Smoke free restaurants
Scott Nudds
(Sanderson) wrote:
: Restaurants can likewise have sections set aside, divided off and well
: enough ventilated so that smokers need not feel as though -- or be made
: to feel as though -- they are wrecking the health or enjoyment of
: nonsmokers.
What section of the pools are they dividing off for use as "peeing
sections"?
--
<---->
Sanderson
OK, see if you can picture this in your mind. Close your eyes and
concentrate real hard now.
At one end or one side of the pool there is a structure, a place where
people can don their swimsuit or dry off and dress in whatever clothing
they brought along. These structures usually contain showers, lockers or
a place where swimmers can stow their belongings while they're in the
pool.
These structures also usually include restrooms or at least enclosures
containing a toilet -- separate sections -- where people civilized
enough to know about these things can pee.
No, since visualizing these things seems to come with difficulty for
some, I am not suggesting restaurants send either smokers or nonsmokers
to restrooms to achieve segregation. I am suggestion that separate areas
can be made available for each kind of patron.
--
>--
><---->
M. Shum
i wonder how many restaurants would want to or could afford to install
sufficient ventilation to prevent the movement of second-hand smoke
travelling to non-smoking areas??
Scott Nudds
: At one end or one side of the pool there is a structure, a place where
: people can don their swimsuit or dry off and dress in whatever clothing
: they brought along. These structures usually contain showers, lockers or
: a place where swimmers can stow their belongings while they're in the
: pool.
: These structures also usually include restrooms or at least enclosures
: containing a toilet -- separate sections -- where people civilized
: enough to know about these things can pee.
I accept Sanderson's proposal that smoking should be confined to
public restrooms.
I just have one question... With regard to public pools...
What section of the pools are they dividing off for use as "peeing
sections"?
---
I think Conover is mistaken about the public. The public does ok if
left alone - not well but ok. - John McCarthy 1996/01/24
--
<---->
Sanderson
af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>(Sanderson) wrote:
>: At one end or one side of the pool there is a structure, a place where
>: people can don their swimsuit or dry off and dress in whatever clothing
>: they brought along. These structures usually contain showers, lockers or
>: a place where swimmers can stow their belongings while they're in the
>: pool.
>: These structures also usually include restrooms or at least enclosures
>: containing a toilet -- separate sections -- where people civilized
>: enough to know about these things can pee.
> I accept Sanderson's proposal that smoking should be confined to
>public restrooms.
>I just have one question... With regard to public pools...
>What section of the pools are they dividing off for use as "peeing
>sections"?
As I said:
No, since visualizing these things seems to come with difficulty for
some, I am not suggesting restaurants send either smokers or nonsmokers
to restrooms to achieve segregation. I am suggestion that separate areas
can be made available for each kind of patron.
>---
Jon Krueger
> separate areas can be made available (for smoking)
It's been tried.
You think the smoke knows how to stay in the smoking section?
That's why most people want smokefree restaurants, theaters,
workplaces, and so on. They like clean, safe air.
-- Jon
James Eldridge
In article <JPK.96Ju...@firefly.incog.com>, j...@firefly.incog.com
(Jon Krueger) wrote:
Everyone here is also forgetting about the poor waitresses and waiters who
are non-smokers who have to stay on their feet all day AND breath stale
smelly smoke as well. It is not their choice either. Most waiters and
waitresses need their jobs and subject themselves to this pollution
because they have to. Just like jobs of the past where workers were
exposed to high levals of noise, pollution, etc. The government has
eliminated a lot of this through OSHA rules just as they should for
smoke. Flight Attendants really had it bad for a long time. Now enough
smelly smokers have caused enough outrage to change the rules; greatly
improving the air for all of us. I don't care if SHS is harmfull or not.
It stinks, and it greatly bothers me. My eyes water and sting. You
smokers are desensitized. You think that your right to smoke is more
important than everyone elses right to fresh air.
Jim
--
Jim Eldridge, Huntsville AL
DaveHatunen
In article <4r4s43$8...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
Scott Nudds <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
[...]
> I accept Sanderson's proposal that smoking should be confined to
>public restrooms.
>
>I just have one question... With regard to public pools...
>
>What section of the pools are they dividing off for use as "peeing
>sections"?
You know, I think we've been addressing Nudds on too high a level...
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
runner
When it comes to smoke free restaurants. I dont spend money in any restaurant where
i am not fee to smoke.
The USA is the only country in the world where this anti smoking craze has run
amoke.
runner
John McCarthy
sometimes in aggravated form.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Fred McLellan
In article <4rcvhd$4...@guyana.it.earthlink.net> runner writes:
>Path:
>agate.nbnet.nb.ca!news.unb.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.ne
>t!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeeder.sdsu.ed
>u!sgigate.sgi.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu
>.fr!rain.
>fr!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!usenet
>From: runner
>Newsgroups:
>alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.restaurants,rec.food.restaurants,sci.med,
>ca.general,ba.general,alt.med.allergy,alt.smokers,sci.environment,talk.environme
>nt
>Subject: Re: Smoke free restaurants
>Date: 3 Jul 1996 05:13:17 GMT
>Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.
>Lines: 8
>Message-ID: <4rcvhd$4...@guyana.it.earthlink.net>
>References: <3197BB...@e-mail.com> <4qos71$f...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
> <4qvm3g$p...@foothills.eznet.com> <JPK.96Ju...@firefly.incog.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pool052.max18.atlanta.ga.dynip.alter.net
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1 (Windows; U; 16bit)
>Xref: agate.nbnet.nb.ca alt.activism:144852 alt.politics.usa.misc:116950
>alt.restaurants:2421 rec.food.restaurants:26542 sci.med:177614
>alt.med.allergy:10653 alt.smokers:55708 sci.environment:106035
>talk.environment:67068
>When it comes to smoke free restaurants. I dont spend money in any restaurant
>where
>i am not fee to smoke.
> The USA is the only country in the world where this anti smoking craze has
>run
>amoke.
I'm sorry to say that Canada is getting into the act! I'm not a smoker and
it's driving ME crazy!
Bill
Scott Nudds wrote:
> ---
> I think Conover is mistaken about the public. The public does ok if
> left alone - not well but ok. - John McCarthy 1996/01/24
>
> --
> <---->
Re your signature: When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western
Civilization he replied that he thought that it would be a good idea. <g>
--
Bill
War doesn't decide who wins, only who is left.
____________________________________________________________________
Don Scheidt
runner wrote:
>When it comes to smoke free restaurants. I dont spend money in any restaurant where
>i am not fee to smoke.
> The USA is the only country in the world where this anti smoking craze has run
>amoke.
I take it that this poster has never been to Singapore, hmmmm? No open
tobacco advertising, no tobacco consumption in *any* public place, whether
run by government (train stations, post office, govt. offices) or private
business (restaurants, hotel lobbies, stores). Smoking is allowed in
one's car, one's home, or a hotel room (and hotels have non-smoking rooms,
too).
Also, the UK is starting to go this way; some pubs now have smoke-free
areas. And Canada is pulling even with the USA in this regard. Things
are a bit more like the old smoky days in continental Europe, but
the changes are happening.
What was that about "the only country in the world" blah blah blah?
--
Don Scheidt, dgs...@case.cyberspace.com
also at: dgs...@teleport.com
Browse the Northwest BrewPage
URL: http://www.teleport.com/~dgs1300/index.shtml
Jonelle McAllister
If I would choose smoke-free restaurants if they were available here.
Cigarette smoke smells bad. It makes your eyes water and your nose
run. Most non-smokers are miserable in a smoke filled room, and it
makes eating unpleasant.
The "non-smoking" sections of restaurants are laid out randomly in
most places. A table in non-smoking can be right next to a table of
15 puffers.
What about people with asthma or emphysema? Does the right to smoke
obliterate their rights? What about people on oxygen? They do go out
to eat. My mother loved to go out(with oxygen) even as she was dying
of respiratory failure from chronic obstructive lung disease--a
result of cigarette addiction.
How will you smokers feel in thirty or forty years when you have to
ask someone to stop smoking so you, your oxygen and the restaurant
don't catch fire?
Smoking is an option, but breathing is not.
Sanderson
Joni...@msn.com (Jonelle McAllister) wrote:
>If I would choose smoke-free restaurants if they were available here.
>Cigarette smoke smells bad. It makes your eyes water and your nose
>run. Most non-smokers are miserable in a smoke filled room, and it
>makes eating unpleasant.
I have been in situations in which my dining enjoyment was severely
compromised by one or more nearby women whose loud, generously applied
perfume, face/body powder, hair spray and heaven knows what other highly
scented applications, were enough to take my breath away. This olfactory
assault can overpower the flavor of pizza.
It can be rough on the eyes, too.
>The "non-smoking" sections of restaurants are laid out randomly in
>most places. A table in non-smoking can be right next to a table of
>15 puffers.
Randomly? You might want to look that word up. It suggests you mean like
two nonsmoking tables, a smoking permitted table, a nonsmoking table,
etc., all mixed up.
I have never seen this, and it so obviously negates the whole idea of
segregated seating that I find it hard to imagine any restaurateur would
actually do it.
>What about people with asthma or emphysema? Does the right to smoke
>obliterate their rights? What about people on oxygen? They do go out
>to eat. My mother loved to go out(with oxygen) even as she was dying
>of respiratory failure from chronic obstructive lung disease--a
>result of cigarette addiction.
Let's get off the rights bandwagon for a minute. People so afflicted
certainly go out to eat and should be able to enjoy their meals. You,
and they might be surprised how much cooperation a simple, politely
worded request can bring forth.
"Excuse me. I'm sorry to bother you, and I know this is a sensitive
matter right now, but I have a health problem and your smoking is making
it awfully hard for me to eat (or enjoy my meal, or breathe)..."
I have been approached in this way, and I have snuffed my cigarette or
moved to a location where I would not bother the person who spoke to me.
I have seen other smokers do likewise for people.
What doesn't work so well: The dry, forced, fake cough repeated over and
over. The harsh, disapproving stare. The stage-whisper put-down to one's
companion or to anyone who will listen. Or, worst, the hurled cat-call.
>How will you smokers feel in thirty or forty years when you have to
>ask someone to stop smoking so you, your oxygen and the restaurant
>don't catch fire?
Come, come. I fully expect the health Nazis will have fixed it so
growing or using tobacco is subject to the same or worse penalties as
are now on the books for marijuana long before three decades have
passed.
Beware, however. They may also fix it so all anybody gets to eat are
roots, berries and driveway gravel -- which will make dining out beside
the point.
>Smoking is an option, but breathing is not.
Well, to really be technical about it, breathing is optional.
--
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds wrote:
: >What section of the pools are they dividing off for use as "peeing
: >sections"?
(DaveHatunen) wrote:
: You know, I think we've been addressing Nudds on too high a level...
Dave Hatunen choses to insult rather than reply. He is apparently
unwilling to answer the question.
---
Evidently the key way to make nuclear power cheaper is to reduce
construction time and therefore interest costs.
...
The Hanford plant built during the war took 18 months. It has about the
same thermal power as a power plant, but it didn't produce power - only
plutonium. - John McCarthy 1995/12/07
When the <Hanford cleanup> project is over, at a cost of well over $50
billion - Scientific American May 1996.
From those early days of military and technological glory, the 1,450
square kilometer Hanford site has slowly devolved into a nightmarish
agglomeration of decaying, contaminated facilities that each consume
tens of millions of dollars a year just to be kept stable and safe. -
Scientific American May 1996.
Since 1944 the DOE and its predecessors are believed to have pumped 1.3
billion cubic meters of liquid waste and contaminated effluents into
Hanford's soil. - Scientific American May 1996.
Millions of curies of potentially harmful radioactive materials were
also released into the air and nearby river water at Hanford and other
sites, sometimes intentionally. - Scientific American May 1996.
At Hanford, a plume of ground-water containing tritium, nitrates and
other contaminants occupies at least 250 square kilometers and is
leaching into the Columbia River, which runs for 82 kilometers through
Hanford. - Scientific American May 1996.
--
<---->
toy...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: It's been tried.
: You think the smoke knows how to stay in the smoking section?
: That's why most people want smokefree restaurants, theaters,
: workplaces, and so on. They like clean, safe air.
: -- Jon
If you want only clean, safe air, Jon, don't go outside. Avoid inhaling.
Carcenogenic diesel bus and truck exhaust is everywhere. Industrial
pollutants in cities are everywhere. The dubious threat of second-hand
tobacco smoke pales into insignificance compared to a lifetime of
dirty city air.
Based on this as well, it is idiocy for any person to claim that lung
cancers in non-smokers are the result of second-hand tobacco smoke.
If outside pollutants are removed, in buildings, by filters and air
exchange ventillation units, so are interior pollutants like tobacco
smoke. If no filtration or air exchange takes place, then outside
pollutants are present inside buildings along with tobacco smoke.
Anyone who has ever worked with filtration systems that stop outside
pollutants from entering buildings will attest to how fast these get
filthy and clogged. There is much more to worry about in the air
outside, than inside.
--It's funny too, that alcohol remains untouched as a health hazard, and
is only considered in terms of its secondary effects. Drunk driving,
family violence, and substance abuse/addiction are all public issues.
The alcohol industry is never targeted for sanctions like the tobacco
industry, however. There are no publicly-funded anti-drinking groups
demanding an end to liquor sales. There are no demands for warning
labels on liquor bottles warning of liver disease, fetal alcohol
syndrome, driver-impairment causing death, or any of the other very
real health risks of regular or binge drinking.
The truth is that smokers continue to function for many, many years,
paying taxes and doing their jobs, and raising their families. Most
smokers never get cancer and suffer only minor health problems in old age
from a lifetime of use. Theirs is a manageable, if unhealthy habit.
Alcohol abusers, on the other hand, nearly always crash and burn in time.
Alcoholics nearly always end up in hospitals or treatment centers
eventually, and many do so frequently and chronically. Among natives
it is still the number one killer, although not limited to them.
The costs and damage to families, innocent victims, and alcoholics
themselves is massive and unending. Theirs is not a manageable habit,
and is far more hazardous to people and costly to society than smoking
ever was or will be.
Second hand smoke can not be shown to cause any significant health
hazard, because its effects (if any) can not be separated from those of
pollutants in the atmosphere. The secondary effects of alcohol, however,
are quite tangible, calculable, and real.
If you want clean, safe air, deal with REAL pollution. If you
want a safe, healthy society, deal with REAL problems. Alcoholism is
a REAL problem, and only one of many, unlike second hand smoke.
******************************************
** Shane <toy...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> **
******************************************
** Edmonton, Alberta, Canada **
*****************************
Charles Demas
In article <4rh7vh$k...@news.sas.ab.ca>,
<toy...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>Jon Krueger (j...@firefly.incog.com) wrote:
>: <snip>
>
>: That's why most people want smokefree restaurants, theaters,
>: workplaces, and so on. They like clean, safe air.
>
>: -- Jon
>
> If you want only clean, safe air, Jon, don't go outside.
I am not out to persecute smokers, ban smoking, or save the environment.
I would just like my clothes not to smell of smoke when I get home.
Smokers can't smell it because it's always there for them.
I'm a former 2 pack a day man, and I sympathize; but "you" (a smoker)
wouldn't like it if I (a spaghetti eater) spilled spaghetti sauce on
your clothes.
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Cleo Childers
Little different subject but not much-- has anyone else been "unfortunate"
(guess it depends on your point of view) to happen on "cigar night". I
was at McCormick's in Portland and the smell of cigar smoke all around
certainly detracted from my meal. I haven't been back and probably
won't.
> Joni...@msn.com (Jonelle McAllister) wrote in article
<00001f1f...@msn.com>...
> If I would choose smoke-free restaurants if they were available here.
>
> Cigarette smoke smells bad. It makes your eyes water and your nose
>.> The "non-smoking" sections of restaurants are laid out randomly in
> most places. A table in non-smoking can be right next to a table of
> 15 puffers.
>
>.
Jon Krueger
> If you want only clean, safe air, Jon, don't go outside.
> Industrial pollutants in cities are everywhere.
Good point. In fact, we do take clean air seriously outdoors.
We spend $billions on auto emission controls, factory regulations,
inspections, smokestack scrubbers, cleaner fuels, recycling,
and so on. Why shouldn't we have clean, safe air indoors, too?
Some of us spend a lot of time there :-)
The fact is, if you're breathing air in an ordinary office
sized room after a single cigarette has been burned in it,
you're inhaling more particulates than if you're standing
over a freeway overpass.
Which makes sense when you realize, when was the last time
you had one of those diesel buses running indoors?
Would that be accepted in an office? A lobby?
How about a restaurant?
> Avoid inhaling.
Thanks, not an option for most of us :-)
> Alcoholics nearly always end up in hospitals or treatment centers
True.
Yet cigarettes kill more alcoholics than alcohol:
Researchers from the Mayo Clinic found that alcoholics
who smoke are more likely to die from cigarettes than from
liquor. The study, to be published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association, found that 51 percent of the
deaths at the Mayo Clinic's Inpatient Addiction Program from
1972-1983 were tobacco-related, while 34 percent were
alcohol-related...
Associated Press, "Smoking Threatens Alcoholics
More Than Drink, Study Says," New York Times,
April 10, 1996, p. B7.
In the general population, of course, this is even more true.
Cigarettes kill over 400,000 Americans every year: more than
die of AIDS, heroin, crack, homicide, car accidents, and fires
combined. Alcohol doesn't even come close.
> The alcohol industry is never targeted for sanctions like the tobacco
> industry, however.
Sanctions? Sounds pretty ominous :-) Would you have us
believe we should regulate tobacco now? :-)
In fact, alcohol is already tightly controlled.
By contrast, cigarettes are hardly controlled at all.
When was the last time you saw a vodka vending machine?
Billions of cigarettes are sold through
cigarette vending machines every year.
When was the last time a convenience store lost a
tobacco license for selling to minors? In fact,
in general there is no such thing as a tobacco license.
But to sell liquor, you gotta get a liquor license,
which isn't easy, and you can lose it.
And when did the alcohol industry put together a multibillion
dollar PR campaign to mislead the public about the health
effects of its products? The tobacco industry did just that,
and very effectively.
And when did the alcohol industry study its customers'
brain chemistry and formulate products to be as addictive
as possible? The tobacco industry does that to this day.
When you look at how much control we put on liquor manufacture
and sale, you'd probably conclude that it's more dangerous than
tobacco industry products. In fact, tobacco industry products
addict more people, and kill more people. Most people who use
alcohol do not become addicted to it. Most people who use
nicotine do.
And in fact, moderate use of alcohol even has some health benefits.
By contrast, cigarettes kill you. Both firsthand and secondhand.
> it is idiocy for any person to claim that lung cancers in non-smokers
> are the result of second-hand tobacco smoke.
You're welcome to believe that. The tobacco industry says so.
Believe them if you like.
Most of us find other sources more credible:
When we reported on the subject 10 years ago,
we described the evidence as "sparse and often
conflicting." That's no longer true. A number
of studies make the case that secondhand smoke,
like firsthand smoke, causes lung cancer.
Consumer Reports, January 1995 p.27
For more information on the effects of secondhand smoke:
http://healthnet.ivi.com/9306/hl/tobacco.htm
http://hpb1.hwc.ca:8400/canmed/policy/smokinge.htm
http://nytsyn.com/med/Week/116_042596_124013_7415.html
http://oncolink.upenn.edu/cancer_news/smoke_child.html
http://oncolink.upenn.edu/pdq/600039.html
http://oncolink.upenn.edu/pia/sec_smke.html
http://web.bu.edu/COHIS/smoking/upsmoke/harms.htm#passive
http://www.amhrt.org/heartg/ets.html
http://www.cancer.org/tobacco.html
http://www.ccsh.ca/ncth/docs/ets_e.html
http://www.ccsh.ca/ncth/docs/ytcp_e.html
http://www.chestnet.org/smoking.html
http://www.dash.com/netro/nwx/tmr/tmr0895/smoke0895.html.txt
http://www.meds.com/mol/env_smk.html
http://www.naples.net/health/2ndsmok.htm
http://www.netdoor.com/com/entinfo/secsmaao.html
http://www.njc.org/MFhtml/PSM_MF.html
http://www.openseason.com/annex/library/cic/X0001_2ndsmoke.txt.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/old/1-30-96/smoke.htm
http://www.tobacco.org/Misc/oshapost.html
http://www.wileyco.com/TFW/Secsmo.html
http://www.wileyco.com/TFW/rest.html
http://sailor.lib.md.us/docs/tobacco/workfac4.htm
http://www.marketingtools.com/ad_current/AD759.htm
http://www.advocatehealth.com/doctors/docssub.html
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cancernet/600039.html
http://dpalm2.med.uth.tmc.edu/ptnt/00000279.htm
http://www.dtic.dla.mil/airforcelink/pa/Nov95/an111795_17nov95_1276.html
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html
-- Jon
whatever
In article <4rfo2p$g...@foothills.eznet.com>, sand...@eznet.com
says...
>
snips before and after
>Come, come. I fully expect the health Nazis will have fixed it so
>growing or using tobacco is subject to the same or worse penalties as
>are now on the books for marijuana long before three decades have
>passed.
>
let's hope it's MUCH sooner than three decades!!! like tomorrow!
Jim Vassalllo
Jon,
I don't know if this interests you, but in Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
they have just passed a by-law banning smoking in BARS!!! It is now
illegal to smoke in bars, many restaurants, public places, government
buildings and most workplaces. I happen to think this is great but,
needless to say, their are a lot of pissed off smokers around here!
Jim Vassallo
Angus Mann
On 03-Jul-96 15:13:17 runner <runner> wrote:
>When it comes to smoke free restaurants. I dont spend money in any restaurant
>where i am not fee to smoke.
I will. I find that if I've had the motivation to walk from wherever I parked
the car into the restaurant, I can find the motivation to walk just that little
way back outside for a cigarette...
> The USA is the only country in the world where this anti smoking craze
> has run
>amoke.
Rubbish, it's almost the same here in Australia.
.--------------------------------------------------.
| Angus Mann, Sydney Australia |
| eMail: am...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU |
| (finger for public key) |
| 2D 35 17 4A 78 78 89 05 97 F0 FB 54 1F 26 CF EE |
`--------------------------------------------------'
Newclassic
I think you smoke-free fanatics are no different than anti-abortion
extremists. I happen to be anti-abortion (or pro-life) but I wouldn't
impose harm to or intimidate anyone else who doesn't agree with me.
When judgement day comes, we all will get our fair share.
Jon
Scott Nudds
(Newclassic) wrote:
: I think you smoke-free fanatics are no different than anti-abortion
: extremists.
Oh, I don't know about that. Can you think of any incident in which
someone opposed to smoking stalked and killed smokers for commiting the
act of smoking?
- Hoover Hypocrite ---------------------------------------------------
"The Biomass Alliance doubtless includes farm organizations. The image
that comes to mind is that of a large number of piglets squirming to get
at a teat of the sow." - John McCarthy in SCI.Energy
2 weeks later...
"My research has indeed been supported by the Government - almost
entirely by the Defense Department..." - John McCarthy in SCI.Environment
My BMW 325i will comfortably go 300 miles on a tanfull before its
threatening light goes on. - John McCarthy 1996/01/12
--
<---->
DocOzone
In article <4t4p04$f...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
:(Newclassic) wrote:
:: I think you smoke-free fanatics are no different than anti-abortion
:: extremists.
:
: Oh, I don't know about that. Can you think of any incident in which
:someone opposed to smoking stalked and killed smokers for commiting the
:act of smoking?
Hmm, I don't know of any, but with the current social climate hereabouts,
I'm expecting one "real soon now"(tm). Thanks for giving all the psychos
out there the idea.
Your pal, -doc-
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus "Doc" Ozone "Specialization is for insects."
Personal home page..........<http://www.visi.com/~drozone/>
Apocalypse Studios...........<http://www.ozones.com/ozone/>
-------A proud WinterNyet Refugee from July of 1996--------
Tomfoolery
d...@bugtown.com (DocOzone) wrote:
:In article <4t4p04$f...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
:af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
::(Newclassic) wrote:
::: I think you smoke-free fanatics are no different than anti-abortion
::: extremists.
::
:: Oh, I don't know about that. Can you think of any incident in which
::someone opposed to smoking stalked and killed smokers for commiting the
::act of smoking?
:Hmm, I don't know of any, but with the current social climate hereabouts,
:I'm expecting one "real soon now"(tm). Thanks for giving all the psychos
:out there the idea.
Better yet, outlaw cigarettes.
Stan Horwitz
Mark Hughes (mhu...@pms104.pms.ford.com) wrote:
: runner <runner> wrote:
: > When it comes to smoke free restaurants. I dont spend money in any
: > restaurant where i am not fee to smoke.
: And I don't spend money in any restaurant where you are free to make my
: meal taste like crap.
I agree. Smoking is as disgusted as flatulance to me. In fact, at least
the odor of a stinky fart dissipates much more quickly than the odor from
a cigarette smoker! If you're going to smoke, please do so in your own
home and stink that up along with your body.
--
This message was written by Stan Horwitz.
My views are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
Check out my home page! The URL is http://thunder.temple.edu/~stan
*** Please DO NOT include my name or E-mail address in any mailing lists
unless I explicitly make the request. In addition, please do not send
me ANY unsolicited advertisements via E-mail.