[Masthead] A Few Clouds ~ 77°F  
High: 78°F ~ Low: 51°F
Tuesday, Sep. 23, 2014

Thoughts on the smoking ban

Posted Tuesday, October 2, 2007, at 4:36 PM

Some of you won't like this.

I've been reading several press releases and news stories about Tennessee's new "Non-Smokers Protection Act," which consigns those who puff to outside or places that only serve those over 21.

The arguments behind this new law sort of reminds one of what fast food giant McDonald's said when they stopped serving items in "supersize," saying they were "helping customers make healthier choices."

Can someone please explain to me how taking away a choice is helping someone to make a better one?

Now, I don't smoke, but I know many who do and they are increasingly being treated like second class citizen because of their choice. They are told they are "smelly, nasty and disgusting" and are quickly becoming public enemy #1.

What this writer is concerned about is the infringement the new law puts on business owners, telling them what they can allow on their own property. Apparently, public health outweighs property rights. Another argument is that health care costs are out of this world, and it's all the fault of *insert name of unhealthy, stigmatized group here*

What is ironic is that while Tennessee seems quite concerned about getting folks to stop inhaling the cancer sticks, they also want to make real sure that they are still getting their cut of the proceeds.

A press release from the state last week stated that the Tennessee Department of Revenue's Special Investigations Section will be "conducting surveillance of out-of-state tobacco retailers located near the state line for Tennessee residents purchasing cigarettes."

You see, another law that also passed this summer hiked the cigarette tax from 20 cents to 62 cents per pack. So to save a few bucks, folks are heading across state lines, but Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr says this is a no-no. "Tennesseans should know that the law requires cigarettes purchased outside of the state to bear a Tennessee tobacco stamp, otherwise the cigarettes may be considered contraband."

So if you have more than 20 packs (or two cartons) of cigarettes not bearing the Tennessee tax stamp, it's a misdemeanor. "Such products and any vehicle(s) used to transport them are subject to seizure. Possession of more than 25 cartons of untaxed cigarettes is a Class E felony."

"If Revenue agents believe that an individual is transporting more than two cartons of cigarettes into Tennessee, the vehicle carrying the cigarettes will be stopped and searched," Commissioner Farr said. "If more than two cartons are found, the cigarettes will be seized and agents have the discretion to make arrests and seize the vehicle."

The money from the tax hike goes to education (approximately $195 million annually), agricultural enhancements ($21 million annually) and trauma centers statewide ($12 million annually), the press release stated.

I penned a column a year ago about how useless bureaucrats are constantly coming up with new ways to control every aspect of people's lifes:

... many of us know that the smoking bans enacted across the country really never have anything to do with smoking itself. It is always about the government mentality of "power and control." Live a healthy life or the man will punish you."

We have fewer and fewer rights because everything we can do, want to do and will do is being regulated according to the whims of those who think they know better than the rest of us. So, hold on folks, as we slide faster and faster down the slippery slope to eventual government control over every aspect of your life.

For your own good, of course.

The thing is, after they've eliminated smoking, you just know the powers that be are going to go after something else to tax.

So to those of you that are overweight, watch out, because I'm betting that you folks are next. After all, my health insurance is stratospheric because of you guys can't put down the fork ...


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Tax by the pound :>) "lol"

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Oct 2, 2007, at 6:27 PM

You may be on to something,Brian.

I've heard of 'demanding a pound of flesh' but taxing fat cats for their excess consumption might get interesting.

Let me perform my patriotic duty toward a few deep-fried Moon Pies and I could probably fund three schools,two hospitals,a youth center,a library and a no-kill shelter all by myself.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Tue, Oct 2, 2007, at 7:20 PM

It is sad that they can tell smokers where they can smoke and how much they can buy and where. What about the people that drink alcohol. They can buy as much as they want and drink as much as they want to. There were 5 people charged with DUI in the paper tonight and all of them can get out of jail and buy more. There are more people killed on the streets by alcohol then there are by cigarettes. I can smoke 20 cigarettes and drive a car just fine but let me drink a 6 pack of beer and try to drive! They should start taxing the alcohol more and putting stiffer laws into effect on these drunk drivers. You never here of a increase on alcohol for education.

-- Posted by kimb on Tue, Oct 2, 2007, at 10:43 PM

Yes it is a sad, sad day when the government can tell you what is best for you..it's even sadder when they start telling businesses who they can and can not allow inside their buildings.

As I said before: The government does not care if you have lung cancer or if your over weight or if your alcohol dependant. Cigarette bans are only the beginning, if they truly cared about your health they would ban the sale of cigarettes but then they would lose so much tax money wouldn't they?

I really wish that everybody who smokes could quit just for one month..I think that would be all it would take. I firmly believe the Surgeon General would be on TV announcing Smoking wasn't nearly as bad as they had first thought it to be, when they saw all the jobs being lost and taxes not being collected.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Oct 2, 2007, at 10:59 PM

VERY good point Diana!!

I am not one who loves government infringing upon my rights, but it is the duty of the government to provide the overall safety and well being for the general public.

I don't think it's fair for non-smokers to have to go in a restaurant and be consumed by the overly toxic fumes. Though, I also don't think government should tell businesses who they can serve. That is absurd! The worst part about this law is that it says "21 and up only..." when the legal age to be able to smoke is 18. I seriously don't understand that!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Oct 2, 2007, at 11:13 PM

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke. Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and is the only real hazard involved -- the cancer of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision? Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, -- whose customers are free to go elsewhere.

All decisions involve risks; some have harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

Thomas Laprade

480 Rupert St.

Thunder Bay, Ont.

-- Posted by snowbird on Tue, Oct 2, 2007, at 11:17 PM

If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.

A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?

There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.

-- Posted by snowbird on Tue, Oct 2, 2007, at 11:19 PM

LOL yes... Same can be said for pot smokers, cocaine addicts, etc... We give them all that "Choice" to do what they want.

What is surprising to me, is if one would simply read all the ingredients used to make a cigarette, and actually understand how it alters one's body, they may not be so inclined to want to smoke.

I still think, though, government shouldn't step on personal choices.... Reminds me of the Prohibition Amendment, that essentially made the problem worse. I think cigarette prices should continue to rise, as they are not essential in life... Kind of like a luxury car? It does all the same things as a $20,000 car, but since it is your choice to purchase something that isn't essential to life, you should pay for it, not everyone else...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Oct 2, 2007, at 11:33 PM

darrick,

So if something isn't essential to life then it should be taxed out the wazoo? Now let's see, how about a great big old tax on a pair of shoes? You don't have to have them to live. You can go barefoot.

As to government restrictions; how long has public nudity been prohibited? Should that be restricted? Is wearing clothing a government mandate that should be lifted? I would feel so free walking down the street in the nude, wouldn't you?

Should I be allowed to relieve myself on the sidewalk? It's just a little feces after all. What could it possible hurt? How many studies have been done to determine the damages of a little crap of my crap on your shoes? Oops, I forgot, shoes are not essential so you'd be barefoot wouldn't you?

Your argument is ludicrous. Who is going to decide what is essential to life? I'll bet your life is packed FULL of non-essential things that you do not want taxed. I'll bet you are younger than myself, if that is the case then I can almost guarantee that you own and use many, many things that I would consider unnecessary, and you would be hard pressed to live without them; and you would scream from the rooftops if I wanted to tax them as luxury items. Get real!

Now to the topic at hand. Why should someone have the right to go into a restaurant, buy a cup of coffee and sit in a booth for two hours fouling the air with a whole pack of cigarettes? It isn't that inconvenient to drink the coffee and move to a more open space to do your puffing is it? Why is that different from a couple wanting coffee before they copulate, do they have the right to do that in a booth in that same restaurant? They paid the rent on the seat when they bought a cup of coffee didn't they? Get real!

Why do smokers think they have the God given right to put noxious fumes, vapors and smoke into the air that another person breathes? If I want to smoke I can go to a place that is not confined where I offend no other person. The government didn't say I can't smoke, it said I can't smoke just anywhere I want. I say HOORAY!

-- Posted by dmcg on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 3:07 AM

Darrick, I think your argument is terrific! I say don't tell them they can't smoke, just make cigarettes $10 or $15 a pack! Much like the luxury car. When it comes to smoking in a public place, it should be outcast. It should make you feel as though you are an outcast, some people really don't want to die like that. Including me! Not only do I not want to die like that I also don't want to smell like that in the process.....IT STINKS! Sorry if that offends some people but IT STINKS! Not only does it stink but IT'S TOXIC!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 7:59 AM

Well if the government is so concerned for everyone's health, let's make ALL fast food sandwiches $15 each, fries $10, snacks and goodies $20, sodas $5...Have you ever looked into the ingredients that is those things? And Obesity is a major problem in America. The Fattest Nation on Earth.

Obesity causes major health risks that cuase MY insurance, that I hardly ever use, to rise each year. So Let's go and ban and tax everything bad for you. I don't know why the tobacco smokers are targeted. I mean, if the government really cares, then let's get rid of all the obesity, let's ban alcohol. I have never heard of anyone being beaten or getting into a "tobacco induced" brawl, but you hear about families being terrorized by a parent that drinks.

And what gives people that drink alcohol the right to sit behind me at a Titan's Game acting a fool while I am trying to enjoy my game, why is it their right to ruin my dinner by being loud and obnoxious at Chili's and Legend's. Alot of people's rights get infringed upon by alcohol. I have the right to drive down the road and not be killed by a drunk driver, yet alcohol is acceptable in this nation. I can't even recall the countless stories that people giggle about at work that starts with "I was so drunk, smashed, trashed, wasted, etc...." and then they laugh about barely making it home.

So like I said, let's just ban EVERYTHING that is bad for you. I mean, let's just don't stop at cigarettes.

Alcohol STINKS and it's also Toxic.

-- Posted by James48 on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:02 AM

You're right alcohol does stink. Ban it, I know you think I am kidding but I assure you and I know that Darrick can reassure you, we wouldn't mind!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:06 AM

Please do not feel that you must read this...

This is cigarettes...

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotine...

and this about alcohol....

http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Collected...

I don't know about you but I see major differences!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:23 AM

I'm in!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:28 AM

I really hate to throw this into the discussion, but I find the concept that some of you are advocating of banning everything YOU don't like quite disturbing. It has been done before.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/...

And these guys were REAL experts at getting rid of things they didn't like.

Please think about where this sort of mindset leads. Some of you are ready to wield the axe like Carrie Nation... The only thing that banning booze brought to this country is the rise of organized crime.

There are many things in this world I don't like, but I don't demand them removed and banned just because I may be personally inconvenienced, upset or if it "offends" me.

-- Posted by Brian Mosely on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 10:43 AM

One problem with bans is that it encourages an underground market with no quality controls or other protections for the consumer.

It links the product to other criminal activity and turns regular folk into lawbreakers.

That erodes their inhibitions toward other illegal activities that might be even more dangerous.

Add to that the emergence of a counter- culture that tries to bind the banned substance to the attractions of fashion and music and,suddenly,you have a major effort to squelch a lifestyle that has become the ultimate in 'cool'.

Let's not give the bad guys another tool to trash our society.

Let's 'ban' harmful stuff the same way we curb bad fashion,dated slang and other social missteps.

Let's declare it so boring,so unbecoming and so passe' that no one would take it up on a bet.

Then,the folks who can't go two hours without their nicotine or alcohol 'fix' might see their habit as an addiction that needs medical attention.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 11:01 AM

We all could go on and on about things that we think should be banned. One of them being dogs inside city limits. I find them to be a huge nuisance with them knocking over my trash cans everyday and poopin in my yard. And the constant barking. Sometimes it is hard to sleep because of all the barking. And the owners never pay them any attention. I don't own a dog for a reason, why am I forced to put up with yours? Maybe I should get enough people on board so we can ban dogs too!!! :p

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 12:06 PM

nathan

I thought dogs were under a ban inside the city limits from running at large?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 12:15 PM

Diana, it is!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 12:17 PM

correction....Diana, they are. It's called a LEASH LAW! If they are not on a leash, Nathan, report them.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 12:24 PM

OK back to the smoking ban: :>)

I personally could care less whether people smoke or not or even where they do it at..but I personally feel like if smoking was that much of a danger to people the sale of cigarettes is what should be banned. I have the problem with the government saying you can buy something then telling you when and where you can use it.

It is the same thing with seat belt laws ..I have always had a problem with them..If I don't wear my seat belt I am not hurting anyone but me so who is the government by telling me it is a law not to wear my seat belt.

Just because they feel it is safer..don't mean it is. I drive a convertible if I roll my car I want to be thrown from my car instead of being crushed inside it..seems to be that should also be my choice considering it is my car.

OOPs sorry I got of subject again. My mind must be wandering in my old age.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 12:48 PM

"If I don't wear my seat belt I am not hurting anyone but me so who is the government by telling me it is a law not to wear my seat belt."

That should read Against a Law not to wear my seat belt

Trying to Multitask :>)

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 12:54 PM

BTW, apparently, I'm not the only one who is having a problem with this border enforcement with tobacco products.

http://billhobbs.com/2007/10/farr_fumes....

Some folks may not care for the Representive who is blogging about this, but he raises some good points.

-- Posted by Brian Mosely on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 1:15 PM

I am a smoker and if I go to a restaurant that is non smoking then I don't smoke I wait until I am finished with my meal and leave before I smoke. But when I have to sit in a restaurant that is non smoking with my grandson and we are having a meal and have to listen to some drunk at the bar cursing and swearing, it is totally wrong. I know I will be able to drive home without hurting anyone, but will he? The government is going to cause alot of businesses to close down and people to lose their jobs and not be able to pay their taxes or care for their families. Do they want more people to go on welfare to feed their families. That just cost the tax payers more money. For the ones that think smoking should be ban and the sale of cigarettes to be ban just think it is going to cost you more in the long run to care for all these families that can't find a job because businesses have closed. Guess what your taxes are going to go up. The government says they won't raise your taxes if they can increase cigarette taxes but guess what they will when they don't have the money to feed all these families.

-- Posted by kimb on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 2:12 PM

Hold on here I don't want the sale of cigarettes banned..I just want them to stop saying you can buy them but you can't smoke them.

Government interference is what I have the problem with.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 2:37 PM

Land of the Free? It seems we are becoming more and more of a dictatorship.

-- Posted by mindyg on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 3:21 PM

Kimb, ask for a seat further away from the bar.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 3:49 PM

Just for the record here

"I was also told that a household was only allowed 2 dogs PER ADULT in the house. I wish they would enforce this law considering that my neighbor has 13 dogs that bark constantly.

-- Posted by Revolution on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 12:31 PM

Here is the link for the new pet laws

http://www.shelbyvilletn.org/Animals%20a...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 4:17 PM

Here is my thought on the smoking deal.

I as well as a lot of people are very allergic to smoke. It makes me deathly sick. No matter how many times you wash your hands, hang out the window, or have left the restaraunt the smell is still on you and in the air around you whether you have just lit one up or did it 15minutes ago-it still makes alot of people sick. If you want to smoke surely you can wait a few minutes to light up in your own car on in your own home away from the public.

-- Posted by shelbyvegas on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 7:16 PM

First off let me say that I am a smoker. I also have one child in school and another will start in a couple of years. I am paying for my children's education with my tax dollars plus other expenses right out of pocket. Now someone tell me why, as a smoker, I should pay for all of the non-smokers' children to go to school. That part of the tax really bothers me to no end.

The 'Agricultural enhancements' were discribed on TV ( channel 50+ talk forum with the state revenue know-it-all) as teaching and helping farmers to grow other products beside tobacco... This will reduce the amount of tobacco available so then they can raise the prices more and more (supply and demand economics)plus the new higher tax increase.

I have long said (just like a few of you) that smoking my cigarettes is not as dangerous as the ones who drink at the bars and ballgames or even at home and then get on the roads. That being said, I was completely fine with having smoking sections at restaurants and other places, but what was funny was that most of the time the smoking area was in the main area of the restaurant where people had to pass through... going to be seated, near salad bar, near rest rooms or would only be seperated by a half wall. How would a half wall keep out the smoke?

I was always willing to not smoke if it bothered someone, wait until I was outside, or excuse myself and go outside. However a few weeks back, we had to sign a sheet for the youth football league that we were not to smoke when in the presence of the children during practice or games. Both are outside activities and our children live in our houses; yet we are a bad influence on them only when they are at practice or the games. DUH!!!!!

Who knows maybe soon we will have to call the state and ask permission to go to the bathroom?

-- Posted by EastSideMom on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 7:41 PM

Now they are telling you how to raise your children...figures!

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 7:46 PM

James, I am all for a ban on alcohol... You don't know me very well, or you would understand that I vehemently hate alohol and the effects it has on someone...

What people don't understand here is that smoking is your right, just as well as those who don't want to be anywhere around it, have that right. I do not think government interference on one's personal liberties should be a necessary action, but when two people are effected by either NOT smoking, or SMOKING, then you have to make a stance. People can complain about alcohol all day long, it is deadly and very dangerous.... and I HATE IT! But it isn't fair to justify smoking as a lesser evil, just because the effects it has on you aren't immediate. Of course, it doesn't impare your driving abilities, but it does alter your body/brain over a long period of time.

I don't think limiting where you can smoke cigarettes is all that bad. You can't smoke in MANY other public facilities, by law, so why are restaurants any exception? Imagine the next time you go to the mall for 3 and 4 hours at a time, people don't complain about not being able to smoke there. What about Wal-mart? People aren't lighting up while running around the store... The biggest difference, is that bartenders are held accountable for "so and so" if they serve them too many drinks, it is called CUT-OFF for a reason. When you go out to eat, it is to eat and usually, you have some form of beverage... But the sole purpose of any food service facility isn't to serve cigarettes... Just because someone feels the need to smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day, doesn't mean they can't stop smoking for a brief 30 minute or hour long dinner...

Bars, yes... people intentionally go there to drink/smoke/dance, whatever, so that is different. I enjoy going to restaurants that do not allow smoking in the buildings, for the atmosphere is generally cleaner and people who are allergic have no worries.

I can tell you, first hand, I have worked at numerous restaurants, some of which prohibited smoking, and others that allowed it. Overall, business was not affected and people didn't start losing their jobs simply because smoking wasn't allowed, like kimb says...

Why is this even news? Many fast-food restaurants, public education facilites, etc etc etc have already banned smoking, so just because a place serves alcohol, that is to be enjoyed in MODERATION(which is where the majority of their profit stems) does not mean they have to allow smoking. If anything, restaurants can add on outdoor areas or separate de-tached facilites to accomodate people. Because after all, if they are truly going to lose so much business, just because someone can't smoke, then these types of investments seem logical.

I leave you with this quote:

What "right to smoke?" Do I have a right to light up a sulfur candle in the middle of a crowd? Or set off a 4-Gone fogger? What would happen if I ran around with a can of Black Flag, spraying it in the faces of passersby at random? I'd be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, and probably also brought up on terrorism charges, and I'd deserve it mightily. So why do people addicted to inhaling an insecticide (not only is it a common ingredient in organic bug sprays that's also its function in the tobacco plant) believe they have a right to spew noxious, toxic, carcinogenic fumes all over the place in public?

James H. H. Lampert

If you took 1,000 young adult smokers, one will be murdered, six will die on the roads, but 500 will die from tobacco.

Richard Peto

Smoking areas in restaurants are like peeing areas in swimming pools.

Unknown

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 8:11 PM

Obesity causes major health risks that cuase MY insurance, that I hardly ever use, to rise each year. So Let's go and ban and tax everything bad for you. I don't know why the tobacco smokers are targeted. Posted by James48 on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:02 AM

Oh and I forgot to adress this issue... No one ever got sick or died because of second-hand fat.

If you're smart enough to avoid smoke from a pile of burning leaves in your back yard, why would you voluntarily suck smoke from the burning leaves of a cigarette?--Duane Alan Hahn

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 8:19 PM

Nobody lives forever :>) (Thank God)

And I don't know about you but when I die I want to die old and sick, I have no desire to die healthy.

But Really Darrick people die everyday from cancer who have never smoked or been around anyone who does smoke. So really that argument don't hold much water with me.

Just say you don't like smoke afterall it is your choice not to like smoke.

The question is How do you protect your right not to like smoke and protect the rights of someone who does smoke all at the same time?

Anyway you look at it someone's rights will get stepped on.

And personally I had much rather be around a smoker than a drunk.

People hating smoking is all about personal preferences..

Now I am going to step on some toes here maybe and say:

I really hate it when people take small children into restaurants and they sit behind me and scream the entire time I am trying to eat..should we ban small children from restaurants also? should people who don't have children have to tolerant someone else's child screaming. No someone else's child screaming won't make me sick but it sure could give me a nervous breakdown :>)

DISCLAIMER: I really don't think children should be banned from restaurants I was just making a point. Although I do hate it when that happens..and actually have left a restaurant because of someone's unruly child and the parents pretending not to see what their child was doing.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 8:57 PM

Brian,

Your thoughts are very similiar to mine on this issue and most of your readers realize the gravity of this situation.

It seems that most of these professed non-smokers are self-centered and do not care for anyone else's comfort level unless it is the same as theirs.

Alcohol should have nothing in common with tobacco, other than the lessons learned from the Prohibition days. Our rights are being legislated away more every day by the morons who try to "protect us from ourselves."

The same bureaucrats that tout "let the marketplace decide, not the government" are the same ones deciding this issue for us, because we do not understand the facts and are too stupid to decide on our own.

-- Posted by bamatenn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:13 PM

Ok, someone's child being unruly, doesn't affect your health.. Nobody has the right to make me sick because of their addiction.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:22 PM

There are many other deadly affects from smoke inhalation, other than cancer...

Speaking of cancer, I don't seem to be able to find where I mentioned it. I used a direct quote involving the word "carcinogen" but just because it can cause cancer, isn't the only reason it is my right to not have to be around it...

By the way, my mom smoked from the age of 16 til mid 30s, one day she decided to stop, cold turkey. It has been over 8 years since she last smoked a cigarette. My dad continues to hack and cough on a daily basis and he still smokes. Is it his right to sit around in our house and expose everyone to his disgusting habit or is it my right to breath clean air? Btw, since we built our new home, we have banned smoking too! LOL!

I am not trying to pick a fight, I believe everyone has a right to smoke.. I addressed that. But what they don't have a right to do, is expose me to it. It is never recommended that parents do drugs or drink heavily around their children, why is this any better? Smoking, was once a norm, it is slowly losing its market share.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:31 PM

Yes! There are people who DO get sick from cigratte smoke everyday-I am one of them. Why bring up alcohol? Yes you are harming yourself but you put other lives in danger every time you get in a car after drinking. But that's not the point here-the point is I have a right NOT to breath your smoke and that is hard not to do when it is in the air. If there is a ban then there is less smoke and less sickness so just maybe I can have less dr bills and just maybe health insurace' premiums will go down

-- Posted by shelbyvegas on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:33 PM

darrick

You are right you shouldn't have to breathe smoke if you don't want to..that's why a lot of people stay out of bars.

My entire problem with the smoking ban is GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

And I mentioned Cancer because that's what the Surgeon General screams all the time.

And hey BTW who the heck is this Surgeon general anyway?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:43 PM

I have heard this once...

If Bush wanted to find weapons of mass destruction, he needn't look any further than the ingredient list on a pack of Marlboro's!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:48 PM

I do not agree with government interference, but how else are my rights to not breath those fumes protected?

As for the Surgeon General

Rear Admiral Steven K. Galson, M.D., M.P.H., Acting Surgeon General

America's chief health educator, giving Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.

I still dunno who he is! LOL!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:51 PM

You are right you shouldn't have to breathe smoke if you don't want to..that's why a lot of people stay out of bars.

--Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:43 PM

I am 21, and I never go to bars. LOL.. And not wanting to breathe in smoke, shouldn't keep me or millions of others who don't want to breathe in smoke, out of "restaurants"..

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 10:08 PM

I'm not going to say that it is easy to quit. I don't know if it is or not, all I know is that as a child I did take about two puffs off a cigarette and it made me sick. So as a 15 year old I thought...."two puffs made me throw up, it will end up causing horrible things to happen to me, even my lips won't look right, and IT STINKS.....nah, it's not for me.".

Not to mention that I was taken to "Reality" classes every saturday night for years. For those of you who don't know what Reality Class is, it is for first time juvenile drug and alcohol offenders. They are shown and must define each drug and what it does to your body long term and immediate effects. They must hear stories about how drugs and alcohol have torn families apart. At the end they will take their parents to the funeral home and plan their own funeral. They are made to write two letters, to whomever they wish telling them that they are dead and they are sorry or whatever it is they need to tell them. It is good for them, and it was good for me. I learned alot. Even as a young adult I was the "boring" one. I enjoy that, and when all my "fun" friends die I will sign the registry book at the funeral home. I know the effects all that has on one's body, and I chose not to do it.

Back to smoking....think of it this way. Don't worry about how miserable you will be while you are laying there fighting for every breath. That is where the smokers are self centered. Think about your children and grandchildren. Maybe even your mother. I watched one of the strongest men in this world (IMO) fall apart in a matter of 16 days. For sixteen days my Daddy did not leave his Daddy's side. My elderly great grandmother, did not leave her son. His two grand-daughters (myself and my sister) only briefly left a few times. That is not fair. The one thing that I couldn't put my mind around was that...many of the ppl who visited would walk promptly outside every so often and light up a cancer stick!!!

If you put a big red label on a ham sandwich that said "THIS SANDWICH COULD AND PROBABLY WILL KILL YOU. EVEN IF IT DOES NOT IT WILL HAVE LONG TERM EFFECTS ON YOUR HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF THOSE AROUND YOU. YOUR CHILDREN'S STRENGTH WILL BE TESTED AS YOUR HEALTH DECLINES." There would be some idiot to eat the sandwich, but not as many as what suck the cancer stick!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 8:20 AM

Couldn't agree more Laura...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 8:35 AM

And Diana, I don't want to die old and sick. I would prefer, as my sister once said, to just wake up dead!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 8:53 AM

It seems that most of these professed non-smokers are self-centered and do not care for anyone else's comfort level unless it is the same as theirs.

Posted by bamatenn on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 9:13 PM

It's funny you say that, because non-smokers have rights, just like smokers. What is wrong with being self centered as long as you are trying to protect your health, and the health of others..

The one's who are self centered are the one's who don't care about the health of the ENTIRE public, and are only concerned with themselves.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 9:07 AM

Darrick, you're right.

Nevermind the entire public....you don't know those people. Your children...if you don't have children think about your parents, if you don't like your parents think about your spouse...so on and so forth. IF you get cancer do you expect them to be there for you? Do you expect them to help wipe you down with cool cloths because the cancer has moved to the part of your brain that controls your body temperature? Of course you do. Of course you want them there. I have told my sister many many times..."if you get cancer from those things I will be there to hold your hand, but you better keep a close eye on my other hand b/c I am GOING to smack you.".

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 9:17 AM

"Smoking is an addiction, also found in many studies, one that I battle and lose on a daily basis, until you face addiction, don't tell me how easy it is to quit. Only when you go through an addiction yourself is when I will sit and listen to what others have to say. "

--But you weren't born with a cigarette in your mouth, so it is definitely a choice.

"I think it's unfair to pay more because some people are offended by my habit. I am offended by people that talk on their cell phones and drive, but I don't think they should be taxed more and that is more harmful to my well being than a cigarette."

-- In many states it is illegal to talk on the phone and drive. If it so unfair then find a cheaper habit.

"and YES an unruly child can be hazardous to your health, it can cause you stress, which causes your blood pressure to rise which can cause anxiety attacks or even heart attacks. I have had anxiety attacks over unruly out of control children in Wal-Mart before. They just plain out get on my nerves."

-- Cigarettes do all the same things, two wrongs don't make a right.

"and you can't compare drinking heavily and doing hard drugs around your kids to smoking a cigarette, sorry but I have to disagree with you on this one."

-- Why not, the people who do those things, consider what they do unharmful and not as bad as what could be... just like smokers. So what you have is a repetitive cycle of "well my mom smoked her entire life, and I'm not sick" which is passed on to children. Children don't easily do what they are told, but they often duplicate what they see!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 9:22 AM

Revolution, not a sinlge person told you, you couldn't smoke in your own house... This is about PUBLIC smoking!

And, yes it's an addiction, I have plenty. Every human does. If the issue of PUBLIC smoking makes you feel necessary to end a private friendship, then there is nothing I can do.

Laura's not telling you sob stories for pity, she's sharing an experience, sincerely that perhaps you would like to avoid.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 9:26 AM

And Laura, I take back EVERY single word I said about you.

-Wah! and as far me being an idiot...I think not. I am not paying companies to KILL ME!

Sorry that this issue will end friendships

-Wait...what? You were my friend??? New one on me!

Laura you pull out the sobby sob stories

-I am pulling this story out of nowhere it happened!

YOU LAURA get it all twisted, I am not threatening you...

-I couldn't really care less if you were, afterall I have a feeling that if it came down to a foot race you would be left behind huffing and puffing and waiting on your next breath!

Point is, YOU have no right to kill me! You have no right to poison me b/c you can't practice a little personal responsibility and self control. If I want some arsenic on my sandwich I can put it on there, however if I put some on yours that is against the law.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 9:32 AM

no thanks! bye bye now!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 9:35 AM

If you don't smoke in public why in the world do you care if they ban it?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 9:37 AM

haha, just found something a little humurous....the taxing to death of cigarettes!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 9:44 AM

Hi Krista, nice to meet you.

I am Laura and you have never met me before. Most likely we will never meet. Not because I don't like you but because, well I am a busy person. Oh, but I do have 2 addictions myself...blistex and chocolate.

As far as supporting addicts goes, it's just not my mode of operation. I just don't see how padding sugar up someone's butt will ever help them.

I do not care how high the taxes go on cigarettes.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 9:57 AM

Help those that will help themselves. If a man does not work, let him not eat!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 10:18 AM

sorry that should be "if a man WILL not work, let him not eat."

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 10:20 AM

I am kind, to people deserving of that kindness....you can not demand someone to be kind to you. If you want to help yourself and you know that smoking is bad don't buy another pack. If you want to complain about the taxes on cigarettes do what the ppl at Tyson's so often do GO ON STRIKE!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 10:33 AM

Wow. Tough stuff on this blog.

Here is why there are regulations for smoking, and, when you get right down to it, regulations for just about everything (see my new posting in my blog): cost. I think I have read all the entries in this blog up to now, and none addressed this key issue. When you smoke, drive without a seat belt, ride without a helmet, you are doing physical harm to yourself (this is NOT arguable) and maybe others, but...WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR YOUR MEDICAL CARE WHEN YOU GET SICK OR INJURED? Billions upon billions of dollars are wasted on PREVENTABLE illness and injury every year. The prevailing "me, myself, and I" attitude is costing us plenty. Imagine if all smoking stopped today...the big three killers of all people, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and lung disease would slowly become footnotes in the tables.

-- Posted by nmonajjem on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:13 AM

I as well as a lot of people are very allergic to smoke. It makes me deathly sick. No matter how many times you wash your hands, hang out the window, or have left the restaraunt the smell is still on you and in the air around you whether you have just lit one up or did it 15minutes ago-it still makes alot of people sick. If you want to smoke surely you can wait a few minutes to light up in your own car on in your own home away from the public.

-- Posted by shelbyvegas on Wed, Oct 3, 2007, at 7:16 PM

I understand cigarette smoke is bad for people who are allergic..but then again I am allergic to Bradford Pear Trees as many other people are, should there be a ban on Bradford Pear trees should we say everybody who has Bradfrod Pear Trees must cut them down because I and others have to go get shots when they are blooming?

My friend is allergic to perfume and you say smoke stinks, so does many many perfumes and many people are highly allergic to perfume. Should we ban you wearing perfume in public places?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:30 AM

Diana, you're right some perfume stinks and some people are even allergic to perfume. I don't wear any b/c I am up close and personal with patients and the last thing you need is for someone to sneeze while in the middle of a root canal. lol.

As for the Bradford Pear Trees, that would be like banning pollen, which I am allergic to.

The one thing that both examples have in common is that they are not poisons.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:52 AM

Diana, it isn't about being allergic to cigarette smoke, it is about having the decency to not think you have some right to poison other people..

Dr. Monajjem is correct, the top three killers of Americans would soon become footnotes if we were to stop smoking all together. You have to ask yourself, who are we defending here? or what are we defending? The answer ISN'T, the right to smoke, it is the right NOT to have to be around smoke.

Nobody, as far as I can tell said a sinlge word about banning anybody from smoking in their very own home. Nobody is banning anyone from drinking in their own home. But at what point do you draw the line on where you can and can't smoke. Nobody seems to have noticed, that I mentioned these businesses should build separate detached add-ons to their existing buildings, to accomodate smokers.

Who's inaliebale right is it? To breath clean air or To cause others potential harm by polluting it.

YES, I understand there are PLENTY of addictions, people have. Most addictions are self contained and do not affect others, that is why those addictions can't be legislated.

After all, the increased cigarette taxes are, according to Hillary Clinton (Whom I support) are supposed to cover the millions of poor/uninsured kids in America. NO, I'm not saying it is necessarily fair to put that on one particular group of people, but if that same group wants to complain, it is as simple as SLOWLY but EVENTUALLY quitting.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:52 AM

well don't I just look like a crazy person that has been talkin to herself all morning....lol

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:56 AM

I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING LAURA.. What is the deal with that?

Do you enjoy talking to yourself?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:57 AM

actually I find myself quite amusing... :)

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:01 PM

Yeah Laura who the heck were you talking to anyway...

:>)

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:12 PM

I don't really know that I am allowed to discuss it but I will say....treat it like a puzzle...whose posts aren't on here anymore?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:13 PM

GO here if you wanna know what happened to Revolution..and no it has nothing to do with the fact she used the F word.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseac...

-- Posted by Vindicated on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:17 PM

Ok it could just be my computer but that link sent me to MY blog on myspace.....hmmm that's odd.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:27 PM

Mine too :>(

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:31 PM

okay so try this..go to www.myspace.com/bartleby71 and read her first blog...simple enough for you?

-- Posted by Vindicated on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:31 PM

It sent me to mine too! LOL.. And I would never flag Revolution's account.

There are times where I could have used a few curse words... I didn't even notice your account was gone. I look at comment numbers on these blogs, and it hasn't dropped one!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:31 PM

could it be the reason that link takes us to our OWN blogs is b/c you posted it FROM YOUR OWN BLOG? Probably so.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:33 PM

Aren't you just as sharp as a bowling ball??? lol.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:35 PM

Heck...seems I missed all the excitement here this morning...it's a shame I am poor and had to work this morning :>)

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:38 PM

Oh Diana, I was working too. Well I was at my desk with all my work done (expect for those pesky favor boxes) and took a few seconds after every bow I tied to reply. lol

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 12:41 PM

Revolution

Just so you know I will miss you... Until smoking is made illegal you should have the right to smoke where ever you wish.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 1:12 PM

Wherever you wish? I doubt that.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 1:15 PM

Let me clarify, because Revolution's explanation on her blog is not completely accurate. (I'm assuming that what you've indicated is her blog is actually hers, since I have no way of confirming this.)

Normally, in cases of profanity, I delete the individual post to which someone has objected, and send a warning message to the poster. In this case, however, the message included not just the (asterisk-implied) profanity but also said something like "I DON'T CARE IF YOU DELETE MY ACCOUNT."

This actually put me in a spot, because it indicated that the violation of our terms of service was willful and intentional. In a sense, Revolution said "I realize this is grounds for losing my account and I'm going to do it anyway."

So I banned her account. At the time I took that action, I didn't actually know whether banning an account deleted past messages or just future ones. I actually assumed it just prevented the user from making any future posts.

I had taken the action of banning Revolution before I got her message demanding that I do so. It was then that I went back, and looked, and noticed that all of her posts were gone. I would not have done this, because if you remove all of someone's comments, you've just rendered a whole lot of different conversations unreadable. But I didn't design our software and I don't control how it works.

So none of the actions I took were because of Revolution's request. I banned her for use of profanity, and banning her resulted in all of her messages being eliminated.

Let me also be clear -- profanity is grounds for a message being deleted, but when that profanity is directed at someone -- as was the case in Revolution's offending post -- it will be taken particularly seriously. And substituting asterisks for two of the letters makes no difference whatsoever.

I suggest that some of our regular posters need to get a little less personal and talk about issues rather than calling names.

-- Posted by Jicarney on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 1:21 PM

Thanks for clearing that up Mr. Carney.

Though I must admit I didn't read the blog, b/c I am sure it is filled with bad stuff that won't solve any problems. I am practicing selective reading.... ;)

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 2:53 PM

wow this blog makes absolutely no sense.

-- Posted by ljd75 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 2:59 PM

I didn't mean the blog, I meant the comments.

-- Posted by ljd75 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:00 PM

Yes well that is b/c one of our posters got herself deleted. So it appears as though I had an entire conversation (one sided of course) with myself. lol

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:01 PM

I read that comment by jicarney and it seems that even though she did get herself deleted, she did ask to be deleted.

I don't believe that the government should be telling anyone what they can and can't do when they can't even control themselves. They tell you not to smoke and you can't smoke here and you can't smoke there, but they sure do love all the money from the tobacco lobbyist and from the taxes. If everyone did quit smoking the government would come out and say "wait, it's not that bad for you after all, now light that cigarette back up and gives us our money"

-- Posted by ljd75 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:11 PM

I didn't mean the blog, I meant the comments.

-- Posted by ljd75 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:00 PM

Is there no way to restore her account, change her password to something she doesn't know, and thus restore her comments?

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:22 PM

If everyone did quit smoking the government would come out and say "wait, it's not that bad for you after all, now light that cigarette back up and gives us our money"

-- Posted by ljd75 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:11 PM

- Hey let's test that theory out!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:26 PM

I agree.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:30 PM

This is it...I am calling for a National Cigarette Boycott. Hey, maybe if you don't buy any for a couple weeks the prices might go down again!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:34 PM

people on here talk about their air being polluted by cigarettes, I say let's quit griping about the price of gas and let it get to 10 dollars a gallon. Cars pollute the air more that cigarettes, so your car is hazardous to my health, and so is my car. Just ask California or the Great Smokies just how bad pollution is for your lungs.

-- Posted by ljd75 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:39 PM

So your analogy is, since the air is already polluted I may as well add to the problems.. That's a nice way to formulate a solution!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:40 PM

Yes, sounds like a rather nice solution to me.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:42 PM

no that is not my analogy, it would be nice if you learned how to read. I am just stating the fact that the air is hazardous period. Does smoking add to it, yes, but so do cars and even worse, so let's raise gas prices higher so then people will carpool and perhaps we can eliviate that problem. Do you have any problems inhaling car fumes while sitting in Shelbyville traffic, do you get out of your car and ask people to turn off their car,because they are polluting your air?

-- Posted by ljd75 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:45 PM

If this blog were about "Your Thoughts on Car Pollution" then that is what I would talk about...

But that is a nice way to avoid responsibility, turn the blame to someone else.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:48 PM

EXACTLY!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:51 PM

well you were talking about air pollution in a previous statement so I thought that would fit in nicely, I also see that trees and perfume have been brought in, and those aren't in the topic of the blog.

-- Posted by ljd75 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:51 PM

But she didn't TAKE the blame AWAY from cigarettes YOU DID!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 3:57 PM

I didn't take blame away from cigarettes, I said that they do add to pollution, but they aren't the only things that do.

-- Posted by ljd75 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 4:02 PM

It's been fun, but I have to get ready for work now.

Thanks for the entertainment.

-- Posted by ljd75 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 4:06 PM

But you're making it seem as if we should stop worrying about cigarettes, because cars are much worse...

Funny thing, many cars now days let out cleaner air than what goes into them. SULEV means Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle. Study up.

You can't compare someone's right to smoke in a public facility, surrounded by those who shouldn't be forced to share a room with them, with car pollution. Global Warming is already an issue, that is very important, but so is smoking. So let's not change the focus of the issue at hand, instead take on both at the same time.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 4:10 PM

These countries and territories have banned smoking in workplaces and/or restaurants: Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Bhutan, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cuba, Denmark (in April 2007), France, Hong Kong, Iceland (in June 2007), India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Malaysia, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Puerto Rico (in March 2007), Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, United Kingdom (in April 2007 in Wales and Northern Ireland and July 2007 in England), and Uruguay.

Other countries have partial smoking bans that are often limited to government offices, schools, hospitals, and public transportation. These include Armenia, Bangladesh, Chile, Czech Republic, South Korea, Spain, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam.

This PDF from Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights lists which American states have banned smoking in workplaces and restaurants: Arizona (in May 2007), California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.

It's going to be in effect everywhere soon. And just like tighter restrictions on vehicle emissions, this is just as deserving.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 4:48 PM

http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/produc...

Interesting list of ingredients. And this is what smokers have the right to ingest, but at home, not in public around non-smokers.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 4:53 PM

Actually California is more of a No smoking state You can't smoke ANYWHERE in California. It's been like that for several years now. What really blew my mind in California is you can't even smoke in the Casino's..

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 4:54 PM

Ok darrick honey calm down now..we understand you don't like smokers. The ban has already been placed here in Tennessee so, you won..

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 4:57 PM

Really? Calm down huh? I didn't get comments deleted.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 5:08 PM

Yeah I missed that part of the blog

All I am saying smokers know what is in cigarettes they know it is hurting them more than you will ever know..what you don't realize is dependancy smokers have on cigarettes unless you have smoked you will never understand how it feels to try and stop smoking.

Smokers don't want to smoke..most of them would like nothing better than to wake up tomorrow and not need another cigarette.

Smokers have recently become public enemy number 1..Smoking wasn't always a ugly secret it was once considered the thing to do..and literally pushed onto the public by advertising..(but I know you are too young to remember that but I'm not)

All I am trying to say to you if you have friends who smoke..help them quit. Don't preach the dangers of smoking to them they already know that they feel it everyday.

I have always thought there should be rehab centers for smokers just like drug and alcohol. Smoking is just as hard to stop as either one and the side effects are horrible from all.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 6:03 PM

All I am saying smokers know what is in cigarettes they know it is hurting them more than you will ever know..what you don't realize is dependancy smokers have on cigarettes unless you have smoked you will never understand how it feels to try and stop smoking.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 6:03 PM

I couldn't agree with you more diana. Some people, like Laura, don't have any sympathy for addicts, but she doesn't know what they go through on a daily basis and she has no urge to understand either.

All I am trying to say to you if you have friends who smoke..help them quit. Don't preach the dangers of smoking to them they already know that they feel it everyday.

Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 6:03 PM

Yes we do feel it everyday and yes it was a choice, but when I started smoking, it was cool and acceptable. Too bad noone commented on your heartfelt, understanding and thoughtful comment. I guess because you weren't bashing us, then it really didn't matter. But thank you for understanding.

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:55 PM

After all, the increased cigarette taxes are, according to Hillary Clinton (Whom I support) are supposed to cover the millions of poor/uninsured kids in America. NO, I'm not saying it is necessarily fair to put that on one particular group of people, but if that same group wants to complain, it is as simple as SLOWLY but EVENTUALLY quitting.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:52 AM

It's a shame that child health bill got vetoed. With the limit at about $80000 annual income, I could remove my two kids from my employer based health care.Then I could redirect those funds to my cigarette budget, and after a quick calculation, I would have a larger cigarette budget than before the increased taxes went into effect. What do you think about that idea?

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:57 PM

Some people, like Laura, don't have any sympathy for addicts, but she doesn't know what they go through on a daily basis and she has no urge to understand either.

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:55 PM

-You're right I don't have any sympathy for addicts...can you honestly tell me you didn't know they were addictive when you picked up the first one? It just seems like such a stretch to have sympathy on someone who asked for an addiction??

I could remove my two kids from my employer based health care.Then I could redirect those funds to my cigarette budget, and after a quick calculation, I would have a larger cigarette budget than before the increased taxes went into effect. What do you think about that idea?

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 11:57 PM

-If that is what you feel is the best thing to do...speaking of your children, have you made your will out yet??

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 7:31 AM

LMAO!!!!!!!

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 8:42 AM

You're right I don't have any sympathy for addicts...can you honestly tell me you didn't know they were addictive when you picked up the first one? It just seems like such a stretch to have sympathy on someone who asked for an addiction??

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 7:31 AM

At 15 years old, no, I really didn't know that they were addictive. I truly didn't. I didn't know alot at 15 that I know now. But seems like you know it all....I say PRAISE REVOLUTION for saying what she did yesterday, you should really take her advice. You are nothing but a self-centered "so and so", you have no sympathy for others, well let me tell you, the ones that don't are the ones that get the kids that do everything their "self-righteous" parents don't want them doing. MARK MY WORDS...HAPPENS EVERYDAY..ASK DARRICK_04!

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 9:44 AM

Well at 15 years old I knew...call me self righteous if you must but I just really don't see it that way. The way I see it is that if you WANT to remain addicted to it do it on your own time, IN YOUR OWN FACE.

I'm not sure what you're insinuating Darrick is doing that his parents didn't want him to.

As far as praising revolution, sure, go ahead. I really don't mind what you or she thinks of me.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 9:56 AM

..speaking of your children, have you made your will out yet??

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 7:31 AM

HAVE YOU??

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 9:57 AM

How exactly is not wanting you to take me down on your sinking ship self centered?

Would you not be the self centered one if you think it is your RIGHT to take me down with you?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:00 AM

..speaking of your children, have you made your will out yet??

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 7:31 AM

HAVE YOU??

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 9:57 AM

-Yes, thanks for askin!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:01 AM

Yes, thanks for askin!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:01 AM

Well that's a good thing, in your case

I am saying that you are self centered because you only care about YOURSELF...did you even read Diana's comment about how hard it is to quit and all you do is keep saying things that revolve around death. YOU DON'T THINK WE KNOW THIS and It's not that easy to quit, you don't think I haven't tried? You need to get a heart like Diana has, you just need to get a heart PERIOD you so called CHRISTIAN..and you wonder why we hate them....Christians aren't judgemental...oops, that counts you out...guess you aren't a TRUE christian....

and you can talk to Darrick about what his parents don't like. Not my place to put his business online. I just simply said "ask Darrick", so before you attack that, that is NOT giving away personal information.

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:15 AM

seems a key issue is being missed here, and i wouldn't have known about it without being in a class with a TN legislative intern from last spring. the restaurant industry in TN was lobbying FOR this legislation. it was merely a way to have the government do for them what they could have done themselves. instead of worrying about whether the restaurants would lose buisness to another next door that allowed smoking or vice versa, they had the state government make a level playing field.

while the health issues aren't really debatable any more, the regulation of private business will always be...

-- Posted by chillint on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:17 AM

You don't know who I care about and before you call me a "bad Christian" I think you should probably take a little time to get to know me.

"Well that's a good thing, in your case"

-What "case" is it that you speak of?

and you can talk to Darrick about what his parents don't like. Not my place to put his business online. I just simply said "ask Darrick", so before you attack that, that is NOT giving away personal information.

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:15 AM

-I talked to Darrick, he says he is unsure as well....hmmm, guess we'll never know!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:24 AM

You are a BAD CHRISTIAN..A HORRIBLE EXAMPLE..LOOK AT ALL THE HATE YOU SPEW..THIS ABOUT SMOKING IS BUT YOU TAKE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL...CHRISTIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE KIND, UNDERSTANDING, LOVING, AND MOST OF ALL NON JUDGEMENTAL..YOU DISPLAY NONE OF THOSE QUALITIES....END OF STORY.

I AM NOT DEBATING THIS WITH YOU ANY LONGER, I SMOKE, YOU DON'T WANT TO BREATH IT, I AM SURE THERE ARE PLENTY OF REASONS I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE AROUND YOU. and I am sure your typical reply will be "good" or "lol" you know, the highly intelligent things you like to put.

I never cared if I could smoke in public and I don't care if they raise the prices, I do care that you keep taunting people with their own deaths. HOW CRUEL OF A "CHRISTIAN" COULD YOU BE?? JUST BEWARE OF THE ONE VERSE " DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU" MAY SERVE YOU WELL IN THE FUTURE.

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:30 AM

You are a BAD CHRISTIAN..A HORRIBLE EXAMPLE..LOOK AT ALL THE HATE YOU SPEW..THIS ABOUT SMOKING IS BUT YOU TAKE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL...

-No, I'm sticking to smoking.

I never cared if I could smoke in public and I don't care if they raise the prices, I do care that you keep taunting people with their own deaths.

-There is a difference between taunting and telling.

JUST BEWARE OF THE ONE VERSE " DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU" MAY SERVE YOU WELL IN THE FUTURE.

-Oh please don't cherry pick! :)

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:39 AM

What really bothers me about all this is non-smokers seem to believe that just because they have never smoked or been around second hand smoke that they will be somehow immune to cancer and lung disease and there is nothing further from the truth.

It makes me wonder when everyone stops smoking and there is no more second hand smoke to catch all the blame what will cancer and lung disease be blamed on then.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:49 AM

I don't believe in any fashion that I immunedto lung disease or cancer, I am just not at as high a risk as those who smoke.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:55 AM

Well atleast you didn't try to defend the fact that you are a true christian. BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT YOU AREN'T!!

and yes Diana, I have known plenty of people that have died of cancer and numerous other "smoking related" illnesses that NEVER touched a cigarette. and funny, I still don't even have but a few simple colds a year. You can't lump all smokers together, there are people that smoke for 50 years and die peacefully in their sleep, there are those that smoke for 5 years and get lung cancer. It varies.

and there is a difference between taunting and telling, but all you do is TAUNT, you don't tell...

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 11:02 AM

you've just rendered a whole lot of different conversations unreadable.

Posted by Jicarney on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 1:21 PM

PRICELESS!! PRICELESS I SAY..I have went around looking at all the missing holes in conversations, too funny. Looks like some people are talking to themselves for 5 and 6 straight comments..HAHAHAHAHA!!

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 11:06 AM

Well atleast you didn't try to defend the fact that you are a true christian. BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT YOU AREN'T!!

-How in this world would you know?

It wouldn't appear that I was talking to myself if someone could control their temper.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 11:17 AM

BECAUSE YOU ARE JUDGEMENTAL...SIMPLE AS THAT, SOMETHING YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE IN ORDER TO CALL YOURSELF A TRUE CHRISTIAN. YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO JUDGE OTHERS BY WHAT THEY DO AND YOU ARE GOING AROUND ON HERE JUDGING ALL THE SMOKERS..SO THAT IS THE ULTIMATE SIN, GOD GETS VERY ANGRY THAT YOU DO THAT, IT'S HIS JOB TO JUDGE..NOT YOURS

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 11:22 AM

I didn't judge anyone. You smoke....you pointed that out, not me. You pointed out that you are an addict, not me.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 11:26 AM

I never said smokers were bad people. I know and love MANY people who smoke. I just simply wish they could have a little more gumption and a little more will power to stop. I also don't believe that just because your boat is sinking I have to jump on board with you and keep you company. I don't think that makes me self centered I think that makes me aware enough of your circumstances to avoid the same situation for myself.

dc, It is apparent that for some reason you have formed a strong dislike for me to say the least. That is fine. I was raised to stand up for what I believe in and fight for what I thought was right, well this I believe and and I also think it is right. I'm sorry if somehow unknowingly I made you mad. That was not my intention. I, like you, have a very strong opinion on this subject and not unlike yourself have no problem that people know what I think. Again, I am sorry if I did something to you.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 11:47 AM

Perhaps you should reread Diana's comment...this is a person with TRUE UNDERSTANDING...

All I am saying smokers know what is in cigarettes they know it is hurting them more than you will ever know..what you don't realize is dependancy smokers have on cigarettes unless you have smoked you will never understand how it feels to try and stop smoking.

Smokers don't want to smoke..most of them would like nothing better than to wake up tomorrow and not need another cigarette.

Smokers have recently become public enemy number 1..Smoking wasn't always a ugly secret it was once considered the thing to do..and literally pushed onto the public by advertising..(but I know you are too young to remember that but I'm not)

All I am trying to say to you if you have friends who smoke..help them quit. Don't preach the dangers of smoking to them they already know that they feel it everyday.

I have always thought there should be rehab centers for smokers just like drug and alcohol. Smoking is just as hard to stop as either one and the side effects are horrible from all.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 4, 2007, at 6:03 PM

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 12:43 PM

dc, I think I proved my point. I have read Diana's comment and she has a different point of view than I. That is what makes these blogs so interesting....different points of view. So, for the sake of repeating myself, I am sorry if you feel as though I have done something to you. I am sure that I haven't, what makes me so sure is that as of yesterday I had no idea you existed!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 12:48 PM

while the health issues aren't really debatable any more, the regulation of private business will always be...

-- Posted by chillint on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:17 AM

Thank you for pointing out the real problem with this ban. It isn't about the rights of smokers or non smokers. It's the private business owners that are having their rights infringed upon.

The government, nor any of you non smokers have the right to tell a small business owner, with as few as four employees, that they can't allow smoking inside their place of business. Because nobody is FORCING you to go inside any place that allows smoking.

I've read several times on this blog where non smokers stated that were forced to breathe cigarette smoke. I'd like to know where. A restaurant? No one forced you to go there. Surely, if it bothered you that much, you woudn't go there. Then if the restaurant lost enough business because non smokers couldn't stand to be around smokers, then THEY would review their policy on smoking.

But you didn't do that, and the businesses who were lobbying for this didn't do that. Instead, they get the government make legislation to ban it for everybody.

Why do we need the government to tell us what to do? Why can't we let businesses decide what's best for them,

and let people decide what's best for them. Again, no one was forcing businesses to allow smoking or not, and no one was forcing non smokers to be around smokers.

-- Posted by Richard on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 2:17 PM

Why do we need the government to tell us what to do? Why can't we let businesses decide what's best for them,

-- Posted by Richard on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 2:17 PM

-I'm assuming since you posted the tailend of chillint's comment you read the top part as well. True, some restaurants may have wanted to keep smoking but apparently ALOT of them did not.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 2:27 PM

Why do we need the government to tell us what to do? Why can't we let businesses decide what's best for them,

I can answer this-it is because the self-centered people who smoke don't give others around them consideration from the smoke that they exhale into the air that we ALL have to breath.

The bottom line on all this is if you want to smoke do it in your 'personal space' and where only you can breath it in .

-- Posted by shelbyvegas on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 6:03 PM

I want to personally apologize to anyone who took it personal that I was attacking them, either smokers or non-smokers. I was just simply trying to reference the topic at hand, PUBLIC smoking. It was not my intention to belittle anyone or cause someone to feel like a victim.

I realize, at times, some issues that are close to heart, such as this one, cause me to go overboard (as is the case for many people.) So, I humbly ask for forgiveness for being overly intrusive, but at the same time, please understand I wish to take NOBODY'S rights away, but I do believe in right's for every party involved. With that said, I wish to make no fuss about this anytime soon!

Please, accept my sincerest of thoughts.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:15 PM

Well Well Well- I can't believe how hotly this issue is being debated, that even I had to put my 2 cents in and I don't even live in the city this paper is published in!!

However, I do reside in the previously unknown city of Calabasas. Now my opinion may be slightly tainted by the fact that, although I am not a smoker, I already couldn't stand the wealthy yuppies that surround me; with their grand notion of environmental advocacy, as they drive around in their hummers!!

As a non-smoker, I am a part of the majority~ although I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with the ban on smoking. When the first bill was passed a year ago, Calabasas was so proud to be "the first non-smoking city"-(disgustingly, there are signs all over the place). The ban on smoking in all outdoor spaces, which includes YOUR OWN BACKYARD- was started when a student from a local private high-school, complained to her parents about a fellow patron smoking on the outdoor patio of the restaurant. Now I completely understand and also dislike the smell of smoke when I'm eating; but I have yet to encounter a single smoker who, if they don't offer it upon their own volition isn't more than willing to put out their cigarette when asked.

On Wednesday night I attended the Calabasas City Council meeting for the proposal to extend current anti-smoking legislation into people's residences. All of the attendees, save the few members of the media, spoke at the meeting. Only 4 people, including myself, spoke against the ban. I found it interesting that the 4 of us dissenting were all grouped near the end of the discussion, after the 3 tv news teams had left! I can't blame them for leaving early, thinking that there was no story, for the first 45 minutes straight were appraisals for the bill.

Unfortunately I wasn't prepared to offer a rebuttal of their nonsensical arguments- seeing as I had only learned of the bill on the 5 o'clock news that same morning. I believe that the reason more opponents didn't attend the meeting was because they were completely unaware of the proposal.

I agree that smoking is a huge global killer but I believe the problem can only be addressed at the federal level; regulating the manufacture,sale and distribution of cigarette and other tobacco products.

And until we find a solution for global warming, world hunger and other major concerns on a time-clock, our time might be better spent than constantly looking for a scapegoat for societal ills.

-- Posted by Just_Jennie on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:39 PM

I LOVE YOU DARRICK!!!

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 11:17 PM

I LOVE YOU DARRICK!!!

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 11:17 PM

Yea but I love him more

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 11:24 PM

YAY!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Oct 6, 2007, at 5:18 PM

There have been a lot of noteworthy facts and opinions expressed in this thread, as well as a few not so noteworthy and off topic. The younger writers here have expressed their views more towards the health and environmental conditions of smoking. Some people get irate when they think of having to be in an enclosed area with the aroma of what ever garbage that so-called tobacco company put into the smoke. Smokers and non-smokers alike have to admit that the smell of cigarette smoke is at the very least, unsavory. A lot of people find it stimulating to go into a humidor shop and take in the wonderful scents and bouquets of the various tobacco blends much like others would enjoy the perfume counter at the department store. They choose their flavor based on their own personal tastes and moods, much like one chooses their source of caffeine. This would be more of what I term "tobacco etiquette." People have lost the appreciation for a properly cured tobacco, and instead smoke the cheapest products so they can smoke more of it. Therein is the abuse. "Keep it cheap so we can buy more." Consume, consume, consume; the American Way.

I notice the older writers and veteran smokers bring up the addictive quality of nicotine, and how difficult it is to stop smoking. Irregardless how they got started, smoking embeds itself in their lifestyle and becomes a habit. It has been treated by some in a similar way as the stimulant caffeine is in coffee. Up until a decade ago, a lot of people did not care what flavor they had, just so they got the "buzz." When people got tired of the swill the coffee companies were producing, they started leaving the coffee market to find their caffeine in other drinks, including high concentration sodas. Now, because of consumer awareness and demands, the coffee houses and the big brands are introducing new flavors and roasts like never before. People will continue to do the drug but are finding more and better ways to enjoy it.

I think people should look at nicotine and tobacco in the same light as coffee; appreciate and enjoy it. It can be consumed in other forms besides the cigarette, and does not have to be consumed as often.

Nicotine is also a stimulant and can aid in food digestion. But like alcohol and some other drugs, people misuse and abuse because they do not understand the reasons they are consuming them. Education and rehabilitation would be the answer in a perfect world. The consumption would still be there, but more for the right reasons.

Even after all the health issues have been addressed, the bigger issue is the issuance of the regulation on small businesses. Here is reference to the bill when it started:

http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/Ne...

Sometime in the process of the legislature the minimum age for the "age-restricted venue" was changed from 18, the legal age to purchase tobacco, to 21, which is also the minimum age to purchase and consume alcohol. As stated in the reference the purpose was to give the restaurants the choice to prohibit children or prohibit smoking. I, for one, do not understand the logic of the age 21 unless it has the purpose of eventually revising the minimum age for tobacco purchase to also be 21, and to divide the hospitality industry into either smoke-free restaurants or smoke-filled taverns.

Another view is that long-haul trucks feel they should have preferential treatment on the highways because they pay more taxes and fees than anybody else. The tobacco users, particularly the cigarette smokers, feel just about the same way. We should lower taxes so the companies can concern themselves with quality the way coffee companies have. Perhaps smaller tobacco farms, like micro-breweries, could produce better quality products that might eventually not be totally unhealthy. That is a better approach than forcing Tennesseans to go underground, or grow their own because they can, and they will. Until Roe v. Wade allowed women to make their own choice, abortions were underground and were performed in back rooms and usually under unsanitary conditions. The freedom choice made a lot of difference.

I will not use this thread as an IM so I will leave you on this topic.

Our population is growing and we are starting to crowd together. We are getting on each others nerves. We each think our individual freedoms should come first before anyone else and that we think what is right for us is right for everybody else too. I have read every post here and 90% of you expressed that thought in some form or another, whether intended or not, and some of you think you are entitled to anything you want because you KNOW you are right.

WRONG.

-- Posted by bamatenn on Sat, Oct 6, 2007, at 5:27 PM

LMAO!!!!!!!!! odd name.. Nice comment though.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Oct 6, 2007, at 8:48 PM

-I'm assuming since you posted the tailend of chillint's comment you read the top part as well. True, some restaurants may have wanted to keep smoking but apparently ALOT of them did not.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 2:27 PM

The ban applies to all businesses, not just restaurants. If the restaurant industry had a problem with smokers, they could have banned smoking in THEIR restaurants. They didn't need the government making a law banning it for everybody in order to do that.

-I can answer this-it is because the self-centered people who smoke don't give others around them consideration from the smoke that they exhale into the air that we ALL have to breath.

The bottom line on all this is if you want to smoke do it in your 'personal space' and where only you can breath it in .

-- Posted by shelbyvegas on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 6:03 PM

It's self-centered to a tell a business owner that they shouldn't allow smoking on their property because YOU don't like it, when nobody is forcing you to go there in the first place.

-- Posted by Richard on Sun, Oct 7, 2007, at 2:24 AM

Wonder who's in that picture with on Revolution on the myspace page??? Anyone besides me know the answer? No wonder that blog was written!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 9:44 AM

Disgusted, the best advice I can give is don't concern yourself with that blog or that myspace picture. It is unimportant as Revolution is also Vindicated and stolen25. So, she's already back, it makes no difference.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 10:02 AM

I am sooo lost, what blog are you talking about? I think I will get a myspace so I can see what all the fuss is about.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 10:55 AM

ONCE AGAIN LAURA...YOUR IGNORANCE IS SHINING BRIGHTLY..I AM VINDICATED...NOT REVOLUTION, YES WE ARE FRIENDS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE US ONE IN THE SAME..

Here is the link to MY myspace....be nice if people on used their brain BEFORE speaking.

www.myspace.com/galesgirl1

and Disgusted, DOES IS MATTER WHO IS IN THE PICTURE ON HER PAGE AND HIS PAGE??? OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE BEST FRIENDS..SOMETHING YOU PROBABLY NEVER HAD.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 11:08 AM

and just for the record...REVOLUTION got her page deleted ON PURPOSE. Which I thought was hilarious and still think you should take her advice Laura. I can't assure you that she isn't on here under another name, but i know that stolen25 isn't one of them, she has been on here since the blogs started. She got Rev into signing up. Are we ALL apart of the same "group"? yes. Do we all think alike? Most of the time.

seems like the one barking the loudest about many names is the ones that have them...NATHAN AND LAURA.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 11:18 AM

Vindicated...you sure are angry huh? lol

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 12:17 PM

Vindicated, I don't know how well you can read but John clearly stated that HE deleted her account, then got an email. If she didn't want to be here anymore she could have just not come back....

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 12:20 PM

Jesuslovesevery1, it's not worth your time.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 12:23 PM

I invite you to tell which other names I hold...I would be interested in that information

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 12:27 PM

I called Revolution and told her that she was of discusion so, she switched her default picture for your viewing pleasure and to pass the word around, since she is so important to everyone.

and Laura, I think you are Nathan, you come on here as her to argue with yourself. Because I don't know anything about you and that is just my assumption.

and Disgusted, I am on Revolution's friends list and you must be too, so who are you?

www.myspace.com/bartleby71..this will get you to your viewing pleasure faster.

anger is not the emotion, I am aggitated.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:05 PM

Wonder who's in that picture with on Revolution on the myspace page??? Anyone besides me know the answer? No wonder that blog was written!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 9:44 AM

What does this have to do with smoking anyway? You must be smoking something and it sure ain't legal.

I am so lost, I don't know any of these people and let me decide it reading this blog is worth my time.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:09 PM

Yea, sure I am Nathan! lmao! I do know that you posted a link to her blog and turns out you posted copied the link while you were still signed in as her. If you know Revolution you know exactly who I am.

Jesuslovesevery1, I didn't mean reading the blog was a waste of your time I meant signing up for a myspace account was. Sorry for the mix up.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:22 PM

The mix-up is fine, I just don't know what blog and picture you guys are talking about lol. I tend to be a bit nosy :P

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:29 PM

Vindicated, I don't know how well you can read but John clearly stated that HE deleted her account, then got an email. If she didn't want to be here anymore she could have just not come back....

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 12:20 PM

That's true, but she also put in the comment that she didn't care if she got deleted. She knew that she would mess up every blog she commented on, now some of them just look like people talking to themselves over and over again. I must say that is priceless. What fun would it have been to just leave?

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:35 PM

jesuslovesevery1, to be perfectly honest, I didn't read the blog either. I got the rundown from a mutual friend and decided that it had nothing to offer. The picture? Well, once again I don't know iether. I haven't looked, as I am sure since it is something they called my attention to and they all seem to have something against me, it can't be anything pleasent to look at.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:37 PM

knew that she would mess up every blog she commented on, now some of them just look like people talking to themselves over and over again

- No she didn't John Carney didn't even know that. Thanks for the entertainment though..... :)

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:38 PM

Well curiosity got the best of me and I went to that link and saw the picture and all I can say is that those two don't like somebody lol. That picture makes it clear what they are saying.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:43 PM

All it takes is a little common sense to know that if you delete a persons account then everything from that person disappears. Just makes sense.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:45 PM

If that lie helps you sleep better at night.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:47 PM

what lie? having common sense? because that is clearly something you lack.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:52 PM

OH WAIT..I get it now. You are just following Nathan's footsteps into the "Department of I know everything"

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:53 PM

There is an issue you failed to address....why is it that when you posted the link to her blog, you didn't sign out as her first? If you were to post a link to my blog it would take you directly there. However if I were signed in as myself on myspace and went to my blog copied the link and posted it here, if you clicked it the link would take you directly to YOUR blog. Which is what the link you gave did.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 1:57 PM

huh? Once again, you made no sense. and why do you care about the link? You said you never went there. I just posted the link that was in my browser, I was never on her page. I don't have or want or need her password.

And personally, I will be glad when Revolution signs back up for these blogs. She might as well, you seem to be obsessed with her.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:06 PM

lol, I didn't bring her up. That comment made perfect sense and you just can't accept that. I didn't go there after I knew it was her blog. The first comment you posted just said "go here if you want to know what happened to Revolution", the next one told that it was her personal blog. After I clicked the first link and it took me to MY blog then you posted the second comment I knew it wasn't anything worth reading.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:09 PM

I am done talking to you MRS.EVANS..oops I mean Laura...sorry I get you 2 confused.

You think you know it all, now I can see why tempers were lost and cuss words got thrown your way, you are like a dog with a bone *pun completely intended* (see if you can figure out what I mean by that)

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:10 PM

lol, sure.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:13 PM

Oh isnt that mature!!! Vindicated seems a little uptight... The answer is No, not on her friends list. Her page was not set to private earlier today hun! I think maybe no one under the age of 25 should be allowed to post, mature adults only! Shame on you Darrick, I thought you were above that kind of behavior to be quite honest. I wonder what Mom and Dad would think about that?

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:21 PM

Wait...what did Darrick do?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:24 PM

Thats Darrick throwing a bird with Revolution, Vindicated friend in the picture on Myspace!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:41 PM

Oh.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:44 PM

If the only thing that Darrick's parents have to worry about is him using the middle finger (and where I come from that isn't that bad)then I must say they have raised a fine young adult and they don't have anything to worry about. If he is under 25 and that is the worst he does, then they should be thankful.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:45 PM

Disgusted..where is the link to your myspace?

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:48 PM

I agree Nascarfanatic. Darrick is a fine young adult if I say so myself. I would say that is probably the worst thing he may do.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:49 PM

Awww *smacks Darrick's hand* bad boy lol

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:50 PM

and Laura you and I agree, Darrick is a fine young adult and that is probably the worst thing that he does.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:50 PM

Nascarfanatic, I really don't think he/she ought to have to post a link to his/her myspace. I think that is irrelevant.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:51 PM

well let me tell you, the ones that don't are the ones that get the kids that do everything their "self-righteous" parents don't want them doing. MARK MY WORDS...HAPPENS EVERYDAY..ASK DARRICK_04!

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 9:44 AM

Hummm! No the birds not the worst now is it??? As stated above ASK DARRICK...Dont worry Darrick I wont say anything more! But Laura, you have no Idea!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 3:30 PM

As for My Myspace,nascarfanatic I do have one and dont feel the need to share it! I use it to keep up with what my kids are really doing online!!!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 3:34 PM

Laura, not trying to sound rude by the way!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 3:35 PM

{REVOL}U{T}ION If you dont want people to look at it then DONT post IT! Pretty simple solution...

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 3:47 PM

Yea I do! I know him, his mom, his dad, and his sister! I knew his mom and dad both well before they were out of high school and well before either of you were born. No more time for your childish behavior! As for my kids, at least they're not on here showing their ignorance...Toot-a-Loo!!!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 4:00 PM

As for my kids, at least they're not on here showing their ignorance.

Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 4:00 PM

Well they will be if they are kin to you, just give them time. And you would be shocked at what your unignorant, mature, unchildish children do behind your back.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 4:15 PM

and If they weren't showing their ignorance, then why do you feel the need to check in on them? Atleast some people's mothers are MATURE enough to not need to check their children's myspace.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 4:16 PM

{REVOL}U{T}ION If you dont want people to look at it then DONT post IT! Pretty simple solution...

Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 3:47 PM

I POSTED HER LINK AND SHE DOESN'T CARE, SHE HAS NOTHING TO HIDE

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 4:21 PM

So flipping the bird is ignorance? Well I think smoking is pretty ignorant myself. Just think, you are killing your kids slowly with toxic fumes...NOW THAT IS MATURE!!!!

-- Posted by stolen25 on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 4:25 PM

Hmm... A bit of discussion about me doing horrible things? Nice, but horrible attempt at diverting the topic of the blog is more like it.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 7:10 PM

I am done talking to you MRS.EVANS..oops I mean Laura...sorry I get you 2 confused.

You think you know it all, now I can see why tempers were lost and cuss words got thrown your way, you are like a dog with a bone *pun completely intended* (see if you can figure out what I mean by that)

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:10 PM

HAHAHAHAH...MRS.EVANS LOL..I thought she sounded alot like him, didn't know that was his wife. They are both know it alls....or they think they do. If only they knew a 1/4 of what they think they did, they would be dangerous.

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 10:00 PM

Awww, shucks! Ya'll figured us out!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 10:10 AM

Vindicated, stolen25, and nascarfanatic maybe your mothers need to be checking on what your doing. I do trust my kids, just not all their friends! Matter of fact Im going to check their myspace now and make sure Darrick is the only one of you on their friends list. As for smoking, my personal choice, my business! Darrick as for diverting the topic, I would think of all people you would agree to the right to make personal choices that not everyone agrees with!!!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 11:11 AM

LOVE THE NEW LAW IN CALIFORNIA..hope it gets passed here, I don't think you should subject your children to smoke, they have the right to not get Lung Cancer because you don't respect their right to breath fresh air. If you care so much about them, give them the choice as to whether they want cancer or not.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California motorists will risk fines of up to $100 next year if they are caught smoking in cars with minors, making their state the third to protect children in vehicles from secondhand smoke.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed a bill that will make it an infraction to smoke in a vehicle if someone under age 18 is present. But the traffic stop would have to be made for another offense, such as speeding or an illegal turn, before the driver could be cited for smoking.

The ban, which takes effect Jan. 1, joins a string of smoking prohibitions adopted in California, including a ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces and within 25 feet of a playground.

A Harvard School of Public Health report issued last year said secondhand smoke in cars can be up to 10 times more of a health risk than secondhand smoke in a home.

"Protecting the health of our children is among government's highest responsibilities," said the bill's author, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, a Democrat. "It is clear that increasing public awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke is the right thing to do."

At least 20 states and a number of municipalities have considered limiting smoking in cars where minors are present. Arkansas now bans smoking in cars with children age 6 and younger, while Louisiana has limited it when children 13 and younger are in the vehicle. Maine lawmakers will take up the issue in January.

Can't wait to see Tennessee Lawmakers step up and make this a law as well.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 11:46 AM

Darrick as for diverting the topic, I would think of all people you would agree to the right to make personal choices that not everyone agrees with!!!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 11:11 AM

I would think of all people you should read what I already said! Smoking a cigarette and inhibiting your child's health is your choice, I am not against that. Me loving someone, without hurting you or comprimising your rights, is my choice.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 5:20 PM

Can't wait to see Tennessee Lawmakers step up and make this a law as well.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 11:46 AM

And so it begins...

Control

Control

Control

If you think for one minute they will stop at smoking please think again.

stolen25

Please do not think I am bashing you or your views by me saying that..because it is not my intention. I respect your opinions very much and I agree on most issues with you.

The government control are my issues and they will spread like wildfire until finally everyone will be effected by their control.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 6:22 PM

Yup.... Diana you are correct. Control is ever-abundant, but controlling a bad thing, is the governments job. When they control things that are of no harm to anyone, then that is where they need to stop.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 6:39 PM

Yes you are right it is the Governments job to control Illegal bad things, not legal things good or bad.

If they wish to make smoking illegal then they have every right to control it but until then it is not their job to control what some one does in their car or home.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 7:16 PM

I have to disagree Darrick! OK you and other non smokers (not bashing non smokers)dont want to be exposed to our second hand smoke? Fine, no problem! You now have a law that says we cant. I as an American I should also have to right walk down the street with my child and not have them exposed to some of the things they see others do! Dont try to push your beliefs down my throat if you dont want mine pushed down your!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 7:55 PM

I love going into restaurants now and being able to breathe in the smell of food cooking and not breathing in everybody's smoke. If I wanted to smoke, I would pick up the habit.

"I as an American I should also have to right walk down the street with my child and not have them exposed to some of the things they see others do"

Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 7:55 PM

What exactly do your kids see on the streets of Shelbyville that is exposing them to bad things, other than smoking? I love to take walks and I don't see anything all that harmful.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 8:13 PM

I wont post that on here out of consideration of other! I have been a smoker for several yrs. now and I wish I wasnt. Its not easy to quit! I do try not to smoke around my kids as mouch as I can! Outside most of the time. Its just makes me ill to have people bash me because of it. We all have some type of problem/addiction.

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 8:39 PM

What exactly do your kids see on the streets of Shelbyville that is exposing them to bad things, other than smoking? I love to take walks and I don't see anything all that harmful.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 8:13 PM

I still don't understand what you see that would offend other people? I am out and about daily and the worst I see is bike riders and skateboarders.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 8:47 PM

and it seems to me that Darrick_04 left this comment..

"I want to personally apologize to anyone who took it personal that I was attacking them, either smokers or non-smokers. I was just simply trying to reference the topic at hand, PUBLIC smoking. It was not my intention to belittle anyone or cause someone to feel like a victim.

I realize, at times, some issues that are close to heart, such as this one, cause me to go overboard (as is the case for many people.) So, I humbly ask for forgiveness for being overly intrusive, but at the same time, please understand I wish to take NOBODY'S rights away, but I do believe in right's for every party involved. With that said, I wish to make no fuss about this anytime soon!

Please, accept my sincerest of thoughts.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Oct 5, 2007, at 10:15 PM"

He apologized for what he said and what all was said was not that bad, it was just his opinion which is what blogs are for.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 8:52 PM

I still don't understand what you see that would offend other people? I am out and about daily and the worst I see is bike riders and skateboarders.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 8:47 PM

As I stated earlier, I just wont go there! However using the term walking down the street was probably not the best way to put it! Wal-mart, restaurants, or any number of public places. I will use foul language as an example. Have you ever been in a restaurant and heard the person next to you or close by using foul language? Me and my children shouldn't have to be exposed to that. No, a bad word is not going to affect their health or well being that is just the example I have chosen to use. I will leave it at that and say no more! As for the apology if its heart felt thats great!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Fri, Oct 12, 2007, at 9:08 AM

Personally, I would prefer my children to hear foul language instead of breathing in smoke. I know people say "that's why they have no smoking and smoking sections" well the smoke doesn't say "Oh wait, I am not supposed to go past that line" and I have even been to restaurants and the booth beside me was smoking with a little piece of glass seperating me and the smoke (I guess the smoke knew to stay in it's confined area). I guess we will just have to disagree about the smoking issue. There are plenty of health issues I can help my children with, healthy eating, proper dental care, hygiene, but when it comes to smokers subjecting my child to "cancer sticks" then I have a problem with it. I wouldn't go up to someone's child if I had the flu and sneeze on them and give them the flu, just as I don't want your smoke to give my child lung diseases or even worse, cancer.

They can choose to not use the foul language that they hear, but my child doesn't have the choice to not breathe in toxic fumes at a family restaurant that we are dining in.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Fri, Oct 12, 2007, at 10:03 AM

I agree with you completely and do understand your point where smoking is concerned! I'm sure you wouldn't go sneeze on someones child flu or not! There are also people that wouldn't care if they did or not as well. I stated I was just using foul language as an example and that was to keep from offending anyone.

-- Posted by Disgusted on Fri, Oct 12, 2007, at 2:17 PM

As for the apology if its heart felt thats great!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Fri, Oct 12, 2007, at 9:08 AM

It was... And still is!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Oct 12, 2007, at 10:32 PM

It would be better if you people getting personal and off topic would leave. Most of us would like to participate in this conversation without the morons abusing it.

I will use that analogy. You abusive pinheads can represent the smokers that are considered being abusive in this discussion. I do not want you here. You will claim it is your right to be here and say whatever you feel, even though a lot of your words were personal attacks and offensive to others. Should most others have the right to ban you from this venue because you are a nuisance and a hazard to all mature and free-thinking people everywhere? If you were allowed to educate children, the human race would die out faster than smoking would kill it. What's the Dif?

-- Posted by bamatenn on Mon, Oct 15, 2007, at 11:27 AM

Thanks for the late response.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Tue, Oct 16, 2007, at 7:53 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Brian Mosely is a staff writer for the Times-Gazette.
Hot topics
About that Labor Day story...
(89 ~ 6:49 PM, Aug 29)

About "Welcome to Shelbyville"
(100 ~ 9:11 AM, Jun 30)

Anonymous tips ...and why many of them are anonymous
(4 ~ 10:14 AM, Apr 9)

Suspended for saying "no" to drugs
(15 ~ 10:06 AM, Apr 9)

The rumor mill
(35 ~ 8:36 AM, Nov 8)