RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"?

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Archer -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/25/2007 3:57:01 PM)
Sinergy I know how the law currently sits on the issue (I am an Authorized OSHA Safety Trainer), I am argueing the point that the law goes too far not what the law is currently. I am providing a logical argument to allow an exception. If it is legal to hire only non smoking employees (as case law already says it is) then the reverse hireing only smokers is also legal. If you hire only smokers then the presence of second hand smoke at their job site is of negligable health detriment compared to what they already volentarily inhale. Thus the employer is not increasing their risk by any real factor.

Sinergy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/25/2007 5:23:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Sinergy I know how the law currently sits on the issue (I am an Authorized OSHA Safety Trainer), I am argueing the point that the law goes too far not what the law is currently. I am providing a logical argument to allow an exception. If it is legal to hire only non smoking employees (as case law already says it is) then the reverse hireing only smokers is also legal. If you hire only smokers then the presence of second hand smoke at their job site is of negligable health detriment compared to what they already volentarily inhale. Thus the employer is not increasing their risk by any real factor. No disagreement with what you posted, Archer. Have a place doing stuff with widgets, you and your 9 employees all smoke, I imagine it would not be an issue. However, it would still be against the law. My issue as the business owner is if I allow my 9 smokers to smoke, and one of them gets lung cancer, I would imagine that I will be sued under state and federal laws to provide the health care this person needs to die a horrible, choking death because I, as the employer, allowed smoking in the workplace. My insurance company would probably refuse to pay for the medical care of the employee (I broke the law letting everybody smoke in my place) so there goes my savings and livelihood and the like. Open a place that provides a service to the public, the rules change somewhat. These laws guarantee that toxic substances are not inflicted on an unsuspecting public. My response was to the comment about a person not being able to smoke in a bar. Go into a bar, does one know for a fact that all the people who work there smoke? The law in California states people cannot smoke in a place of business. I am driving through your town and want to stop and get something to eat, how does the "I can go somewhere else that has no smokers at it" approach apply to me? I am just the consumer stopping for something to eat. As I have also pointed out, if somebody doesnt like the law, there is a process to have it changed. Sinergy

Archer -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/25/2007 7:21:16 PM)
If one sets up a smoking bar (complete with posted at the entry) then they know. Also as a matter of discussion I have not checked the figures but NIOSH and OSHA allow certain levels of many toxic and harmfull substances in the workplace. Including most if not all of the various chemicals in tabacco smoke. If the levels inside the bar through engineering can be kept bellow the TLV or PEL for the constituents then the legal issues really are handled. The problem then is a matter of engineering the building to keep up ventilation wise where the levels remain bellow that level. Almost certain it can be done. With a complete list of components and a little time with the regulations, find the lowest PEL and then build to suit that and the employee health matter no longer applies. (assuming you monitor and can prove you reemain under the PEL) Works for the chemical industry with hazardous materials, engineered so that the levels remain bellow the PEL and no respiratory protection is required.

kitbaloo -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 4:28:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent No. You personally smoke in my face and you will damage my health. You personally drink in my face and you will not damage my health. See the difference? Not a group of people, or a wider social issue, but you personally and me personally - personal responsibility. Next time we go for a beer, you don't smoke in my face and I won't piss on your leg. Sounds a fair enough exchange of civilities if you ask me. quote: You might like it, but others don't. In your own home or in a smoking establishment - fine, your health. In a public place - your freedom doesn't involve damaging someone elses' health. NG - I have seen you take the issue of smoking to this example (above) often, and I have to say I am getting a bit frustrated. As a smoker, and as to all the other smokers who have given opinions on this issue, I have to say that you seem to lose sight of the fact that we state over and over that we have no desire to smoke in your face. We will observe the proprieties, and now the law. Yet you continue to take it to an entirely different argument. Bollocks. Copy and paste, or point to a thread, where I've taken "an entirely different argument". I would have to point you to the recent "Smoking Ban - When is it too much?" thread http://www.collarchat.com/m_776649/mpage_1/key_smoking%2Cban%2Ctoo%2Cmuch/tm.htm I am not specifically taking your arguments out of the thread, but referring you to the entire thing in context. You stood out like a sore thumb to Me in that thread. Note the original question and see how quickly it was able to get off track. You jumped on that bandwagon in a hurry! You seem to take any discussion regarding a *choice* to smoke to an argument that if this is allowed people will take advantage and kill you with their second hand smoke. When you proffer that type of argument then the other side will come back and state that if you are that upset about second hand cigarette smoke, to the extent that you are all for creating smoke free environments for yourself, without regard to the access to smoking environments for others, then you do leave yourself open to the additional argument that this mass hysteria about second hand smoke is almost laughable when we are all breathing in so many toxic fumes from cars and trucks that it makes the second hand smoke issue seem like a paper cut we have to bandage while ignoring the bloody amputation that is occuring at the same time. My point, NorthernGent, is that you immediately jump to people being rude and ignoring any social propriety unless there is a law that protects you. Although you can say that people can smoke their brains out in their own homes, you failed to see that this was the exact point of the original discussion. Taht was all that needed to be said. Not, "I'm okay with that...but..." Always the big "but". By arguing as you did, it would appear that this is not going to necessarily affect you in a negative manner, therefore you are all for more and more restrictions for a ban on smoking in *all* public areas. Pick a pleasure and then imagine it being taken away from you in all manner and then tell Me that you will go along with the status quo because other people are affected by your pleasure. Even when you can say, they would not be. You seem to be pretty big on your pub time. It is a reasonable pastime and harmless, is it not? You state that you will not drive drunk, you will not puke on the other non-consensual person's shoes, and you will not fall down in the pub and sue the owner because his bar stools were too high. I guarantee you that there are people out there who could start a wave of hysteria and state that you and your ilk are dangerous and causing more problems and that we need to ban drinking in public places. Yes, it is a bit of an extreme example...or is it? Now, I did not see you address any other point of My post. Where is the rest of My post? Is it so unimportant to you? It did address, with example, the lack of balance regarding what is okay to be banned and what is not. Are you concerned at all that I will no longer have any smoking establishment *to choose? Or do you not care because you don't smoke, therefore it does not affect you on a personal level? Why is it okay, NG, to remove all ability to smoke in any public place, even if I am patronizing a private business? Why is it okay to tell that private buisness owner that s/he will now be in violation of a law if s/he does not maintain a completely smoke-free establishment? Are your rights to what you perceive as "clean air" more important than My rights to have a place to indulge in My pleasure or the rights of the private business to determine if there is a "this is a non-smoking establishment"* or this is a *"smoking establishment"* sign in the window? *Remember, this is a thread about being selective in your stance on bans. It is not a thread about the ills of smoking or second hand smoke.* Should someone also point out that if he's so worried about his health he would complain about the very thing he enjoys..drinking? With every drink he takes he's killing his liver. So to me it seems a bit hypocritical just to pick on smokers cause he doesn't "approve" of smoking on the basis it is damaging to his health, drinking is equally as damaging to his health.

Devilslilsister -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 6:22:00 AM)
i think people should just grow up and get over it [:)] things you dont like are going to happen. That is a fact of life. How are people ever going to learn right from wrong if its already been decided for them? Next we should ban going outside - as it affects peoples allergies and its bad for their health. Lets ban swimming pools too..... oh hell and lets ban McDonalds.... Grow up.

Sinergy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 6:28:24 AM)
quote: Bollocks I was told by the Sex Pistols to never mind the bollocks... Sinergy p.s. One of my favorite albums.

Devilslilsister -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 6:38:48 AM)
quote: Go into a bar, does one know for a fact that all the people who work there smoke? The law in California states people cannot smoke in a place of business. I am driving through your town and want to stop and get something to eat, how does the "I can go somewhere else that has no smokers at it" approach apply to me? Screw the law, all of us are breaking it almost non stop anyways. Unless you follow the law to the T, you cant really bring it into an arguement. What about a smoker that is driving through town to get something to eat and the "i can go some where else that has smokers at it" approach apply to them? People like to complain about all the unhealthy stuff, but really what leg do they have to stand on? Your smoking is killing my lungs!! Yes but your McDonalds, your refusal to excerise, your cakes/ice creams, your couch potatoe ass, your saturday night drinking is going to kill you before your lungs give out.......... ::smiles:: The fumes from your car... the crap in the air..... oh hell - lets just go right for the gold. How about sitting here at the computer? Diminishes eye sight, bad for the posture and bad for the wrists...... and people want to complain about something that is unhealthy. Thats a laugh. Yeah ooooooooo kay........ folks - cut out all the unhealthy crap from your life and THEN complain. Until then......... grow up.

Sinergy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 6:47:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Devilslilsister quote: Go into a bar, does one know for a fact that all the people who work there smoke? The law in California states people cannot smoke in a place of business. I am driving through your town and want to stop and get something to eat, how does the "I can go somewhere else that has no smokers at it" approach apply to me? Screw the law, all of us are breaking it almost non stop anyways. grow up. I agree completely. Grow up, become involved in your society, and get the law changed. Juvenile delinquents go around egregiously violating laws they dont agree with. Sinergy p.s. Another attribute of growing up involves not acting like a spoiled 3 year old because you have to sit nicely in the circle with the other children. For those playing the home game, that would be synonymous with following the laws and rules and customs your society has put in place for the benefit of the People.

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 9:56:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kitbaloo Should someone also point out that if he's so worried about his health he would complain about the very thing he enjoys..drinking? With every drink he takes he's killing his liver. So to me it seems a bit hypocritical just to pick on smokers cause he doesn't "approve" of smoking on the basis it is damaging to his health, drinking is equally as damaging to his health. I know, this hypocrisy is what is so laughable about the whole ban smoking brigade. Drink is a bigger killer and danger to health and costs society much more than smoking does. In Britain anyway. Though I guess drinkers will say they are only damaging their own health and nobody elses which isn't true. Some drinkers drive cars and kill people, some beat the shit out of passing strangers, drink is a known cause of domestic violence, some attack medical staff after they have been taken hospital after walking into a wall or something equally stupid. Then there is the medical costs to society which is more than the medical cost of smokers. Hmm Now why isn't drinking banned? Not that I want it banned but banning smoking and not drinking doesn't make sense.

kitbaloo -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 10:00:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: kitbaloo Should someone also point out that if he's so worried about his health he would complain about the very thing he enjoys..drinking? With every drink he takes he's killing his liver. So to me it seems a bit hypocritical just to pick on smokers cause he doesn't "approve" of smoking on the basis it is damaging to his health, drinking is equally as damaging to his health. I know, this hypocrisy is what is so laughable about the whole ban smoking brigade. Drink is a bigger killer and danger to health and costs society much more than smoking does. In Britain anyway. Though I guess drinkers will say they are only damaging their own health and nobody elses which isn't true. Some drinkers drive cars and kill people, some beat the shit out of passing strangers, drink is a known cause of domestic violence, some attack medical staff after they have been taken hospital after walking into a wall or something equally stupid. Then there is the medical costs to society which is more than the medical cost of smokers. Hmm Now why isn't drinking banned? Not that I want it banned but banning smoking and not drinking doesn't make sense. Drinkers do kill people, he can just ask my aunt.. wait.. he can't.. she was killed by a drunk driver.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 11:20:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: kitbaloo Should someone also point out that if he's so worried about his health he would complain about the very thing he enjoys..drinking? With every drink he takes he's killing his liver. So to me it seems a bit hypocritical just to pick on smokers cause he doesn't "approve" of smoking on the basis it is damaging to his health, drinking is equally as damaging to his health. I know, this hypocrisy is what is so laughable about the whole ban smoking brigade. Drink is a bigger killer and danger to health and costs society much more than smoking does. In Britain anyway. Though I guess drinkers will say they are only damaging their own health and nobody elses which isn't true. Some drinkers drive cars and kill people, some beat the shit out of passing strangers, drink is a known cause of domestic violence, some attack medical staff after they have been taken hospital after walking into a wall or something equally stupid. Then there is the medical costs to society which is more than the medical cost of smokers. Hmm Now why isn't drinking banned? Not that I want it banned but banning smoking and not drinking doesn't make sense. Drink is the white elephant in the room that nobody takes a look at when it comes to such regulations. I was rather surprised that for all your criticisms of America, you failed to mention it (perhaps because it's similarly prevalent in Europe). Americans don't worship violence, they have an obsession with it. What Americans worship is alcohol. This social lubricant is the cornerstone of all adult social functions and unfortunately, it has become one of the only ways people (oppressed with work and the problems of life) know how to have fun anymore. As such, people will go to the mat for alcohol and fight like lions over this poison, which is the key ingredient in domestic violence and vehicular homicide. Like automobiles, fatty foods, etc., people in favor of bans suddenly see the light and recognize the futility and absurdity of regulating such things, because these selfish hypocrites are so self-absorbed that it's all about keeping everything that enjoy legal, and everything they dislike illegal. They have no regard for others or logic. They are nothing more than a gaggle of overweight UMs reacting in fear to the Tickle me Elmo doll wriggling in the playpen, and throwing a tantrum until mother gov't takes it away (but God forbid that cribmate of theirs cries at their beloved plush Teletubby and wants that out of the pen as well). Alcohol ruined my life and nearly killed me in my youth. The health and public safety concerns are clear. Nevertheless, for all the misery I suffered at the hands of this demon, I don't believe it should be banned. Just because there is a segment of the population that can't handle alcohol, that doesn't make it right, rational or effective to take it from everybody else. It's called "individual responsibility", a concept most people don't understand any more, partly because the legislators and the media would rather not upset their constituents/viewers and they scapegoat everything else. Also, less than a century ago "we" listened to the bored-housewife mobs (like the Women's Christian Temperance Union) and had a constitutional amendment prohibiting this immoral elixir. It bombed completely, as organized crime became a recognizable industry profiting off of this contraband, and the people all became criminals, so it was repealed. So, aside from their self-seeking outlook on things the banners also have a myopic view of their own history. We have historical/legal evidence that bans will be obeyed by those who chose to follow them, and ONLY those who chose to follow them. Bans will make many people criminals who we might otherwise consider loyal, law abiding citizens. Finally, bans will simply provide a power vacuum for organized crime to fill.

NorthernGent -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 11:40:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kitbaloo Should someone also point out that if he's so worried about his health he would complain about the very thing he enjoys..drinking? With every drink he takes he's killing his liver. So to me it seems a bit hypocritical just to pick on smokers cause he doesn't "approve" of smoking on the basis it is damaging to his health, drinking is equally as damaging to his health. For whatever reason, you do not have the ability to grasp what is put before you. Last time: 1) If I choose to kill myself drinking, then that is my right. 2) If you choose to kill me smoking, then that is not your right. There is such a thing as responsibility to society, and it follows that I have a right to harm myself but not society. Similarly, you have a right to harm yourself, but not society. a) If you smoke in my face, you are guaranteed to damage my health. b) If you drink in my face, you will only attempt to damage my health if you're a violent drunk (drinking in my face alone will not damage my health). As an adult, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, if you can't drink sensibly, and become violent after a few beers, then yes, ban you from drinking - but not the decent majority. As it happens, I'm not really arguing over smoking, drinking, guns and the rest of it - in fact, you'd be surprised what I have and haven't smoked. I'm arguing the principle that I have a right to do whatever harm I want to myself but I do not have a right to harm others, and that goes for everyone. If you carry a gun near me - that doesn't harm me. If you drink a beer near me - that doesn't harm me. If you smoke near me - that does harm me. There is a difference. When I drink alcohol in a public place, I don't harm anyone, but when you smoke in a public place you harm the people around you.

NorthernGent -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 11:51:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold I would have to point you to the recent "Smoking Ban - When is it too much?" thread http://www.collarchat.com/m_776649/mpage_1/key_smoking%2Cban%2Ctoo%2Cmuch/tm.htm My second post on that thread includes this: Smoke yourself to death in your own home, or even in places identified as smoking establishments (and there will be some in Britain under the new law) but why should smokers have the right to go into any pub and knock a few years off the lives of people sat around you? From where I'm standing a smoker would be intruding into the private space of a non-smoker not the other way around. So, if the discussion is about intrusion, allow non-smokers their private space free of the pollutants from your vice. This is consistent with my posts on this thread. What do you mean "you were all over the thread"? It's a message board, not an English country estate where everyone goes "you first", "no, after you, sire". Take the opinions or leave them, and if you want to post lies that I've changed my opinion, then that is your call, too.

domiguy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 12:45:39 PM)
Yet yu will never see a report being issued that sates one cigarette a day is beneficial to your health...Yet they are plenty of reports that tout the benefits of a glass of wine or more recently fruity drinks served with a splash of rum, tequila.... I am aainst most bans...But as a casual smoker if I am really jonesing for a smoke there is always outside....That way no one is forced to partake in my habit and their clothes don't have to smell like smoke as well....No big deal. I don't support any form of gun control and I can see why the NRA is so protective of what is perceived to be a ridiculous stance on such things as assault rifles or cop killer bullets and handguns...Because if you give an inch they will take a mile....I also hope that the same (NRA) folks when they bitch about the ACLU defending the scum of the Earth...Pedophiles, pornographers, Rush Limbaugh (lol)....That they are protecting the rights of the most vile to ensure that the everyday rights that you and I all to often take for granted will always be protected.

petdave -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 6:24:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy p.s. Another attribute of growing up involves not acting like a spoiled 3 year old because you have to sit nicely in the circle with the other children. For those playing the home game, that would be synonymous with following the laws and rules and customs your society has put in place for the benefit of the People. Kinda like how EVERYONE obeys the speed limit, right? When you create a society so saturated with arbitrary bans and restrictions that almost every individual becomes a criminal at one time or another, generally without ever causing harm to another person or their property, you devalue the rule of law. ...dave

Sinergy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 7:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Yet yu will never see a report being issued that sates one cigarette a day is beneficial to your health...Yet they are plenty of reports that tout the benefits of a glass of wine or more recently fruity drinks served with a splash of rum, tequila.... True. Wait. I read something in Scientific American Reports on why alcohol is good for you. Alcohol is a vasodilator (widens your artery) and dissolves arterial plaque. Alcoholics dont generally die of heart disease without some other factor (like, perhaps, smoking) because on autopsy they are shown to have arteries completely clear of arterial plaque. In the words of President Lincoln, "Perhaps the problem with alcohol is too much of a good thing, not any of a bad thing." So your comment about never seeing a report on the benefits of alcohol is simply incorrect. Go look it up if you dont believe me. quote: I am aainst most bans...But as a casual smoker if I am really jonesing for a smoke there is always outside....That way no one is forced to partake in my habit and their clothes don't have to smell like smoke as well....No big deal. Want to smoke? I dont care at all. Dont exhale so I dont have to smell it. Dont rely on my tax dollars to care for your premature death from emphysema. Dont throw your cigarette butts in my yard. It really is not rocket science. The reason there is a ban is because smoking addicts are emotionally or psychologically incapable of keeping their addiction to themselves. If they had manners and tact, there would be no reason for people to legislate a ban on their behavior. Support your own addiction in your own way and PLEASE dont subject the rest of us to it, and we can all get along nicely in the sandbox. Many smokers fail to take into consideration that they are engaging in their kink non-consensually with the rest of us. Well, since they cannot control themselves, it becomes necessary for other people to use the legal system in this country to protect themselves from their behavior. Then the people too impolite to keep us out of their habit then jump up and down and scream about how unfair it is we have a law against them inflicting their vice on everybody else. It is almost shocking the lengths smokers will go to in order to let me know that I am responsible for protecting myself from their addiction. Then it is shocking at the lengths smokers will go to in order to let me know that the method we came up with to protect ourselves from their lack of courtesy and manners is sick and wrong. This is especially amusing when they will post on other threads about how sick and wrong it is to be nonconsensually subjected to the kinks of other people. Just me, etc. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 7:06:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: petdave quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy p.s. Another attribute of growing up involves not acting like a spoiled 3 year old because you have to sit nicely in the circle with the other children. For those playing the home game, that would be synonymous with following the laws and rules and customs your society has put in place for the benefit of the People. Kinda like how EVERYONE obeys the speed limit, right? When you create a society so saturated with arbitrary bans and restrictions that almost every individual becomes a criminal at one time or another, generally without ever causing harm to another person or their property, you devalue the rule of law. ...dave The only problem with your statement is that smoking bans are NOT arbitrary. Smokers inflict their addiction on other people. Other people pass laws to protect themselves. Sinergy

Archer -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 7:24:21 PM)
Trying to figure out how it goes from, smokers wanting some places where smoking is legal and acceptable, to Inflicting it on others. I never had a problem with smoking and non smoking sections. When they required seperate air handling for them I was OK fine sounds like a good idea. But to go beyond that and require all resturants and bars to ban smoking was a step too far. Nobody is forceed to go into a bar that allows it, (other than the employees and as stated before levels can be engineered the same way they are for any other place where chemicals are a part of the environment the work takes place in. Set an OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) based on the actual toxins in smoke and mandate the facility meet the standard.

Sinergy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 7:33:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Trying to figure out how it goes from, smokers wanting some places where smoking is legal and acceptable, to Inflicting it on others. I never had a problem with smoking and non smoking sections. Smoke does not stay in it's own section. quote: When they required seperate air handling for them I was OK fine sounds like a good idea. But to go beyond that and require all resturants and bars to ban smoking was a step too far. As I said. It was done because smokers could not regulate their behavior. Sure, it was probably too harsh. It was, however, what was done. Dont like it, change the law. Again, it is not rocket science. quote: Nobody is forceed to go into a bar that allows it, (other than the employees and as stated before levels can be engineered the same way they are for any other place where chemicals are a part of the environment the work takes place in. Set an OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) based on the actual toxins in smoke and mandate the facility meet the standard. I have already posted the big contradiction to this. 1) It is illegal to smoke in the workplace. People work there. Smoking is illegal. Make a note of this. If smokers were self-regulating, there would not be laws to regulate smoking. I could go in to the issue of my wandering in to eat dinner, but I suppose if there was a sign on the wall it would not be an issue. I did point out that sign or not, it is illegal to smoke in the workplace. I would hope the place putting a sign on the wall lets their insurance company know they are doing it. Would save a lot on their legal costs to just be able to cancel the policy before a claim is filed. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/26/2007 10:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Trying to figure out how it goes from, smokers wanting some places where smoking is legal and acceptable. Smokers cannot find the keys to their house? I want a place to go where I dont have to smell their smoke. Please suggest a middle ground where smokers can indulge in their habit and non-smokers dont have to be subjected to it. Sinergy p.s. if you want to make a compromise suggestion where a) smokers can smoke and b) non-smokers dont have to smell it, I am all ears. Simply arguing about why the law is unfair (toxin levels, freedom to smoke, etc) is not the point. Think the law is unfair, get it changed. p.p.s. If you cannot get it changed, perhaps you have not fully researched why there is a law.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875