billvon 3,116 #126 June 30, 2006 >Because of the taste? Because they use pretty good meat, the vegetables are fresh, and they don't freeze anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #127 June 30, 2006 Quote>Because of the taste? Because they use pretty good meat, the vegetables are fresh, and they don't freeze anything. Oh. I expected you to have some sort of uppity, tree-hugging, environment-friendly reason... Now I am disappointed in you. (And now I should get back to work before I get myself in trouble ;) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #128 June 30, 2006 Quote>Because of the taste? Because they use pretty good meat, the vegetables are fresh, and they don't freeze anything. But what really matters is what they post on their signs. Happy 4th you guys ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #129 June 30, 2006 QuoteBut what really matters is what they post on their signs. Good point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #130 June 30, 2006 >But what really matters is what they post on their signs. Well, as long as it's not a toe pick, that is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #131 July 1, 2006 QuoteIf you'd read the thread, you'd have found I already answered your question. Maybe missed your answer about why you approve of Cigar Bars, but not other public smoking establishments. Can you point me to it please? QuoteSimon even responded here with some excellent points. Um . . . SFC stated that he is OPPOSED to Cigar Bars. You have stated that you SUPPORT Cigar Bars. In simple terms -- you and he have OPPOSITE opinions about Cigar Bars. Nice job linking to an argument that differs from yours by 180 degrees. QuoteYou've yet to answer either of my questions. I'll answer for you since you don't seem to want to. I discount comparisons between DDT and smoking. There are so many differences between the two products that there really is no sense in comparing them. You SUPPORT Cigar Bars? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #132 July 1, 2006 Go to Simon's post. Read it. At the top of the post you'll find a quote in which I answer your question. Cigarette smoke and DDT are both carcinogenic. Spraying DDT or any other carcinogenic chemical into the air around others is no different than smoking around others if the level of carcinogens are the same. Face that fact whenever you like - or choose not to face it if you like. A fact it still remains. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #133 July 1, 2006 QuoteGo to Simon's post. Read it. At the top of the post you'll find a quote in which I answer your question. Yep, I read it. Meaningless answer. What does a percentage of profits have to do with public health? QuoteCigarette smoke and DDT are both carcinogenic. Spraying DDT or any other carcinogenic chemical into the air around others is no different than smoking around others if the level of carcinogens are the same. Face that fact whenever you like - or choose not to face it if you like. A fact it still remains. The fact is, comparing DDT to cigarette smoke is silly. The fact is, I don't believe anyone has the right to blow cigarette smoke, DDT, or mustard gas in your face at anytime if you don't want them to. This is why I support SIGNS on the doors of establishments that say "Smoking is Allowed Here", so Vinny will know to Stay Away. Meanwhile, people who don't mind smoke can enjoy their lives free of the dictates of Vinny. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #134 July 1, 2006 If it's silly, then you would have answered my questions vice dodged them. You didn't because you don't like the answers. Glad you think that way. Good for you. The legislators of the state of CO and several other states have decided they disagree with you - as have I. CO will be a much nicer state here in a scant few hours. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #135 July 1, 2006 QuoteGlad you think that way. Good for you. The legislators of the state of CO and several other states have decided they disagree with you - as have I. You've failed to answer the questions about the SIGNS, and the questions about CIGAR BARS. If "percentage of business profits" is all you got, then you've got nothing. And you know it. Here's my answer on DDT: People never really had any practical way to CHOOSE whether or not they ingested DDT. If there was a practical way to CHOOSE whether or not to ingest DDT, I'd be all for letting people ingest it all they want. But a much different situation exists with cigarette smoke -- there ARE ways to afford Personal Choice. I feel really silly even having to explain this to you, but whatever. Follow the Personal Choice line of thinking to a conclusion. It's all about PERSONAL CHOICE. SIGNS on DOORS afford that choice. But apparently, you don't give a shit about Personal Choice, at least as long as the tide is flowing your way. QuoteCO will be a much nicer state here in a scant few hours. Actually, Colorado USED to be a great place to live. Then, the Invasion of the California Assholes happened (and continues), and Colorado's been going to shit ever since. The new smoking laws are just another milemarker of that shit. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #136 July 1, 2006 QuoteThe fact is, comparing DDT to cigarette smoke is silly. What is really silly is your dodging of the issue here, all you can go on about is personal choice at the expense of everyone else. Why should we have to suffer speed limits, why do we have rules about noise, why do we have rules about indecent exposure. These laws are designed to protect people from the actions of people who don't give a shit about the harm they cause to others thru thoughtless acts, personal choice does not come at the expense of hurting others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #137 July 1, 2006 Quote personal choice does not come at the expense of hurting others. SIGNS on DOORS. Who's dodging what? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #138 July 1, 2006 QuoteQuote personal choice does not come at the expense of hurting others. SIGNS on DOORS. Who's dodging what? So a fire inspector for a licensed bar whcih showed signs would be allowed to not go in there and do his job? Maybe bar owners could just post signs like. "This building does not comply with fire regulations, enter at your own risk". Since when is it OK to create a hazardous toxic environment and admit the public, why should smoking be treated any differently than asbestos? The only reason banning smoking bothers the bar owners is revenue, they don't care about peoples health, it is just another example of business putting money ahead of peoples health, you have fallen into the "personal choice BS" spin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #139 July 1, 2006 Quote you have fallen into the "personal choice BS" spin. And you have fallen into the "We are the Govnt and we know whats good for you" BSIf you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #140 July 1, 2006 QuoteQuote you have fallen into the "personal choice BS" spin. And you have fallen into the "We are the Govnt and we know whats good for you" BS The govt is weak, it did not go far enough. They also gave in to the big corporations and allowed casinos and cigar bars to continue. Personally I think there should be no exclusions. The age of smoking should be raised to 21. It should also be banned outside where people gather, bus stops, beaches, building entrances etc. I recently left a maternity ward with my new son and had to walk though a cloud of smoke in the outdoor smoking area, a great way to walcome him to the outside world, absolutely disgusting. Don't be fooled into thinking the govt. looks after us, they are more interested in corporate money. Maybe you can answer the other points I raised as well? BTW I used to smoke for 15 years, I know what it is like being a selfish smoker who has to get their fix. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #141 July 1, 2006 Quote. . . you have fallen into the "personal choice BS" spin. Yea, personal choice . . . what a bunch of shit. Your "Fire Inspector" comparison is a joke, right along with the rest of your (and Vinnie's) arguments. If half the population HAD A DESIRE to frequent bars that aren't fire safe, or full of asbestos, then sure, I'd be all for letting them have that Choice via Signs on Doors. But they don't, rendering the comparisons meaningless and silly. My attitude on this is extremely consistent. Face it -- you and your type just don't want there to be places you can't go because smoking happens. And you've won -- the ruination of Colorado is well underway. Just need a few more West Coast immigrants to finish it off. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #142 July 1, 2006 Quote If half the population HAD A DESIRE to frequent bars that aren't fire safe, or full of asbestos, then sure, I'd be all for letting them have that Choice via Signs on Doors. Only 21% of adults smoke and its on the decline, that's way less than half, tell me again why signs are OK for smokers and why you set a higher percentage for other toxins and health hazards. Face it smoking is loosing popularity and the vast majority of people dont' smoke, the best you have come up with in defence of smoking is to call the other arguements a joke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #143 July 2, 2006 QuoteOnly 21% of adults smoke and its on the decline 21% is a significant part of the population. What percentage of the population desires DDT or Asbestos? If the anwser is zero, then yes, your arguments are a joke. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #144 July 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteOnly 21% of adults smoke and its on the decline 21% is a significant part of the population. What percentage of the population desires DDT or Asbestos? If the anwser is zero, then yes, your arguments are a joke. In colorado 03 18.5% smoked, why should this 18.5% be allowed to pollute the air that the other 81.5% breath, it doesn't even take that kind of majority to change the constitution, thankfully the personal choice of the majority non-smoker to be free to walk into any public place without the risk of getting polluted has won in this case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #145 July 2, 2006 QuoteIn colorado 03 18.5% smoked, why should this 18.5% be allowed to pollute the air that the other 81.5% breath . . . I'm not making that argument. They shouldn't. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #146 July 2, 2006 My argument is a joke and I have to answer my own questions? Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa! Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #147 July 2, 2006 Huh? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #148 July 2, 2006 Quote21% is a significant part of the population. What percentage of the population desires DDT or Asbestos? If the anwser is zero, then yes, your arguments are a joke. I FULLY support that 21% of the population smoking and dieing a horrible death frum lung cancer and emphesema. \\ What I do object to is having to smell you..... and breath your shit....AND more importantly having to support your fucking medical bills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #149 July 3, 2006 QuoteQuote21% is a significant part of the population. What percentage of the population desires DDT or Asbestos? If the anwser is zero, then yes, your arguments are a joke. I FULLY support that 21% of the population smoking and dieing a horrible death frum lung cancer and emphesema. \\ What I do object to is having to smell you..... and breath your shit....AND more importantly having to support your fucking medical bills. Yes, Co spent over $1billion in 03 on medicare treating related smoking illnesses. The problem with a "signs on doors" approach is that people don't really understand what the risks are, sure there are some informed people but how many people really know the risk they are taking. How many people know what the risk of developing cancer is after breathing second hand smoke in a bar is? Without proper education the sign may as well be written in Swahili for all the good it will do. CA has seen lung cancer drop by a quarter since 1988 when it started to ban smoking, I'd say the state govt has done its job and protected many of its citizens from certain death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #150 July 9, 2006 QuoteWhat I do object to is having to smell you..... and breath your shit....AND more importantly having to support your fucking medical bills. Uh . . I don't smoke. Take your . . . PA deleted. Your one warning. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
