Photos
Blog
NewslettersCity smoking ban gets preliminary OK
Tue, 2008-05-13 23:35 — Anonymous
The Beaufort City Council preliminarily approved a ban on smoking in nearly all public places Tuesday. Read the story here.
- Login to post comments
- 1639 reads
gosh with an attitude like that at rosie's who would want to work there!! after that comment i don't even want to eat there!! good luck -you may have just smoked away some customers!!
There are still plenty of us who will go there. Glad we missed ya!
I don’t smoke but I’m glad I have the choice to choose what establishment I give my business to. If the owner wants to have a smoking bar than that’s the cliental he/she will attract. I like O’Grady’s; I know it’s a smoking place but it’s my choice. We’re giving up our freedom of choice little by little. Thanks Leslie for statnding up for your and my rights.
No one is going to go out of business because of this smoking ban. Every restaurant will be affected by it equally so it's not like someone will go to one that allows smoking.
This is great for everyone. The smoker's will be able to taste their food, again, and non-smoker's will be able to breathe while enjoying a healthier environment.
The bars will be affected more than the regular restaurants, and it will hurt the terribly. Are you people really so ignoorant that you don't understand that this type of crap undermines our Consitutional rights. This isn't about smoking, it's about control!
Do you smoke in your house? Or are you like many smokers who now smoke outside at home?
It's my house, I own it free and clear, and yes, I smoke in it! If that bothers you, don't visit! My own sister won't step foot in my house because she is allergic to smoke. When I am at her house, I do it outside or not at all. That is called mutual respect!
Exactly where in the constitution is your right to endanger the lives of others outlined?
But, there is a thing called free enterprise. The government has no right to dictate how business owners conduct their business as long as they aren't breaking any "real' laws. The proper answer is for business owners to decide whether or not they want smoking. If you don't like the smoke, patronize the places that cater to you and don't allow it. If you do wish to smoke, patronize establishments that allow it. Stay out of the other one, and don't try to dictate that all businesses cater to your narrow minded views no matter which side of the issue you are on! Like I said, just try to tell me to disallow smoking in my place of business...you'll be in for a war that you can't win! If you don't want to be around smoking, then find another place to go, I didn't need your business anyway!
But, there is a thing called free enterprise. The government has no right to dictate how business owners conduct their business as long as they aren't breaking any "real' laws. The proper answer is for business owners to decide whether or not they want smoking. If you don't like the smoke, patronize the places that cater to you and don't allow it. If you do wish to smoke, patronize establishments that allow it. Stay out of the other one, and don't try to dictate that all businesses cater to your narrow minded views no matter which side of the issue you are on! Like I said, just try to tell me to disallow smoking in my place of business...you'll be in for a war that you can't win! If you don't want to be around smoking, then find another place to go, I didn't need your business anyway!
being "undermined"? Who decides what the "real laws" are?
When theft occurs or someone is stabbed, shot, or punched, an active crime has been committed. Being exposed to obtrusive odors, smoke, or flatulence is a passive situation. Having to look at an ugly person is a passive situation as well. Perhaps using the term real laws wasn't accurate enough. The point is that businesses have the right to make their own policies and choose their own clientelle. No government agency or whining former smoker who can't resist the urge when exposed to it has any right to tell any business owner how to operate! As I have said before, most smokers that I know are very courteous when around non-smokers (not all, but most). On the other hand, most non-smokers that I know are intolerant and rude, and regardless of whether they are exposed to smoke at the moment or not, they behave like absolute a$$holes toward anyone who does smoke. The fairest solution is to have business owners choose which format they want, and then smokers can frequent smoking establishments and non-smokers can frequent non-smoking establishments. This won't work however because it seems that non-smokers feel the need to explore smoking establishments and then demand that the the format be changed to suit their preferences. That equates to an intrusive form of piracy in my mind. My answer to that; keep your rude butt out of such places and be content with staying amongst your own kind!
There have been millions of claims that it does, and it's easy to believe them because all of us non smokers (including me) hate smoke, but this is just one more example of alarmists having taken their claims mainstream and now thought of as gospel. Remember all the things we were told were bad for us? We'll believe anyone with a printed study and a labcoat. The truth is everything is bad for us in excess even water. For a fun study about this, do a google search on "baning dihydrogen monoxide" (you know...tho hydrogens and one water...H2O...water) according to studies, it kills and it is very dangerous. For years we have been reading about how second hand smoke kills from study after study, but we never hear about studies that contradict those claims.
Here's an excerpt from an article pubished in the Financial Post:
The alleged dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke, also known as Environmental Tobacco Smoke, or ETS for short, represents junk science's biggest success story. Ever since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided 10 years ago that ETS caused cancer in nonsmokers, the ETS junk science juggernaut has been unstoppable. Most of us now believe that ETS is dangerous and virtually all of us live out our public lives -- working, shopping, eating, in smoke-free environments.
But the ETS junk science crusade encountered a major and unanticipated setback a few weeks ago when the British Medical Journal published a study by two U.S. researchers that found no statistically significant association between not only ETS and lung cancer but also between ETS and heart disease.
To read the rest, follow this link:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23540013_ITM
My point is that as long as something can be disputed with evidence, I will not take it as fact, but that's just me.
.....My point is that as long as something can be disputed with evidence, I will not take it as fact, but that's just me....
Pretty lame point. Leaves you with taking almost nothing as fact.
Even if tobacco smoke was shown by someone's "evidence" to be beneficial to your health, it would still stink and be highly undesireable to be around by normal, non-addicted folks.
Just because it offends you, doesn't mean it should be banned. Other wise people who dress funny, or talk too loud, or work hard and smell at the end of the day, or are uncorteous drivers or bad neighbors or (put your complaint here) should be banned too.
My point still stands. If there's evidence to contradict something, then it is not a fact. The earth is round and there's no disputing it. That's a fact. Second hand smoke may or may not kill, so it can't be considered a fact.
.....people who dress funny, or talk too loud, or work hard and smell at the end of the day, or are uncorteous drivers or bad neighbors or (put your complaint here) should be banned too......
Are you referring to people like topgunscooter?
KTOGP32,
Why not bring your childish rants out in the open. You are obviously anxious to say something. Why not let the good folks around here know who you are so that your opinions might have some validity. You seem to enjoy pointing out the evils you perceive in others but you do so from a cowardly posture. Be brave, what are you afraid of. If you have something to say, say it, but do so like an adult and take a little repsonsibility for your pathetic actions.
KTOGP32,
Why not bring your childish rants out in the open. You are obviously anxious to say something. Why not let the good folks around here know who you are so that your opinions might have some validity. You seem to enjoy pointing out the evils you perceive in others but you do so from a cowardly posture. Be brave, what are you afraid of. If you have something to say, say it, but do so like an adult and take a little repsonsibility for your pathetic actions.
Actually, some of the regulars on here know me very well & my posture is far from cowardly. Folks don't have to read the crime blotter to know ME.
Your assumption that names assure validity is about as preposterous as some of the other fiction you expose us to.
KTOPG32,
Did you feel the need to bring this post back to the top to feed your shrivelling ego? Why else would you do so? When you have the courage to look into my eyes as you speak your BS I might give you a little respect. Until then, go back to your wallow and continue to roll in the exrement! Coward!!!!
PS, If so many people here know you I have an offer for them. $500 cash to the first who can offer verifiable proof of your miserable identity so I can sue you for libel. Just email it to
.
to both of you, take your one-on-one insults somewhere else or you're out of here. By the way, topgunscooter, I'm surprised you haven't recognized KTOPG32 from his/her previous identity on the board. Some writing styles are like fingerprints, and this one wasn't all that hard to figure out.
I've long thought that Luther/Lisa2/KTOPG32 and Taylor Street were all the same person. Do I win a prize? :^)
of of KTOGP32's prior identities on the blog...I can read and comprehend. You may ban me if you wish, that is your prerogative. But please understand that I have not once done anything to demean KTOGP32 or anyone else except in self defense or in the defense of others. You allow this person to post libelous innuendo about me and others and you say nothing about it. Then, when I or anyone else retaliates it becomes an issue of warnings. If you want me to leave, just say so and I will be gone forever. If you don't, then police this blog correctly and protect everyone who comes here (and those who are unfairly chastigated here), not just the ones who support the false headlines that were printed in the Gazette even before you arrived in our fair city (county). "Last warning?" how laughable, you make it sound as if there is no other life than here on the blog....it sounds like you are sounding out Judas Escariot at the "Last Supper"! I know you have a job to do here but you are not being objective...isn't that the first rule of honorable journalism? Make your choice my friend, is this blog part of a respected newspaper or just another checkstand tabloid? The Gazette has gained some substance under your watch, I appreciate that fact. Are you going to disappoint me now? Are you???????????????
I'm trying to maintain some semblance of civility here, and you haven't exactly contributed to that, whether it's in retaliation or not. The last warning isn't laughable; the juvenile insults from fifty-something adults are.
If I wasn't being objective, don't you think I would ban all the people who do little on here except bash my newspaper, a paper and a staff I'm very proud of regardless of how some on here feel?
Policing this blog "correctly," as you put it, is not a black-and-white proposition, although you and others have made it out to be. There is a lot of gray area in there. I want people to have their say, but I want them to do it civilly, which is why I have tried to send out a warning rather than flat-out banning posters. Your version of "correctly" and mine might be very different. So you manage with your version of "correctly" on the sites you administer. I'll do it my way on here. And if that disappoints you, in answer to your last question ... well, I don't think I'll lose any sleep over that.
You might have started searching for civility with those who instigate the bullshirt here. You're asleep at the wheel my friend. You are openly allowing folks to be trashed here and offer them no defense. I thought you were different than your predecessors, but I guess I was wrong!
Do you know what mental health professionals say about people who profess to be normal?
With your vast experience with these professionals, I'm sure you can tell us.
It's about people's health not about taking right's away.
I think everyone has a right to choose. I do not believe that 4 people on a LOCAL Council should have the right to make up new laws just to justify being there. While they are making laws lets just make Beaufort Co. a DRY County. The last time I checked the purchase of cigarettes is still legal for now. Why do non smokers have more rights than smokers?
They out number you. Less than 25% in S.C. smoke.
Does that mean that because there are more white people than black people that whites should have more rights than blacks? Now see if you can find some wiggle room in your preposterous statement!
....Why do non smokers have more rights than smokers?...
'Cause non-smokers are smarter! (obviously)
Smarter I think not and I am more than sure you are not perfect.Lets just hope you not the one that we all read about in the paper that is driving while drunk or text mess on the phone that has a wreck.
Would you like to compare IQs? Bring it!!!!!!
...looks like our last Blixxer in the city will be this month huh?
Whats in Port Royal that would be a good place for us? I say Taco Burger! haha... that was a jest.
Keith's Place, Cowboys, and if they ban smoking in PR, we can have it at my house, I'll do Frogmore Stew and and Oyster roast.
...Im sure Kenton and his bride would appreciate the business. I've not seen him in a while.
That's me and BE's old stomping ground too!
I am a smoker, that being said I don't have a problem with going out and eating dinner and not being able to smoke. However I do not drink and do have a problem with the people that are loud and drunk when I am trying to enjoy my meal. It is very odd that people are focusing on the smoking and health issue but for some reason refuse to look at the number of people drinking and not smoking but getting in their cars and trucks and driving. Can someone answer this question, why is it they can't enjoy a meal when someone is smoking but can enjoy it with the foul mouthed drunks in the same place. If you don't want your children around smoke but over look the drunks and the behavior of the drunks and the foul mouths I just don't understand the double standards. Also, I can not stand to walk into steamers or Dockside and numerous other places because of the smell of stale beer, wine, and alcohol. So therefore, I set to make a motion that there should be no drinking in public places because of the health risks to myself and my family because think about it do you want a 4000 lb missle coming at you after you just ate in a smoke free environment, I sure won't want that. Therefore if it truly is a health related issue lets make it across the board and say no to smoking and drinking in public places, outside parks, and public events. With some of the board members we have I am sure they would not stand for that rule.
batgirl29907
See, smoking bans are just the first thing to take our freedoms away. Now we have drinking bans in the works. What's next, no public restrooms? A 10 pm curfew? No vehicle on the street that is older than 2 years old? Nothing in the privacy of your own bedroom other than missionary for the sole purpose of procreation....cameras provided courtesy of the state? Let it start, and it will never stop! You know, it isn't that I especially like smoking, I just hate non-smoking wannabe dictators, and as long as they try to tell me that I shouldn't smoke, I will continue to do so!
Thank You Topgunscooter, you saw my point quick. Free will everyone has it and everyone uses it. Free choice, do we eat here or there, is there smoking or no smoking. Easy as that. I avoid going downtown on Friday and Saturday nites because I really don't like all the drunks and the drinks getting spilled on me to where I smell like a brewery. Free will, Free choice.Use it or lose it. If the smoking ban passes it will only be a matter of time before other choices are taken away.
I'm an older person now, but did smoke during a third of my life - stopped finally twenty-five years ago. Cigarettes seem to smell worse now than they used to.
Consideration should be used for the welfare of children who may be eating in restaurants, as well as those others who may have medical problems aggravated by inhaling "second-hand smoke".
Even with a smoking ban the "person" and clothing of a smoker will permeate
the air and may bother many other "non-smoking" customers. Frankly, smokers stink!
It is rather amusing watching the addicts try to justify their habit though. When all their attempts fail, they lash out with name-calling (Nazis?) and lame efforts at insults.
If they do ban smoking maybe I'll try that O'Gradys and some of the other restruants in Beaufort, it's been awhile.
I do not go to places that are designated as non-smoking. I do so out of respect for the owner and their patrons. I didn't go to those places before I started smoking again, I don't happen to like the intrusive and intolerant attitudes of the people who go there. Where the Nazi issue comes up is that many non-smokers feel it is their right to takeover every business and building they come upon even though those buildings may be inhabited by people who smoke. People who are being respectful and keeping to themselves and staying out of non-smoking establishments. We don't bring our foul odors to the non-smoking places why don't you keep yours out of the smoking establishments. There is a post above this one from someone saying that would like to go to Rosie's after the ban is passed. I would suggest they not bother, they wouldn't fit in...even without the smoke.
......many non-smokers feel it is their right to takeover every business and building they come upon even though those buildings may be inhabited by people who smoke.....
More faulty thinking typical of the addicted. Even though a business & building may be privately owned, if access by the public is allowed, the premises are subject to the regulations promulgated and enforced by several regulatory agencies and government entities. The general public has a right to expect that when they enter a building the inhabitants are not being allowed to spew toxic chemicals into the air for all to breathe.
Perhaps your home, the homes of other substance abusers, or a private club is where you should practice your habit.
You should do as most reasonable thinking people do and not go where YOU are not welcome! There are plenty of places where you are welcome I'm sure, just go there and stop trying to change a world that you don't belong in or care to be in. We aren't pushing our beliefs into your domain, stay out of ours!
To me, it does not matter if smoking is healthy or not. The fact will always remain...it stinks. It is a putrid odor. And it is a turn-off in every sense of the word.
So every time you light up, remember this. The smell is much worse than body odor. If you smoke, you stink, cancerous or not.
And I bathed three times today! I wondered what was wrong!
Now you know!
More and more ths claims that second hand smoke kills are being refuted by studies. There is now that of all those claims that we have heard over the years. I don't like smoke either, but what you're basically saying is that because something smells or because you don't like it it for whatever reason, it should be banned, and that's the problem with these bans. Where will they stop? So if something stinks it should be banned? So if I've been camping for three days and smell like fish or campfire, should I be arrested or fined? Remember the time you forgot to wash your car for three weeks? Well...Frankly, dirty cars make the roads look bad and give us all bad names, so I think they should not let you drive anymore, and in case you want to claim that you were no danger to others, I remember seeing that your windshield was quite dirty and there were many blind spots that did make you a danger to be on the road. Sounds ridiculous, but is it that ridiculous? Someone once said that he who gives up his freedoms in exchange for safety, deserves neither.
I, for one, preffer that the government don't interfere with personnal freedom and private property right, but that's just me.
.....More and more ths claims that second hand smoke kills are being refuted by studies....
If you know that to be true you won't have any trouble telling us exactly where to find those studies will you? I would like to examine them before I take your word for it. If they exist, they may very well be funded by tobacco interests.
BTW, I haven't heard any proposals for banning smoking entirely, only in public places where it affects others.
The link provided in the post above gives information regarding the studies. See http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23540013_ITM
In two seconds of google search I found plenty, but I quoted one on another post to this subject. I didn't quote it here so as not to be repetitive, but someone else posted the link again for you.
Remember that I don't smoke and I'm not pro smoke. I am pro freedom, and this ban is one miniscule step that will give way to the next step and the next step, and next thing we know those steps will add up to a mile and things you and I value will have been taken away from us. It's about the big picture.
Also remember all the ridiculous things happening now that our parents would have never thought would happen in this country, e.g. government taking your property to give it to developers so they can pay more taxes than you, banning of the ten commandments from public buildings, banning the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. Now they're trying to tell you what kind of lightbulbs you can use in your own home. Soon it will be what kind of car you can drive or how many burgers you can have from McDonalds. We cannot give an inch because they will take a mile.
The founders warned us about government, so I always examine the consequences of their actions, but that's just me.
SC ranks 49th or dead last in public health dependng on the disease . We have the worst rate of infant mortality. The highest or second highest rate of death due to tobacco diseases. We rank at or near the bottom in diabetes, obesity, heart, etc. Why?? Beacuase of the kind of stupidity shown above. Pick up the US Suregeon General's report of 2006. Read about the effects of second hand smoke and then try to tell us the tobacco company sponsored trash promoted above is really about improving the public's health. Try your lies somewhere else...........................Thanks to elected officials like PJ Tanner who is selectively enforcing the law - because he disagfrees with it - we rank at or near the bottom of all 50 states in public health. Tanner and officials like him and his ego need to be replaced for the public good. Enough of these self-appointed - always preeneing as they constantly campaign, totally self-absorbed officials.........................This is 2008 and we still have the lowest cigarette tax in the nation, the highest disease rate and idiots like Tanner thinking he has the right to do what he feels. Someday the state will have enough newcomers to finally erradicate the arrogant stupidity of locals like the egomaniacal Tanner. According to Tanner and the rest - the western world including all of Europe, 22 states and over 600 communities in the US are just over-run with government regulation. Fascinating that Tanner - a government hack on his best day - would dare to make that claim........................For the sake of the health of our kids and our pocketbooks - smoking and all of its ill efects have no place in public places - all of them - incluiding bars and restaurants.
what burns my cookie is to see some "mom" holding an infant in her arms and a cigarette dangling out the corner of her mouth...or in a car full of kids puffing away....
Was that Mom holding the child in a bar? I don't think I would like either scenario! Most smokers are far more courteous than that!
Most smokers are far more courteous than that!
What a load of crap!!
South Carolina - This is your home - Part - 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Pl6gDfgq8
South Carolina This is your home Part - 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P2w3fbwyl4
SC ranks 49th or dead last in public health dependng on the disease . We have the worst rate of infant mortality. The highest or second highest rate of death due to tobacco diseases. We rank at or near the bottom in diabetes, obesity, heart, etc. Why?? Beacuase of the kind of stupidity shown above. Pick up the US Suregeon General's report of 2006. Read about the effects of second hand smoke and then try to tell us the tobacco company sponsored trash promoted above is really about improving the public's health.
Someday the state will have enough newcomers to finally erradicate the arrogant stupidity of locals
We did. We had enough newcomers to the Lowcountry in the 1970's to eliminate and reduce some of the SC health problems, like so many kids with bowed legs at the beach from rickets. The general improved health trend of all ages in SC has reversed itself by statistical reports, there are many reasons why. The pendulum swings back and forth - maybe things will improve.
In a nutshell, smoking is an addiction. Plain and simple. I have been fighting that monkey on my back for almost 40 years.....I finally read the book "The Easy Way to Quit Smoking" by Alan Carr. A trip to the hospital last weekend (thought I was having a heart attack!!) also pushed me off the fence and got me to stop smoking....after reading the book, it has changed my mindset and I can really see myself as a non-smoker now. Even as a pack a day smoker, I was always respectful of non-smokers. I also would not smoke inside my home. EGAD!!! I'm starting to sound like one of those annoying reformed smokers now!!! Sorry.....Now if only I could get my spouse to quit...He won't read the book.
In a nutshell, smoking is an addiction. Plain and simple. I have been fighting that monkey on my back for almost 40 years.....I finally read the book "The Easy Way to Quit Smoking" by Alan Carr. A trip to the hospital last weekend (thought I was having a heart attack!!) also pushed me off the fence and got me to stop smoking....after reading the book, it has changed my mindset and I can really see myself as a non-smoker now. Even as a pack a day smoker, I was always respectful of non-smokers. I also would not smoke inside my home. EGAD!!! I'm starting to sound like one of those annoying reformed smokers now!!! Sorry.....Now if only I could get my spouse to quit...He won't read the book.
Wanna start a support group? I quit smoking cigarettes, but didn't follow the instructions, and ended up with an addiction to little mini cigars. One of these days I'm gonna read the book again.
A non-smoker after a week! Excellent, write back in a year and let us know how you're doing. I stopped for 8 1/2 years and never had the first craving. I would sit in smoking sections and not be bothered in the least. I started again to lose the 180 pound I had gained and could not lose on tripled PT and a starvation diet. After starting again I lost 140 pounds in 3 months. Sad commentary but true. I would rather stink than be grotequely obese.
A non-smoker after a week! Excellent, write back in a year and let us know how you're doing. I stopped for 8 1/2 years and never had the first craving. I would sit in smoking sections and not be bothered in the least. I started again to lose the 180 pound I had gained and could not lose on tripled PT and a starvation diet. After starting again I lost 140 pounds in 3 months. Sad commentary but true. I would rather stink than be grotequely obese.
Scooter that's an amazing accomplishment. That's better than liposuction. In order to lose 140 lbs in 3 months would require the expenditure of 5600 calories per day assuming that you ate NOTHING. After subtracting the Resting Energy Expenditure and general daily energy requirement you would still need to burn an additional 2800+ cals/day for 90 days. That's the equivalent of riding a bicycle from here to Cancun, Mexico and BACK....with no food. I definitely want some of whatever you smoked. The heck with dieting and denial. This could change my entire thinking on cigarette smoking. I'd carry a pack in my jogging shorts.
I have found also that smoking keeps my wieght down a little too.
I'm not knowledgable enough about the burning of calories to explain it. Before starting to smoke again I had cut my food intake to two dry salads a day and was drinking nothing but water. I had been on this diet for about 6 months after trying less aggressive ones for several years. I was also swimming 50 laps every morning before work and bicycling 15 miles a day in the evening. I actually gained a small amount of weight. I finally tried smoking again because I had never gained over my natural wI would presume that my adult metabolism had been affected by the cigarettes I had started as a teenager. Once I had reached my target weight I gradually resumed a normal diet and have remained pretty stable. I am now on a medication that I will be on for the rest of my life that can dramatically increase weight gain (it has added 12 pounds). At this point I would like to get off the cigarettes again(a task that I have always found to be easy for me) but am afraid to because of the added weight gain that the meds could cause. It's a catch 22 for me, the smoking can affect my breathing and other things, but it was much harder to breathe or be healthy when I was so heavy. And I don't want to hear from any of the do-gooders that there is another way to control the weight, I tried it all to no avail. In my case, nothing else worked, and at 205 I am carrying my max weight already.
Believe me I know how hard each of those problems are to control. I believe from a cardi-resp aspect that weight is as bad as smoking maybe worse. Do what you have to but I've found that as I get older (and older) it gets harder to control my weight and diabetes. I will tell you that back when I smoked I REALLY smoked. Cowboy reds, two packs a day. I tried everything available to kick the habit and nothing worked. One morning I prayed and asked God's help and from that second on I never had the desire to smoke another cigarette. So don't rule out prayer as something that only helps others. It sure worked for me when nothing else would.
(btw I once had a doctor who told me that heroin addicts were punks. They should try to stop smoking cigarettes. I watched my first wife die of cancer and still continued to smoke. It's a powerful habit.)
I'm lucky in one sense, I really never have had any trouble putting down cigarettes. When I smoke, I smoke too much. But I quit for a few weeks each year to give my lungs a break and have a preset time that I will stay off of them. I can lay a pack down and look at it for weeks or years and never have the first urge. When I don't smoke I can be around smokers and not have a problem. My only problem is the weight and honestly I have tried everything and the smoking is all that works. And, it was much harder to breathe with all of the weight. My body just wasn't designed with the cardi-resp capacity to handle it. When I was at 300+ pounds, I actually got winded while tying my shoes. I couldn't run at all, but for some reason I could still swim and ride a bike. I'm really glad that I could do that, or even the smoking probably wouldn't have had a chance of removing the weight.
Scooter I'm coming off of almost 9 months of sedentary (for me) lifestyle due to overuse knee injuries. I've gained almost 25 lbs in those 9 months. I felt like crap, looked like crap, and my attitude was horrible. In the last 2 1/2 weeks since I've resumed my riding I've lost 11 lbs. Due to the weight I'm slow and my endurance sucks. I know it will come back and I'll be ready for the fall season but my point to you is that weight is as destructive as smoking if not more. I agree, do what works to keep the extra LB's off.
btw several years ago my wife was visiting her sister in Park City, Utah. They had a smoking ordinance that prohibited smoking within 50' of bars and restaurants. That meant standing on the center line in the street in order to smoke.
They had a smoking ordinance that prohibited smoking within 50' of bars and restaurants. That meant standing on the center line in the street in order to smoke.
As it should be. Can't think of a better location for smokers.
I contacted Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds earlier today. Knowing that they have vast amounts of investment capital available I suggested a great place to put some of their money. I told them that there was a lovely coastal city that could probably be purchased. This city has a 450 year history and is both quaint (for the moment) and beautiful. I suggested that they should contact the Mayor and his brother inlaw the Governeloper. I told them that these two forward thinking individuals were both very creative and might well be able to broker the deal. I told them that these great men would do anything that would benefit the good people around here. I am awaiting their answers, and will keep you posted.
In a nutshell, smoking is an addiction.
Smoking is an addiction, no doubt about it, but it is a small addiction compared to more serious ones like, alcohol, drug, gambling, or food addiction. It is a real joy for a former smoker to have control of his body, and not be a slave to smoking a cigarette. I feel sorry for smokers, they have an expensive, unhealthy habit. As a former smoker of twenty-five years smoking a pack and a half daily and now a non-smoker for the last twenty-three years I can appreciate both sides of the issue.
With the price of cigarettes I wonder how many children are not getting nutritious food because their parents are wasting money on their smoking habit?
And, I think I read last week where South Carolina is going to increase to $.50 the tax on a pack of cigarettes.
Having seen six of my family members stop smoking over the years, I'm here to tell you that the method that works for one doesn't work for all. None of us had any medication to terminate the smoking habit forever.
It is a calm spring evening. You sit on your front porch, sipping a glass of wine (or whatever your poison) and puffing on a fine Cuban cigar, enjoying the relaxation. Suddenly you hear sirens, and a police cruiser pulls up in front of your house. An officer hurries up to you with his hand on his weapon. He is placing you under arrest. The neighbors complained that your cigar smoke was drifting on the breeze into the open window of their home next door.
It could happen, people. Now they are banning cigarette smoking at OUTSIDE public events, even though the chances of a person being seriously exposed to secondhand smoke at an outdoor event are somewhat small. Next they will ban cigarette smoking in all public places. Then they'll try to ban it in your car, since your smoke could somehow drift back to the vehicle behind you. In some places, smoking bans have been created to include an employee's vehicle if they are parked anywhere on company property. Then they'll ban it in private clubs as well, because, after all, what's the difference, people are still being exposed to secondhand smoke, and if the owners of the private establishment don't have the brains to put a stop to it, our big brother, the all-caring and all-knowing government will. After that, they'll make it a crime to smoke at all, because a stray puff of smoke may somehow drift into the neighbor's yard, killing him 25 years from now of emphysema caused only by the small puff of smoke he accidentally took into his lungs, since all of the pollutants and toxins in our pure, clean air could not possibly have caused such a thing.
I'm gonna start a campaign to outlaw all vehicles, because of all the toxic fumes released into the air. Have you ever been sitting at a red light behind some old rattletrap that belches black smelly smoke at you for 5 minutes while you're waiting for the light to turn? Can't be healthy. Give me a little whiff of cigarette smoke anyday over that.
Okay, I'm done.
I'm in my backyard spraying DDT on bugs and Agent Orange on unwanted plants and the fumes are drifting into your open bedroom window. Is this okay with you? Who would you call to object? You don't want a government agency intervening and infringing on my freedom do you? So you just have to grin and bear it so some idiot can have the freedom to continue a moronic activity that endangers the well-being of others? I don't think so.
double post...sorry
Do you know where to get that stuff?
Is it even legal to have that stuff?
Your neighbors must love you. I guess their kids can't play baseball in their yard because what if they hit one over the fence and you happen to be out spraying your plants and get hit in the head. Do you know how many people die in a year from getting hit by a ball? You're right. Let's ban homeruns, baseball, kids, bats, the trees they come from and the land they grow on.
Agent Orange and DDT?! You've got to be kidding me! They're a far cry from cigarette smoke. (Diluted smoke, at that.) So apparently, you have no objection to the government infringing upon someone's rights on their own property, as long as you can explain it away by saying that there's a possibility, however slight, that what the person is doing could have a detrimental impact on someone else.
Sounds like communism to me, or socialism, or whatever other -ism you want to call it. It's definitely not democracy, and it's not what this country was founded on or stands for.
The best example is burning leaves. Some folks think is it ok as long as they burn leaves on their own property. But the neighbors down wind disagree. Same for second hand smoke, but on a smaller scale.
Of course burning leaves should be illegal, and the maximum penalty applied to all violators. Don't you know that burning leaves is one of the main cause of global warming? Also, don't you know that there might be feces from migratory birds who fly over your yard on their way south and that burning that feces might cause toxic fumes if burned at 3PM on the second sunday of the fall? Fortunatelly the feces is not toxic when they fly north in the spring, but you'd still be causing global warming.
I say, burn them all in their own leaves' piles, but that's just me.
Does Beaufort County still have regulations which prevent burning leaves past certain times of day? It used to be no burning past 3PM.
DDT and Agent Orange cannot be purchased or possessed! Nice try! Oh yeah, Malathion is on that list too. You do spray or allow the pest control guy to do so in your house don't you? If not, look out, those plametto bugs might just carry you away!
Dersban. Only state-licensed folks can get it.
I have Malathion, I got it at Lowes, I think ... but doesn't work any better than diamatecous (SP??) earth, sevin dust, Bayer, Spectricide, or any of the other flea killers. Not even termite spray kills the fleas. I think I am just feeding them to grow up bigger and stronger.
Oh, and my neighbor is a leaf/tree/landscape burner. Chokes all of us.
Karen, Andy's ^i^ Mom
www.AndrewKeithAnderson.tvheaven.com
www.s8.createphpbb.com/lethalwhiteauss/
it's a dessicant. That is, it sucks the water out of the insects AND EGGS so they become dehydrated to the point they die. We spread it all over our carpets (kinda heavy - more than you'd use of carpet freshener). Then leave it for several days so it gets walked on and rubbed down into the fibers. Then vacuum carpets & mop floors. You will need to repeat several times if it's a bad infestation. It is non-toxic and barely irritating so safe for pets and children/babies who spend more time rolling on the floor. It's in the grocery store on the detergent aisle with the laundry boosters. It's also way less expensive.
The problem with insecticides is that fleas and many other insects have very fast lifecycles and generate lots of eggs as soon as they reach maturity. So as soon as one of them develops a mutation that enables them to survive against the poison, the resistant insect numbers quickly boom.
The action of borax can't be countered by a simple mutation. Insecticides typically influence a single enzyme along a single chemical pathway in the insects metabolism. All they need is a slightly different enzyme now to run the chemical pathway and they are back in business. But with borax, they would need to grow thicker exoskeletons to resist the cutting crystalline nature of the borax, and then they would need to develop another means to block the dehydrating action. It's like humans developing the means to make acid not burn our skin - just not gonna happen.
Try it. 8>)
It works especially well with many types of cockroaches. Many of those varieties are cannibalistic and eat their dead. They will carry carcasses back to the nest and kill many more of their brethren when they eat those carcasses.
Actually its a little cheaper to buy boric acid in its pure form instead of buying buying borax the 12 mule team and actually It acts as a stomach poison affecting the insects metabolism. It doesnt dry them out but it can act as an abrasive on the insects exoskeleton. Actually most insecticides currently on the market for home use are pyrethroids and they work by paralizing the insects by confusing their nervous system. Pyrethroids are synthetic chrysanthemum plants and are generally harmless to humans. However both boric acid and synthetic pyrethroids alone cannot solve your bug problems. If applied improperly they will not work there is much more than just applying something. When in doubt call someone who knows what they are doing.
Just let O'Gradys be for smokers and they all can gather there and get lung cancer together. Then turn around and sue the tobacco companies for giving it to them.