smoke gets in your eyes

[Harlan Huckleby]

packinpatland, no need to shout. Partial is of a tender, vulernable age, and besides, its unsophisticated.

[packinpatland]

packinpatland, no need to shout. Partial is of a tender, vulernable age, and besides, its unsophisticated.

I tried to get the *%$# it to get back to normal font size and it wouldn't do it................sorry, didn't mean to raise my voice.
Got your attention tho, didn't I?

[MJZiggy]

packinpatland, no need to shout. Partial is of a tender, vulernable age, and besides, its unsophisticated.

I tried to get the *%$# it to get back to normal font size and it wouldn't do it................sorry, didn't mean to raise my voice.
Got your attention tho, didn't I?

You have to put the [/b] inside the [/quote]. Each tag you use has to be closed before you close the one before it.

As in [ quote][ b] [ i]then the [/i] comes before the [/b] which comes before [/quote].

Does that make sense?

[packinpatland]

packinpatland, no need to shout. Partial is of a tender, vulernable age, and besides, its unsophisticated.

I tried to get the *%$# it to get back to normal font size and it wouldn't do it................sorry, didn't mean to raise my voice.
Got your attention tho, didn't I?

You have to put the [/b] inside the

. Each tag you use has to be closed before you close the one before it.

As in [ quote][ b] [ i]then the [/i] comes before the [/b] which comes before [/quote].

Does that make sense?[/quote]


No........but I'll keep trying!

[HarveyWallbangers]

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

Then make it illegal and quit bitching about it. If it's legal, the government should stay out of it.

[Scott Campbell]

Wisconsin people are the oddest folk in the country.

You need to get out more.

[packinpatland]

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

Then make it illegal and quit bitching about it. If it's legal, the government should stay out of it.

Can't do that..........way to much $$$$ involved. Big Tobacco=Big Money.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Can't do that..........way to much $$$$ involved. Big Tobacco=Big Money.

Yeah, blame it on Big Tobacco. BTW, the effects of second hand smoke are vastly exaggerated.

[MJZiggy]

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

Then make it illegal and quit bitching about it. If it's legal, the government should stay out of it.

They know that they'd never get away with making it completely illegal, but this is as close as they can get and still remain in office. It's been publicly banned here for quite some time and it's really not that big a deal. Hasn't affected the restaurant trade like so many were screaming it would. People still go out to eat, they just smoke before they go.

[Fosco33]

Starts in bars/restaurants - then goes to streets....

I live in Burbank, CA - and people can't smoke anywhere downtown, in their cars, in their apartment porches - and the law says 'smoke in designated areas' - but there are no designated areas. Shit is f-ed up.

Gov't shouldn't be in this arena.

And no - I don't smoke. I used to though.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

Then make it illegal and quit bitching about it. If it's legal, the government should stay out of it.

sex is legal, but you aren't allowed to do it in a restaurant.

(well, maybe oral sex under table, but oral sex isn't sex.)

[GrnBay007]

As much as I hate people smoking, I do think it is pushing the limit of what governments role should be.

The government is doing it because second-hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. That makes it a public health hazard to the employees and regular patrons of the establishments as well as to anyone who tries to go out and eat on a regular basis.

When we were in GB, the waitress was 20, pregnant and working in bar full of smoking people. Was she supposed to quit? Then what? Depend on the government to support her kid?

Consuming alcohol is also proven to cause all kinds of health/driving/death-related problems. I don't see the government stepping in there to that extent with respect to alcohol. I'm pretty confident more people are killed by drunken drivers than they are by 2nd hand smoke.

I don't condone smoking, but the 20 year old pregnant waitress needs to take responsibility for herself and her unborn child and find more suitable employment....and I'm sure she can without depending on government support....if she really wants or needs to work.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the 20 year old pregnant waitress needs to take responsibility for herself and her unborn child and find more suitable employment.

You can make this argument against regulation of any workplace health issue: if you don't lke the working conditions, get a new job.

[SkinBasket]

You don't like it, then stay the fuck out the bar. Go to Applebee's.

You stupid ashmuncher, you dont get it. When this happens and it will, it will be just like in Cali and probably every other staste that has done this where owners of bars have to be forcing people to go outside. There is no way anyone is going to want to lose business because of someone wanting to smoke.

In fact am gonna laugh at your ass when it happens.

Deal with it hoe.

What don't I get? That California is a cesspool of confused and inept state and local government that claims to be forward thinking and liberal while legislating how exactly everyone should be liberal and forward thinking?

I support a ban for restaurants where the establishment is based on serving food. Not for bars and pubs however. You can make an argument that a family should be able to go out to eat at a restaurant without a whiff of smoke from the bar area, but everyone in a bar should be 21 or older and able to take responsibility for themselves.

Again, if there's such widespread support for this, then there would plenty of non-smoking bars out there already due to demand. Fact is it's the people who don't go to bars that are trying to regulate them. Like Harvey said, until it's illegal, stop treating it like it's a crime, or making it a crime in this case, to smoke.

[packinpatland]

Can't do that..........way to much $$$$ involved. Big Tobacco=Big Money.

Yeah, blame it on Big Tobacco. BTW, the effects of second hand smoke are vastly exaggerated.

I always thought that too. A few years ago I went with my then 85 year old aunt to the DR., she had a nagging cough. He told her it would help if she would quit smoking. She said 'OK, but my husband would have to die.'
She had the lungs of a 30yr smoker...........never ever smoked a cigarette in her life......herself.