:IMHO!: With this smoking ban, and the civil union bill, the Granite State is rapidly becoming Massachusetts junior, IMMHO!
Time for all AR-15 totin', MRE-hoardin', queer-beatin', income-tax rejectin', Federal Reserve hatin' Granite Staters of good conscience to make a last stand for freedom in Texas, IMHO!
I'm more of a "who have you killed lately?" kind of guy. Ted definitely has had some issues with substance, women, and manslaughter. But he has done a very good job representing the Commonwealth to the FedGov. He brings results, that's what I like to see. He's a more effective senator under Bush than most Republican senators.
Kennedy is bush league. You want to see a senator that brings home the prok, look no further than Robert C. "So Help Me GAWD" Byrd. He dies, they're renaming the state Byrdland. Half the state already has his name on it anyways.
Government intrusion into the private sector. I dredged up some of the legislative text for anyone interested (I'm trying to cure my case of insomnia): [?=Boring shit] The meat of the bill involves a certain section of the Indoor Smoking Act involving where exactly smoking is prohibited. Here's the original text : They threw all that out and changed it to read this : Big improvement. They also said these places weren't exempt anymore: [/?] And like all good mommy-gub'mint legislation, the resulting costs of enforcing this caring, sensitive tripe is going to make taxes a little higher than they were before. And business owners will have that much less say in how their businesses are run. Fuck Lynch, and fuck the two Republican shitheads (yeah, they're both Repubs, I looked that up too) that came up with this fucking drivel.
They've been doing that in Indiana for a while now. It's complete bull shit. I'm under 21, and the only place open late at night where you can still smoke inside is a bar. I used to hang out at Steak N' Shake all the time and just smoke and drink coffee. But now, I go to peoples houses and smoke and drink liquor. I know for a fact that when I could still smoke at Steak N' Shake, I drank a helluva lot less.
It isn't as though they can raise our sales tax. And I have to say now NH has OFFICIALLY gone QUEER as a mint-tuna sandwich. No smoking in bars.... I can smoke and not drink, but I'll be damned if I try to drink and not smoke. Doesn't fuckin' work.
I've personally quite enjoyed the smoking bans both here and in Indiana. It's nice, for instance, to go bowling and be able to breathe. And to go to a restaurant and not have to worry if the smoke's gonna filter over and spoil my food.
They did this in Arizona too. Just went into effect in May. They paid for enforcement of the ban by raising the per-pack tax on cigarettes. If I were still a smoker (I quit in Nov. 2005), my "give-a-shit" meter would be through the roof. But since I don't smoke, my interest is "diminished". The ban still doesn't sit right at all with my strong libertarian streak. BTW the ban was voted upon by Arizona voters, not the state legislature. That makes it bother me slightly less.
Strictly from a health issue, what about the employees in bars or restaurants that allow smoking? It's easy enough to tell a customer to go somewhere else, but what about the health of employees that are there? Who pays for theincreased insurance premiums or for the treatment of these employees if they develop smoking-related illnesses down the road?
His careless use of monikers will be the death of the English language! The death of it I tell you!!!
Not this stupid argument again... As a non-smoker, I've had to put up with the filthy, disgusting habit in public places for most of my life. I'm overjoyed that the world is finally coming around to forcing the people that choose to partake in this smelly waste of money away from the rest of us that just want to breathe less polluted air. Good riddance. And yes, I'm fully aware of vehicle emissions and everything else that the smokers always bring up next. I'm absolutely in favour of cleaner air wherever possible, but it's far more feasible to eliminate cigarette smoke from the environment than vehicle emissions at the present time.
I was (and still am) against it on principle when it was brought in here. But I can't say that I don't enjoy drinking in smokeless bars a lot more.
I still don't understand why non-smoking patrons who are so bothered by smoke, can't instead go to an establishment that caters to their needs? I'm not a smoker, so it doesn't bother me much either way.. but that's just something I've never understood. And pray tell, what is wrong with the civil union bill, thread starter?
