alcohol OUT of this one, THAT'S too popular a drug and noone EVER hurts anyone else while using THAT - hell, I'm sure there's a law somewhere that says I can't skewer my left testicle and use the pin to toast mashmallows) use their influence dogmatic beliefs to get laws passed to such an effect as to prohibit what they do not like ( I infer from your post you do not approve of suicide, assisted, or otherwise).

My point is, don't try to use the legality of any given action as a basis for an arguement, because laws are not basic or inherent to existence. Laws are made to control people's actions in one form or another (in the case of crimes against person and property, they are good and what laws were DESIGNED for, protecting one man against another, not one man against himself). This issue about smoking in bars/restaurants is about the "gray area" folks trying to take the right of choice out of the hands of the people. Workers aren't autonomous enough to choose to not work in a place with smoke. Patrons are not "strong" enough to choose to not frequent a location where they might encounter smoke. No, because "we want to eat out, too and we shouldn't have to sit in smoke while doing it", laws are being passed across the nation TELLING owners and patrons what they should be capable of deciding on their own, but apparently are not (reference the last 3 words of your post "forced into therapy").

andy_lemon wrote:Piano... how are you going to smoke your Chicago pizza style blunts

Drug free is the way for me!!

Won't this interfere with your diamonds and ice bling bling?

I have so much bling it hurts. FEAR me. w3rd

Meadows,

Am I being "Fraiser" enough for you here?

Saxman wrote:Piano, you do not have the right to kill yourself. If that were true, it would be legal for someone to assist you, which it is not in most of this country.

Uhm. . .having a person assist in suicide is not the same as a single person pulling a trigger.

Whatever, though. People who smoke are dumbypooheads. CANCER4LYFE!