ToucanSam Report This Comment
Date: April 05, 2009 03:21PM

Go outside and smoke lazy ass.

FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: April 05, 2009 06:35PM

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that, just maybe, it's none of your fucking business where she decides to smoke? No, probably not.

quasi Report This Comment
Date: April 05, 2009 06:53PM

At least she's sittin' by the window with a fan blowin' out. I've got a fan just like th......
Hey, where the hell's my fan?! She took my damn fan!

pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: April 05, 2009 07:46PM

sorry quasi, I took your fan...

quasi Report This Comment
Date: April 05, 2009 11:36PM

But that fan was my only means of getting a blowjob. Did make a bloody mess, though.

pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: April 06, 2009 01:36AM

ah that explains it, was a real bitch to get clean...

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: April 06, 2009 03:21AM

should've let that Tiger tongue do it's voodoo.

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 07, 2009 12:06PM

Gotta love the non-smokers and their self righteous attitude about folks smokin in their own place. Try tellin me to go outside and I'll very politely show you the door so as not to trouble you with what I do in my own home, and if you're a good friend of mine ... I won't even kick you down the stairs on your way out

GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: April 07, 2009 07:24PM

Fair enough Mrkim, but ask to smoke in my house and you'll be shown the door just as quick.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2009 12:18AM

you bastards got Nadja going on me now...FUCKERS!!

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2009 01:30AM

I never smoke in anyones house without having been given permission to do so GAK. I WAS raised with manners yakno.

The point I was makin was about non smokers feeling they have some right in OTHERS homes to foist their choices on others.... which they don't, at least no more than whatever is extended to them





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2009 03:17AM by Mrkim.

GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2009 02:34AM

I agree with you kim - hence my first two words "Fair enough".

In NZ you cannot smoke in an enclosed public space, so bars and things are all smoke free, plus all enclosed work places are smoke free. That includes company vehicles. As a non-smoker with asthma I like this law .

Crazy thing is though, if you use your car for work, ie. your boss asks you to go somewhere and reimburses you for that, your car is deemed to be a work vehicle during that time and, even if you are by yourself, you cannot legally smoke in your car for that period.

For smoking at workplaces, and for smoking areas at bars etc., the law says that any smoking areas either have to have no roof, or no more than 2 walls, otherwise it is deemed to be an enclosed space. I used to work at a sawmill which, because of timber being reasonably combustible, had strict rules about smoking. We had tin sheds in certain areas for the smokers to use and these were used only by smokers and not for anything else. When the new legislation came into effect we had to get rid of them.

These are prime examples of bureaucracy gone mad!

GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2009 02:42AM

As for you being raised with manners Mrkim, you posted a pic of your Mom when she passed away back in January, and she definitely looked like a person who would raise her kids right. You were obviously hit pretty hard by her passing at the time. I hope things are getting easier for you.

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2009 03:16AM

Thanks for the kind comment GAK. Mama was quite a lady indeed and good manners were always reinforced in our home.

To put it mildly I was devastated by her passing. They say time heals all wounds and as the time between then and the present stretches out there is an accompanying lessening of the sadness, but not the loss. Some days are better than others, that's for sure ;(

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2009 04:46AM

every time a city around Dallas enacts a non-smoking environment, their sales plummet (the bars main clientele are smokers and the biggest margin is in liquor). they always give in and return to having a smoking section.

GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2009 10:28AM

Is only cos it is a city by city law - there are alternatives the smokers can go to. Bars and clubs here only had a small and short downturn in business because there was nowhere else people could go and socialise that still allowed smoking.

FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2009 02:56PM

If it's somewhere people don't have to go, it should be up to the business to decide. If they're losing too much business because the non-smokers won't go there, they'll figure it out. Until the city decided to "level the playing field", every non-smoking bar and restaurant we ever had went bankrupt. The owner of the local tobacco shop can't smoke his own product in his own store. Please, tell me how that makes the least bit of sense?

GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2009 06:44PM

So, a bar or restaurant that drew in customers because it was smoke free couldn't compete as a restaurant or bar when it no longer had a 'gimmick' - that makes sense because an obviously inefficient or substandard business folded when more efficient or superior businesses competed with it.

The owner of a store who opens his/her business to the public, including potential non-smokers who might be buying on behalf of somebody else, putting carcinogens into that environment makes no sense!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2009 10:51PM by GAK67.

FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: April 09, 2009 06:47AM

Uh, no. I thought I was sufficiently clear, but apparently not. I will try again.

The voluntarily smoke-free bars and restaurants couldn't pay people to go there. Not enough, anyway. People went where they could smoke. Even non-smokers wouldn't go. One of the smoke-free pioneer restaurants went out of business three times in four years. Yes, there were people clamoring for smoke-free places to eat and drink, but when it came time to put their money on the table, they wouldn't do it. So, the city decided for us that all restaurants would be smoke-free, with the exception of the places that had a barroom attached. Guess where people went? They went where they could smoke. So the unfortunate owners of the smoke-free places whined to the city that it wasn't fair, and a couple years later they made all businesses smoke-free.

If people really wanted smoke-free bars and restaurants, the city wouldn't have had to make it a law. It would have taken care of itself.

GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: April 09, 2009 11:01AM

No you made yourself sufficiently clear. You are clearly seeing it from one perspective without seeing from another. As a non-smoker myself I go to bars and restaurants more now that they are smoke free, and many places here, where there is a total ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, are doing better financially because people who, like myself, are non-smokers and who are in the majority enjoy being able to breathe as they eat and socialise.

You advocate the free market in support of your position to allow smoking in public places, but decry it when people choose not to support the original, pioneering smoke free establishments. You can't have it both ways.

And are you sure it was these non-smoking establishments that managed to get the laws changed to ban smoking, or is it possibly the majority (the non-smokers) getting what they actually want? It's a little something you may have heard of called democracy.

FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: April 09, 2009 03:04PM

I'm not decrying the free market solution. They couldn't compete in the free market, so our government masters made the decision for us. I also have no objection to having smoke-free places, for those who prefer it, but why should there not be any other places to go? When it was optional, people voted with their dollars. What could be more democratic than that? The only time a smoking ban is necessary is when the Fascists on the Assembly need to subvert the will of the majority.

GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: April 09, 2009 04:30PM

The good old 'democracy of the dollar' argument. Let's all do what Bill Gates wants - he's the one with the most dollars. How about actually thinking before posting a response.

FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: April 10, 2009 03:32AM

Your straw man is on fire.

GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: April 10, 2009 08:56PM

FrostedApe: "When it was optional, people voted with their dollars. What could be more democratic than that?"

What is that comment if not 'democracy of the dollar'? Are you really advocating that people with more money have more rights than people with less money? That is the logical conclusion from what you have said.

So to answer your question as to what can be more democratic: One Person - One Vote.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: April 11, 2009 12:47AM

in this situation money rules because people with no monet aren't spending it there. that was easy what's next?

FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: April 11, 2009 03:30AM

He's good. I really can't tell whether he's yanking my chain, or just naturally obtuse.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: April 11, 2009 04:21AM

he'll yank yer chain all you want.