As if those auto exhaust fumes aren't the same risk to weak lungs or industrial dusts and chemical mists.
On Mar 13, 11:30 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Individuals do have the right to smoke in public, and there is absolutely > no proof that their smoking can in any way affect your health. > > Tobacco is a legal commodity here in the United States, and taxed > unmercifully. Personally, I smoked enough cigarettes to build the > interstate system that you drive upon to go to work, and the school that > your children attend!! (I smoke no longer by the way) > > It is socialists and far left extremists who wish to "regulate" something > that they have no business being involved in, which is to dictate to private > business what legal products they can allow to be utilized in their places > of business. By example, you can buy cigarettes in a restaurant/bar that I > frequent, but you can no longer smoke those cigarettes that you buy within > the establishment. Asinine, to say the least. > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I admit that people have the right to smoke, but they don't have the > > right to do it in a public place where they can affect other people's > > health. If someone wants to ruin their health, I say go for it, but > > they're not taking me down with them. > > > On Mar 12, 6:10 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Now that is just wrong and a lie. Most smokers are conscious of their > > > environment. If I am at a table in a restaurant smoking and you CHOOSE > > > to sit there instead of a different table (whether there is one or > > > not) or a different restaurant that is YOUR choice. You choose instaed > > > to impose your belief on me by outlawing my harmless vice. Again and > > > again and again, there IS NO PROOF that second hand smoke does ANY > > > harm. Your personal likes and dislikes are YOUR, NOT my, problem. > > > > Other side of the coin if I enter and see no ashtray at your table I > > > politely ask if you mind... if you do I either don't smoke or I change > > > my locale. > > > > It works. > > > > If I go into a bar with smokers it is my problem, not that of the > > > smokers. Same with anywhere else that permits smoking. > > > > The BIG problem with these laws is they do not allow establishments to > > > choose their status... smoking or not, it does infringe on my and the > > > establishments to choose.. > > > > On Mar 12, 2:48 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The difference between smoking and those other vices, is that when you > > > > choose to smoke, you also choose that I smoke is well. When you choose > > > > to harm your health, you also choose to harm my health, when you > > > > choose to stink like a dead carcass, you also choose that I stink like > > > > a dead carcass.... > > > > > On Mar 12, 3:45 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > My 87 year old, three pack, a day father just died of "natural > > > > > causes'. His 97 year old Mother died of the same cause... 2+ packs a > > > > > day. They are not the exception. Your are or are not pre disposed to > > > > > cancer, it is that simple. > > > > > > as for the rest I agree with Keith entirely.... There is NO proven > > > > > link between cancer and second hand smoke and a LOT of money has been > > > > > spent and a lot of rats, pigs, dogs and cats have died trying to > > prove > > > > > it. > > > > > > On Mar 12, 1:22 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > By the way, my wife's non-smoking 90-year old great-grandmother is > > > > > > still with us. > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > My wife just watched her 63-year old mother waste away and die of > > lung > > > > > > > cancer after smoking most of her adult life. I then went to the > > > > > > > funeral of a 47-year old smoking coworker who died of lung > > cancer. > > > > > > > Don't tell me that smoking is not harmful. > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 1:56 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The tobacco companies were so profitable it is no wonder the > > > > > > > > government and insurance companies went after them. It might > > happen to > > > > > > > > liquor, as well// I am from a very healthy generation and all > > the > > > > > > > > parents smoked and so did we. The rise in autism and breast > > cancer can > > > > > > > > be traced to children abandoned to childcare by working mothers > > and > > > > > > > > the "pill".//You fail to address lung cancer in non-smokers- > > from > > > > > > > > various industries, sealed air in offices and homes, other > > exposures- > > > > > > > > or 90 year olds who continue to smoke. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 12:23 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > from my local paper > > > > > > > > > > With regard to the recent letters about smoking bans at > > restaurants > > > > > > > > > and other public accommodation venues, I would prefer to > > think of it > > > > > > > > > not as an issue of freedom of economic choice for the > > restaurant > > > > > > > > > owner. I prefer to think of it as an issue of workplace > > health and > > > > > > > > > safety. > > > > > > > > > > As long as leading health experts not funded by tobacco > > companies are > > > > > > > > > in agreement that smoking and second-hand smoke are indeed > > injurious > > > > > > > > > to the health of those affected by both, it would behoove > > government > > > > > > > > > to set the health and safety requirements for people who do > > not smoke > > > > > > > > > but find themselves employed by these venues. > > > > > > > > > > The person working in such venues should not have to choose > > between > > > > > > > > > keeping their job or their health. I, for one, would not want > > my tax > > > > > > > > > dollars paying for the health care of a person who wished > > only to work > > > > > > > > > for a living, but ends up contracting a smoking-related > > illness. A ban > > > > > > > > > on smoking in public venues is not an intrusion on private > > enterprise > > > > > > > > > as much as it’s minimal government interference in a personal > > habit > > > > > > > > > that affects the health and pocketbooks of innocent citizens. > > > > > > > > > > Robert Munro, Angleton- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
