Thanks to GreatScot for the orig post.
Carl, Mr $weda and the rest, paraphrase----never gonna get to that level. WRONG!!!
I think this shows that the "slippery slope" is no longer a logical fallacy when debating anti-smokers.
So smokers are banned !Unless of course lockable storage containers are provided for smokers to deposit their legal tobacco.Some people in authority are really certifiable.I look forward to the impact this stupidity will lead to ,on the US economy.Who in the world would want to trade with total fruitcakes.
Bill GOD$hall----another off topic sue me alert.
http://www.insidehighered.com/ne.../2007/02/15/
uva
[snip]
“The historical record going back to the mid-’50s of the industry using funding to manipulate the scientific process is too strong,” says Stanton A. Glantz
Hilarious Sunz,the No 1 payee of the Pharmaceutical Industry moaning about Tobacco funding.
Great piece Sunz. I love how the man who has NO problem taking money from smokers, resents a tobacco funding giving money for research.
Now, I have no great love of PM, but really, all TC's research is funded by RWJF and Big Parma, and somehow THAT is any more trustworthy and unbiased?
Thanks for the laugh, I really needed that today........the rage building in me is really strong.
"[W]e don't want anyone spitting on the sidewalk. It's unhealthy."
That's odd. The Parks Director says spitting is unhealthy, but I couldn't find a law against it in Santa Cruz County:
Search Results for: smoking
Rank Title File Size
1. 7.88.060 Prohibition of smoking in public places. 4713 bytes
2. 7.88.070 Regulation of smoking in places of employment. 2539 bytes
3. 7.88.090 Where smoking not regulated. 2722 bytes
4. Chapter 7.88 SMOKING POLLUTION CONTROL 2467 bytes
5. expanded_toc.htm 579504 bytes
6. 2.45.020 Purpose. 2422 bytes
7. Title 7 HEALTH AND SAFETY 6968 bytes
8. 7.88.010 Title. 1041 bytes
9. 7.88.020 Findings. 1720 bytes
10. 7.88.030 Purpose. 1362 bytes
Jump to: [1-10][11-20]
Back to the query form
Search Results for: spitting
err: no results
Maybe there's a state law???
Vote to Regulate Tobacco:
http://www.geocities.com/
shelion...DArollcall.html
As I've read through the blogs and comments of the past couple of days, there is really only one conclusion I can draw....the forces of the smoker-controlfreak movement need to be silenced once and for all. It no longer matters that Dr. Siegel is speaking out against the out of control restrictions proposed in Santa Cruz and Belmont, he will forever remain part of the cause. It doesn't matter he speaks against employment or housing discrimination being taken against smokers, as he will always remain part of the cause of it.
I don't know where these holier-than-thou people come from, but they sure have no business telling me how to live my life, raise my children, or run my business. I'm surprised none of the usual suspects (Siegel, Godshall, Sweda, Glantz, etc) have yet called for a ban on seafood restaurants because of the number of people with severe allergies to shellfish. Or to peanuts........ Oh wait, those people have enough common sense to avoid those products to protect themselves. Well why the hell don't the sensitive types have enough sense to avoid tobacco smoke without the government doing it for them?
seafood poinsonig kills about 8000 a year in the USA Dave k
I'm with you Gabz. And the reason they don't ban seafood is because they all LIKE IT.
They dislike smelling cigarette smoke, so that is why they are attacking us. Seafood, like their cars, is acceptable risk because they have no problem with it.
If I lived in Santa Cruz County, I'd have urged the County Supervisors to reject that policy.
Gabz wrote:
"there is really only one conclusion I can draw....the forces of the smoker-controlfreak movement need to be silenced once and for all."
Is Gabz proposing to kill those with whom she disagrees, or to just deny their Constitutional (1st amendment) right to freedom of speech?
If I lived in Santa Cruz County, I'd have urged the County Supervisors to reject that policy Bill GOD$shall.
Why Bill, because it includes your precious fix of ST? You will be the same criminal as the rest of us. Ha
Bill ... "or to just deny their Constitutional (1st amendment) right to freedom of speech?"
There is no right to yell fire in a crowed theater, Mr God$hall. That is esentially what TC has done.
Bill,
would you have urged rejection if smokeless tobacco had been exempt?
GreatScot
Bill Godshall: Master of Innuendo.
As usual, Bill is only concerned when it is HIS favorites being included in the ban. Then his comment about "free speech"........pot kettle black Bill........since when are you or any of your cohorts in favor of free speech when it comes to stuff YOU don't agree with?
Grow up Bill.
So Bill, if I am reading you right, then Tobacco control and the so called health elitist are the only ones with the 1st amendment freedom of speech right? We the People refers to all, not just a select few who believes they are the tell all, end all generation. As for Gabz's statement or anyone elses for that matter, then the motto, "Do unto others as you would do unto them" comes to play. You do it to smokers, they have the American right to do it to you too. I doubt that even the Supreme Court would see it any other way. So, if you are going to speak of hatred, then expect to get it back.
Also remember Bill that the people who wrote that Constitution were tobacco farmers so if we were to analize their thoughts, maybe the freedom of speech was written with a smoker in mind. Far fetched, yes, prove it, no, but on the otherhand, you can't prove it was just for you either.
What have you done to protect the Constitution Bill? I'm betting you just sit back with your feet on the fireplace hearth, chew a wad of tobacco and complain that people just aren't conforming to your "way of life."
Doctor,
All this is based on the big lie that you helped promulgate.
These guys have sure taken a lot of rope. How much will it take before they hang themselves?
Lynda (What has happened to the world?) F - thought it was just me 
Apparently TC must be using ‘post-normal’ science (as used by the climate change crowd).
All is explained by Melanie Philips at
The ‘post-normal’ science of climate change
Well, it's all so clear now....
doh!
west
----
Anti's gone amok.
Give 'em an inch ..........
It's interesting none of the arguments given have anything to do with the need for the extreme position this legislation takes. While presented as a smoking ban, it really delves into a complete park tobacco prohibition. None of the pols explained why such extreme protected the public interest any more than the less extreme ban on tobacco use in the confines of the park.
By banning the possession of tobacco products, the purpose of this law has nothing to do with keeping the parks smoke free, but rather smoker free.
We see these officials playing on issue of public health and safety, in order to punish smokers by denying them opportunity to use public property by putting up unreasonable hurdles to discourage their participation. I have yet to see a cigarette spontaneously combust, so obviously the fire issue is a ruse. I have also never seen smokeless tobacco "spit on the sidewalk".
This is very reminiscent of poll taxes and literacy tests to prevent the poor and minorities a voice in government.
I think the recent activity in Santa Cruz illustrates the need for making smokers a protected class, as this is clearly a form of harassment, discrimination, and a violation of the equal protection clause and intrudes on the individuals right to privacy.
I believe this is an excellent example of how the tobacco control movement's under pinning is truly anti-smoker.
The only thing missing from the article was a glowing endorsement from the big 3 pharma-whore politburo proclaiming how progressive the leaders of this community are by this enormously life-saving piece of legislation.
Those not blinded by their own agenda would recognize the Santa Cruz law would be like prohibiting the possession of cars in order to solve an overtime parking problem.
Clearly these officials do not represent the interests of the public with regards to the parks, but rather their own ideals towards punishing smokers. They need to be removed from office for misleading the public as to their motives.
Walt H. wrote "The only thing missing from the article was a glowing endorsement from the big 3 pharma-whore politburo proclaiming how progressive the leaders of this community are by this enormously life-saving piece of legislation."
to which I would add
...and stating that Santa Cruz County can set an example for the world.
Excellent, Walt H. Well and needed to be said.
"It's them, not me" Bill said:
Is Gabz proposing to kill those with whom she disagrees, or to just deny their Constitutional (1st amendment) right to freedom of speech?
Asking a question so it becomes a fact, Bill? Is that your game? It usually is.
But anyway, which side is it that time and time again advocates, publicly and clearly, physical assault?
No butts about it
January 29, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ ar...EDGC7N72CG1.DTL
I'll come after you myself. I'll pull that burning stick out of your nicotine-stained fingers, hurl it to the ground and crush it underfoot until it's dead. No jury in the world would convict me of causing harm to anyone -- especially you.
Written by a lawyer. An educated person, no? "No jury"? That means this educated person believes that this is the common belief. You'll protest that YOU didn't say it but WHERE do they get such ideas, Bill?
As for denial of the freedom of speech, you people are poster children. Won't debate in public when invited. Interviews cancelled because your side refuses to participate. And along comes your colleague, Gene Borio, just this week calling for newspapers to censor our side:
Letter to the Editor
Duluth, MN News Tribune - 3/12/07
[Excerpts]
The writer of the Feb. 27 letter, "Supporters of smoking ban have been misled," asked "whether [state Rep. Tom] Huntley knows about the following reports on secondhand smoke: Judge Osteen's scathing 1998 decision on the 1993 EPA report and the claims on appeal, the 1998 report of the World Health Organization and the efforts to suppress the report, and the 2003 British Medical Journal article. They say that fears about secondhand smoke are groundless.
There is some sort of coterie of pro-tobacco forces who try to promote these and a few other arguments anywhere they can. Legislators, armed with facts, dismiss them readily. Newspapers, too, should wise up and refuse to contribute to the scurrilous spread of misinformation.
GENE BORIO
NEW YORK
*
Your side wants to assault us and keep our opinion censored while your side has had free reign for over 25 years in every facet of speech (in addition to all the usual ways a seat at the court's table, seat at the congressional table, etc.). No individual that is ultimately affected by your persecution has ever had such a place at the table.
And then you push Dr. Siegel to scrub our comments here. And you have the gall to accuse Gabz of wanting a form of silence that has nothing more to do than to expose you for the frauds you are. Your own acts will be what silences you.
JTF---The SF link is dead,(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/)
Do you have any other available to try?
Thanks in advance
G Borio...'Legislators, armed with facts.....and well lined pocket$$$$
Uggghhhhh!
Walt H:
SMOKER FREE.
This is all that needs to be said.
thank you
What I'd like an answer to, again from all the anti's and Doc too:
If you TRULY believe smoking is bad, and you really don't want to punish smokers: Why do you not push for the illegalization of it? You can easily eliminate the problem without bullying a group of people. With the money you people blow on manipulation and bullying tactics, it could be done in the next two years. Because there's only one real conclusion to draw here: You like the money.
If tobacco really has NO redeeming qualities, why not illegalize it entirely? And don't give me that crap about some things, some people, some places. Because it's been said that people next door to your home suffer, your kids, your spouse, your blah blah blah. So, why are you people crowing about bans? You supposedly have the numbers to get this pushed through into a law. Complete illegalization. I call every one of you into question, your motives, your commitment to the cause, your claims of for the health of kids, your very moral fiber. IF you believe, why does it still exist? You see the life of those that suffer simply because they smoke, you claim the smoke kills thousands upon thousands..we can eliminate smokers as second class citizens AND remove the threat...why is it not done?
Doc, just the one question for you: If you believe, why does it still exist? You see the life of those that suffer simply because they smoke, you claim the smoke kills thousands upon thousands..we can eliminate smokers as second class citizens AND remove the threat...why is it not done? Yes, your question is edited because you aren't making all those claims, but I'd like the answer from you as well.
Sunz, seems the link didn't post right the first time. Try this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
ar...EDGC7N72CG1.DTL
or, another way... link
SO has anyone thought about how they could possibly enforce this prohibition?
Illegal Search & Seizure, anyone? :-(
The more wacky and oppressive the anti-smoking crowd gets, the more I can see this marked down as one of those stupid moments in history. You know those moments when where people looked completely stupid? Like the uproar over "Hogan's Heroes", the Scopes Monkey Trial, Prohibition, the Red Scare, etc. It seems that at least once a generation, the majority loses their mind on an issue.
JTF: I like how that woman who wrote to SFGate suggests "smokers' lounges". Sounds kinda familiar, but too bad your smoking bans kinda put the end to that.
Also the Duluth, MN News Tribune is kind of funny in its own way. Yeah, policy makers never ever twist the facts to fit their own world view. I mean it is not like politicians and bureaucrats ever have dismissed reports, scientific evidence, economic studies, intelligence information, etc.
Take Global Warming for example. Regardless of your stance on the issue, there are politicians on both sides that automatically dismiss the evidence out of hand to support their own world view. Be it those who with their debunked "urban heat island" charts or those with their debunked "Hockey Stick Graph".
I really have to question the enforcement here do grounds keepers in parks and city workers have powers of search and arrest?
Will people be questioned randomly to see if they fess up? Or will they just poke you with a trash sticker until you sign a confession?
How on earth can they enforce this nonsense or is it strictly the one upmanship deals required to get their name mentioned in the paper and make everyone feel important.
Who cares? just another tourist or convention destination to avoid.
They sound like one of those places with a trick stop light and ten thousand dollar speeding tickets as the primary source of their county budget
Smoke is smoke...
Ban one - ban all
From the County's website:
Picnic pavilions for large groups can be found at New Brighton, Seacliff and Sunset. Barbeque grills and picnic tables for smaller groups line the long stretch of sand at Seacliff.
The beaches of Seabright, Twin Lakes, New Brighton, Rio Del Mar, Manresa and Sunset have fire rings for building campfires and toasting s'mores. The pounding waves and flickering flames create an idyllic setting for watching the sunset.
From the mountains to the sea, Santa Cruz County's natural beauty abounds in its state parks.
http://www.santacruzca.org/
press...tateparks.shtml
JTF----The SF babe sounds very reasonable, and very classy! Claims to be a lawyer but is blissfully unaware of the smoking bans in California since 1998. Her smoke-bucks ideas was shut down at that point.
I'll come after you myself. I'll pull that burning stick out of your nicotine-stained fingers, hurl it to the ground and crush it underfoot until it's dead. No jury in the world would convict me of causing harm to anyone -- especially you.
That "lawyer" had better read this first: http://www.nypost.com/seven/
0308..._livingston.htm
NY Post (from the FORCES website, in case that long link doesn't work)
Ah, shit--Read it wrong. Still, in this day and age...
TGIF. A need a beer.
WLC---
L O L!!!
Now go have your beer
When you read a story about a man being beaten to death with a pool cue for having the temerity to light a cigarette, my story about bottle hurling youths in Scotland looks tame.
What is wrong with the world?
Sue me Alert for GOD$hALL...
off topic.... very relevant:
[snip]
'Look at the data. Apply reason. Make sure the data is correct. Even I, a techno semi-illiterate, know that computer modeling is simply a fancy straight-line projection. Unfortunately, life is more about circles and cycles than straight lines.'
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/ap...14/1014/
OPINION
Enjoy
The Anti Rant$---as he defend his chosen poisen
http://www.heartland.org/Article...cfm?
artId=20723
poisen=Poison
Ah. A sales drive from Smokeless Bill.
There had to be a cashotine angle somewhere.....
Jalestra-
I can't speak for others, but I don't see prohibition being effective. It seems to me that a black market would develop. The experience with alcohol prohbition was apparently a disaster and it had to be repealed. I think it's likely the same would happen with a tobacco prohibition.
I just love the numbers they throw out. Totally not mentioning that those numbers are so far below 1% of the population AND the smoking population that it is pathetic.
The other problem with prohibition of cigarettes is that we WILL be turned into criminals, for I know prohibiting cigarettes will NOT make me quit.
I can't think of a more vicious form of bullying than that.
I know prohibition will not work. It is effective to point to the unaware though the hypocricy to the TC bullys. Because they do not want tobacco to go away. It goes so do they.
If it does happen I will grow my own.
Dr. Siegal et all
Prohibition of cigarettes IS ineffective and it IS here!
Prohibition makes use of tobacco illegal.
Excessive smoking restrictions have already accomplished the same thing. Smokers are staying home. The prevalance of smoking in the population has increased as smoking has been made into an act of rebellion . It may not be prohibition but its the next thing to it.
Excessive taxation has caused the black market to flourish. Violence and crime have already increased.
Prohibition would increase the costs of policing - already happening with enforcement of bans and trying to control the black market and we must of course consider the imposed costs of tobacco control
In comparing the effects of prohibition of tobacco and the effects of excessive regulation and taxation of tobacco, can anyone tell me what the practical difference is?
Michelle
Smokeless Tobacco advocates,fail to take into consideration one single act that increases everyone's chances of contracting lung cancer,it's called BREATHING.Before all the ranti antis suffer apoplexy perhaps they ought to provide evidence that EVERY non smoker who dies of lung cancer is a victim of SHS,and that alone.There is a very interesting article written on a preceding thread that examines the toxic elements we ALL BREATHE.Of course all the militant antis will disparage the article,but those of us still skilled in maintaining an open mind will ,i'm sure,find it most beneficial.
I can name the difference between prohibiton and excessive regulation. With excessive regulation the anti's get the money.
Thank you for the answer, Doc. I don't see it as effective either...However, if it's for people's health and smokers supposedly aren't the ones being punished, I'd find more consistency from anti's pushing prohibition than punishing smokers and collecting our tainted money hand over fist.
FWIW, I won't accept this excuse from any other anti posting on here. If prohibition isn't effective neither is bullying, and every one of you support bullying in the form of excessive taxation and criminalization. So, let's see if Bill and Carl and Cathy can justify why it's ok to abuse smokers and (according to their own comments) abuse non-smokers by not pushing for the complete illegalization of cigarettes/smoking.
Colin,
I agree, a 23 year old is clubbed to death for lighting up and it barely causes a ripple.
A young man's future ended, family and friends devastated, another man facing life (or death) in gaol, his family equally devastated. And in accordance with the Post all because of the smoking ban.
I pray that people never become desensitised to personal tragedy. This is NOT a price worth paying and no amount of "collateral damage" is justifiable.
Although I am sure the hate merchants and fanatics out there don't give a monkey's damn.
GreatScot
I wonder why men are allowed to enter the parks. After all, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, "Nearly all of the offenders in sexual assaults reported to law enforcement were male (96%)" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf)
[i]And anyone who merely possesses [the potentially offending object] would also be subject to the same $92 fine.[/i]
I still wonder HOW they will know if a person is carrying any tobacco product on their person, IF they really are NOT going to search everyone who enters the park?
Seriously, how the hell will they know UNLESS they physically search everyone AND their possessions?
Well, some men and even women, carry cigarettes in a shirt pocket. It's a pretty obvious rectangle and the only think I can think of off hand that could compare is playing cards...So if you carry a purse or briefcase you're ok. It's completely unenforceable.
I hope since smokers aren't welcome in their parks, that the taxes they pay aren't used on the upkeep of parks....
I'd carry an empty pack, in full view of everyone. They would not know it was empty, but I would derive enormous pleasure from the screaming.
Then I would calmly wait for the S.W.A.T team to drop down on me from their helicopters....
Then sue them for harassment.
Naturally I would do this several times a day, just to piss everyone off.
Then I would give them a day off, even if they have deployed the Gestapo.
Then I would start the cycle all over again.
Yeah, there's nothing that says you can't take a cigarette package up there, just no cigarettes.
Colin - brilliant!
I love it Colin.
As a woman, I'd wear jeans and put the pack in the back pocket, I don't wear shirts with pockets, then when accused, ask them what they were doing looking at my ass in the first place......hehehehehe
Is Gabz proposing to kill those with whom she disagrees, or to just deny their Constitutional (1st amendment) right to freedom of speech?
Bill Godshall | Homepage | 03.15.07 - 2:05 pm | #
No Bill I am not proposing killing anyone, I've had enough death threats from anti-smokers to last me a lifetime. As to denying Constitutional Rights that would make me as bad as you and the rest of the anti-smoker cartel, so no that is not how I would suggest silencing anti-smokers.........my means would be to see all funding for smoker-control go away from any and all sources thus providing the ever popular "level playing field" between the control freaks and the smokers they are paid to harrass.
Colin, I love your idea. How about taking it one step further and put empty cigarette tubes (the kind for stuff your won cigarettes) into the empty pack.......
Bill joins with Michael in dispelling the myths of TC. In fact if you look closely at his favorite research paper he makes a much bolder statement. He contends in the study just as many smokers are numerically smoking today as smoked in 1960.
Playing with the numbers seems to indicate all the efforts of TC over the years has been largely ineffective. TC may have in fact increased the number of those who start smoking or they are lying about the mortality figures I can;t decide which more closely represents their tenancies.
Bill reveals we have as many smokers today as in 1960 around the time the SG launched TC on their long and tremendously complicated and vastly expensive road.
Think about this one for a moment. The same number today would entail those who started would have to be exactly equal to a combination of those who quit and those who died?
We know two of the components the third would have to be the level of success in convincing people to quit.
The balancing act
total new smokers = 450,000 + [number who quit]
By their own exaggerations of smoker related deaths? The higher the mortality figure goes, decreases their own claims to success if any effect effect was seen at all. LMAO
What about it Bill did your research reveal is TC lying to the American public or are they simply ineffective?
If anyone remembers my previous reference to projections
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Psy...ical_projection
According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings.
Could this explain the one mindedness in blindly following flawed ideology despite wht we in the real world actually observe.
Think about what is being projected upon the fabled ETS and worse the percieded evil Tobacco comanies always un named?
Observation of the most prominet in TC and their public promotions reveals a lot.
Freud would likely have insisted on restraint and observation of those demonstrating anti social and dangerously deluded behavior.
But hey that's just me a smokers and my deluded [smoke addled] perspective. HeHe
Bill, Carl, $weda et al,
With all of the vitriol you and the rest of TC have out there in public statements on the horrid smokers, what part of the liability do you share in this:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/
0308..._livingston.htm
This family will lawyer up soon and the witch hunt may begin to take a different course. Hang on to those wallet$.
My, how the worm begins to turn when will the little man ever learn?
It is quite interesting to note, very few articles on the Santa Cruz park bans mention the fact that not only is the use banned, but also the possession of the product. I wonder if the politicians are playing this aspect down, or if it's the media in it's support which is ignoring it.
Santa Cruz has had a long history of pushing expanding it's bans to be more encompassing. Santa Cruz park and recreation authorities have been trying to remove smokers from their facilities for years. The latest approach under the guise of health and safety issues is to deny use of the facilities by anyone even carrying tobacco products, as years prior has eliminated the use of these products on some of their properties. Under the proposed new rules, possession of tobacco products could result in a $92 fine, and an escort off the premises. The reasoning they cite is to make the parks smoke-free and prevent fires(1), yet ignition devices such as lighters and matches are not restricted, as these are needed to build open pit fires and light grills on these facilities by it's patrons which the park authority provides and maintains. Cleary these reasons are mere excuses to oust smokers, as the parks will not be smoke-free. The restrictions in Santa Cruz were carefully crafted to only affect tobacco users, and to deny them reasonable access to a publicly funded facilities.
Clearly, the laypersons views, subject to enormous governmental, and pharmaceutical funding and lobbying is to denigrate, vilify and cast out tobacco users.
I have long held the belief that hazards to others from tobacco use, was only an excuse, and that in many instances grossly exaggerated as to provide justification for legislation designed to harass smokers. Santa Cruz is only the latest example of such, as lawmakers would like you to believe that the mere possession of tobacco products now represents a grave threat to the pubic which must be protected. Perhaps the oracle at UCSF can provide statistics which say that even the sight of a tobacco product increases your risk of heart attack by 30% because of increased anxiety that tobacco users still exist.(2)
(1) "Officials say the idea is to keep the county's 30 parks free of second-hand smoke. Samuel expects the ban to reduce the number of park fires caused by smokers. People caught smoking or in possession of tobacco could be assessed a $92 fine." -- KRON http://www.kron.com/Global/story...y.asp?
S=6165875
(2) "Supervisor Mark Stone said he hoped the ban would attract more families to county parks, similar to what happened after smoking was restricted at Felton Covered Bridge County Park last August."
Previously, "there were some moms that were really stressed that there were people hanging out smoking," Stone said. Many mothers complained to him that they had stopped visiting the park with their kids. -- http://www.santacruzsentinel.com...ies/
04local.htm
Good points Walt;
We have to look at the true implications of the message being portrayed here.
It is sufficient to chase smokers away from these facilities as no longer associated with families in management opinions. Not because they have been found guilty of a crime, are can even be shown have ever harmed another directly with the smoke. Especially in an outdoor setting. The politicians avoid direct criminal charges because they know they fail consistently in demonstrating an actual harm exists.
Fires are a result of careless individuals not just smokers. Has research show all smokers are significantly more careless than non smokers? No
What do we now see by such actions is an impression those who are convicted of actual criminal activities and are much more likely to harm others in the park and are of course welcome and consistent with families as a description.
Thieves the most common crime in the parks are welcome without restriction, Murderers, Bikers, Drug dealers, Serial killers and rapists all welcome, child molesters and arsonists no law against it?
New Family values and what is considered reasonable accommodation seems to leave a lot to be desired.
Does it seem reasonable only smokers are being driven from these facilities? The only real claim to inspire such aggressive discrimination seems to be a calculated risk theory not grounded in real demonstrated fact. As I demonstrated tremendously higher personal risk categories exist, yet are absolutely ignored.
Does this represent a failure in the duty of those in charge of these facilities, to weigh the risks and minimize them consistently, protecting the public from real risk. Management seems to be taking a cowardly half hearted approach associated positively to personal agenda. While creating a revenue stream to be paid for a discrimination in process.
The trolls under the bridge demanding fees to pass. To all who are not trolls.
Politicians all, looking for the spotlight and ignoring the safety of the families who may now be wise to avoid these facilities, in agreement with reasonable efforts to keep their families safe, at least until some professional managers are found who take their responsibilities seriously.
Actually Kevin several states have laws against sex offenders for going anywhere near a park.
Harley,
Yes, but those are ONLY the known and convicted sex offenders. Unfortunately there are too many out there who are unknown and have never been caught or convicted. Therefore, they freely hang around the parks, hunting their next victim.
Harley The point remains Smokers are not criminals because they are not driven by fear,and should not be treated as less than criminals.
Just so some self important politician can promote himself while he is promoting the hatred of others.
While I appreciate Dr. Siegel's work in exposing the lies and abuses of the anti's, I can't quite get over the fact that he helped to get the ball rolling in the first place. Now he wants to cry 'foul' after they have gone too far? Hmm.
You Californians are pathetic...look at yourselves! You're a sad lot and so bloated with self-importance. Obviously way too much time on your hands. I'm offended by your invasive approach to my life. For a state that condons individuality, you sure demand the ranks to fall in line. Never seen a more nauseating state.
I couldn't agree more with you ; that's WHY I call it "Whacofornia"-not all of them are , of course but their pols are ! So pathetic.
Suprpower and Neil,
The mess Kalifornia was heading for is why I left the state. Moved to New Mexico------but now 'They're heeerrrre!!!!! No smoking statewide 6.15.07. There is no place safe from the busybodies !!!
This will be very brief: I want America back! The America where freedom meant something. The America where smokers and nonsmokers co-existed peacefully for decades. The America that possessed the common sense to know that "secondhand smoke" is thousands of times more diluted that direct smoke and that the threat to nonsmokers' health is nonexistant. Remember that America? We had it about 20 years ago.
Commenting by HaloScan
