Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Blame the teachers unions not the president. About a quarter of the money that goes into education will make it through to the district itself, and then from there maybe half of that will make it to the schools. So much is bled before the classroom that we can't make an impression. People vote for education funding for the most part, and they aren't going to be voting in favour unless they start seeing improvement in the overall outcome, and that's pretty much impossible with the amount the unions and districts bleed out of the classrooms.

BLAST! Our song trickery has been discovered. Quickly to the potato mobile.
At least we still have our dollar bills. We must never let them get their hands on those.

They can do that now. Just because it's easier to do doesn't mean they won't be held to the same legal standards to do it.

I worked with a somewhat crazy conspiracy theorist guy(could go hours on nonsense he spouted) who said all you have to do is fill out your w-2 to withhold nothing and write a letter to the IRS stating
"I was told the income tax is voluntary. Please write me back saying it is not if it is false."
Haven't tried it, personally don't want to take the risk and haven't really bothered researching it.

At 11/19/07 01:01 AM, shatterspike1 wrote:

At 11/19/07 12:43 AM, SolInvictus wrote:
i never said i was and i never made any statements on wether or not people are born gay or if they are a product of their environment.

Flaming makes look like an idiot

what you say?

especially when someone is debating a point. COUNTERACT, don't flame.

i did, i pointed out the fact that your argument is based on a logical fallacy, not on proof.

How was that a logical fallacy? I have never EVER heard a case argued otherwise. Gay people logically do not choose to be gay, because they would be discriminated against. You did flame me, and I said not to flame, because it makes you look like an idiot. Prove yourself not to be an idiot, and debate the point and don't let this degenerate into a flame war.

Now, more onto my point. Every Gay person I have ever known, anything I have ever read, anything I have ever seen, have all shown Gay people do not choose to be gay. This is my point.

I don't believe being gay is a choice 99.9% of the time, but to say someone WOULDN't choose it because they would be discriminated against doesn't seem like a valid argument. Just walk into any highschool and you'll see plenty of people making choices that lead to discrimination. If people didn't choose things with adverse effects you wouldn't see drug use or suicide.

At 11/18/07 02:31 AM, TheMason wrote: I say we change it from people having a right to vote, and making it a responsibility. If a person wants to vote once they're 18 they have to pass a test to ensure that they know how the system works.

This test can be taken by anyone who has reached the age of 18 regardless of:

1) Race
2) Gender
3) Religion
4) Educational attainment
5) Allow convicts who have been free no less than 5 years and have maintained a clean criminal record
6) Income

This test would ensure that only people who understand the structure and what government is capable of doing or not doing will vote. Theoretically, only those people that are capable of casting an informed vote will be able to and would thus be less likely to have their emotions manipulated by slick campaigners who are little more than glorified used car salesmen (I'm looking at you Clinton(s) and Karl Rove).

Some of the regulars on the forum may think I'm being an arrogant asshole here, and desiring Plato's philosopher kings reinvisioned as poly sci PhDs and other people with their doctorates. Actually, I predict that if such a test were administered that as a percentage people with their doctorates (especially if we're talking about MDs and natural science PhDs) would score less than stoners...

Perhaps if our elected officials were accountable to only those people who are politically aware and understand how the system works...we could have better governance and programs such as social security and medicare would not be threatening to bankrupt the treasury in the next 20-50 years.

I guess you could call me a neoprogressive. The reforms to weaken the party system has backfired, so perhaps we need to look at the voters and what we as an electorate are doing wrong...

calmly awaits the flamers...

At first I like the idea, but it also does away with the whole democracy thing. Then the more I think about it I realize politics is emotional. Give 10 of the smartest people you know all the information on a political issue and you'll get 10 different opinions. Take global warming for example, from the begining of the popularization of the idea people have had their opinions on it. Practically daily new information comes out supporting or denying it. Now you would assume people opinions would be changing, but they just aren't, they'll praise the information supporting their belief and completely deny or ignore the rest as "bad science" or liberal/conservative propoganda. Inteligence seems to be the smallest contributer to peoples political beliefs. So why make it the largest requirment to excersize your vote?

At 11/19/07 12:16 AM, TonyTostieno wrote: Bullshit. Someone give me real proof that there's a correlation between being gay and spreading AIDS. Straight folks (like me) are just as likely to be an AIDS risk as a gay person, if not more because there's more straight people then gay people in the world, thus making it easier to get laid.

The smaller community is what puts them at the higher risk. I can meat 20 girls and one has aids that gives me a 5% chance of contracting the virus. In the smaller gay community given 10 people with one person that has aids the chance jumps up to 10%. It's not putting your pecker in a cornhole that makes you a risk, it's community infected and chance of transmission that does. Why would any responsible gay man who knows he's at a higher risk complain about these measures taken? IF anything this is a you show me I show you. Start showing lower risk in the gay community and I'm sure the rules will be redone. In the meantime if you're 100% that you're clean, lie, and remember giving blood isn't about you.
Also I must ad that I lol'd at the ad I got on top of this.
www.hivmirror.com

As long as you have enough donors better candidates should be at the front of the line/bus.

A higher percentage of the gay community have AID's then in the heterosexual community.
Getting blood costs money, not only what they give donors, but testing and screening costs alot for the lab work. So they're going to be a bit picky.
Let's say 10% straights have aids and 20% gays have aids. Totally made up numbers mind you, but good for example.
If you take blood from ten straight people you have 9 good bags and one bad for let's say a $500 investment.
If you take blood from ten gay people you have 8 good bags and 2 bad for the same $500 investment.
It's numbers not prejudace. I have a tattoo, got it from a clean shop, put in the same category with prisoners and heroin users when it comes to blood donation. Oh well.

At 11/17/07 11:44 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 11/17/07 09:43 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: In other words, a good, decent discussion of politics on the internet is nigh impossible.

I think you're completely wrong in every sense. The Internet is where you are most likely to find a decent discussion of Politics because more intelligent people can collect together and the asses who show up can be ignored or mod slammed. In real life, it's those asses who shout the loudest-- and try to take over any discussion. You can't ignore them, and they often end up as the ones who get political power because they scream the loudest and longest, ruining any chance of real discussion. Real life is the world with the problem, not the Internet.

I disagree with your conclusion. This ignoring the "asses" is probably more akin to putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la I can't hear you" when a point is made that doesn't go with your world views. In the real world you're forced to either address the point with a valid rebut or to rethink your opinion on the issue. On the internet you can just continue your circle jerk with the rest of the "Intelects" while as you say ignoring or having a mod delete the other opinions keeping your fantasy alive. Have you not noticed how much more opinionated and sure of themselves people have become since political debate on the internet has flourished? The internet would be a great place for debate if it weren't for the anonmity and vast variety. We have on one site a whole bunch of faceless conservatives giving eachother handjobs and on the other a whole bunch of faceless liberals playin cock to ass with their ideas. It's set up in such a way that it's near impossible to spread any different ideas into any of these millions of communities. No matter how right a person is coming in, he'll be mobbed lynched tarred and feathered for being such an "ass" and bringing those ideas around to a bunch of people who have no desire to hear them.
Seriously try this excersize. Walk into a catholic church. Try to convince them there is no higher power. Or even better, bring a book of mormon and try to convince them of that.

At 11/17/07 04:03 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 11/17/07 08:20 AM, homor wrote:

At 11/17/07 07:37 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: In what way does that change the fact that he has bought it, and that it has brought an income to the previous owner of the x-box (microsoft or private person if bought second hand)?

BECAUSE HIS MOM AND DAD, THE VERY PEOPLE HES DISRESPECTING, BOUGHT HIM THE THINGS HE TAKES FOR GRANTED, IDIOT, A SECOND HAND PARTY ISN'T THE POINT YOU IMBRED RETARD.

Well, you said that he bought it for money he got for mowing lawns. If he bought it, they can't have bought it (unless they first bought it and then he bought it from them, why anyone would do like that).

Actually the point trying to be made was that without your needs being cared for by your parents you wouldn't likely be able to afford the luxory. That gives the parents rights to put restrictions on things even paid for with your own money.

You may think you can make all the decisions of your life now, but trust me, you don't know shit about life and what it can throw at you. Sure you can dodge alot of little obstacles, but you have no idea how much of the big shit your parents have kept you out of.

You have no idea whatsoever of what life he has, have you? I can tell you that I know pretty good what life can throw at you, and none of these things could my parents have prevented without making my life much worse than it is now.

There's 3 dad stages
My dad can beat up your dad.
My dad don't know shit.
My dad really was a good man.
Sure theres a few exceptions mostly pertaining to the quality of father, but they wouldn't pay the extra to keep tabs if that's the case.

yeah, like give birth to you, or give you a home, or give you food and water, or give you nice things you don't need.

I haven't said they didn't give birth to me. What are you trying to say? We're not talking about biology, you said that he doesn't know a shit about life and I say that you don't know a shit about him so you can't know what he knows or not.

I can tell he's a brat in the know it all stage. I went through it, you probably went through it and just about everyone will go through it. He's hardly afraid of his rights being violated by people that can at any moment tear through his room and decide to take everything but a matress and a few pairs of clothing. He's scared of being caught doing something he shouldn't.

im so sure those things make life somuch worse for you, oh i think i could cry in sypathy for you!

I haven't said they make things worse for me. What I said was that I've been through or seen in my vicinity most of the bad things that could happen in my life (sure, hasn't been in war, but how I'm raised won't really affect that since I live in relatively peaceful Sweden). I also said that my parent's couldn't have stopped that without making my life worse than it is. For example, I've had a close friend of mine who commited suicide; that's a pretty hard thing to watch. The only way my parents could've stopped that was forbidding me to talk to my friend, but that would've meant I lost a friend that has mattered much in my life. That is what I was talking about.

That's the reality of life. Parents know they can't stop everything, but I'm sure they were there for you as a shoulder to cry on and someone to talk to and explain things you may not understand. With the technology of this phone though they can prevent other things. Say you and your friend are out driving in bad weather, if you know they can tell if you're doing 100 down the freeway, you'll be less likely to do it yourself or to allow a friend to do it. A nice thing considering you can put the blame for being a killjoy on your parents at the same time as protecting yours and your friends safety.

You know, just because parents think it's best to spy on their children doesn't mean it is. The statement would be correct if a parent never faulted, but they very much do. Even a child needs privacy. The right to a private life is a human right.
http://www.gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro .html
Children are very human.

i think pearents have a right to raise their children however the fuck they want, and if they mess up from time to time so be it.

With that argumentation it's fully okay to brain-wash a kid into becoming for example a terrorist, a rapist, or getting them to join the KKK and burn n*ggers. Should that right be more important than the HUMAN RIGHT to a private life and to a safe childhood?
Nope, you need a better argument than that. The price for freedom is nearly always paid by prisoners.

I clearly support a boycott of the corporations trying to make money by scaring parents and taking away the little privacy children have left.

i strongly support beating your little misbehaved face in.

...Aaaaand that is what comes from being raised by someone with that mentality; resorting to violence when someone thinks differently than you yourself.
Sure, I'm misbehaved. Quite seriously. But what is changed by that? That doesn't make me stupid or anything, and it certainly doesn't remove my voice or give anyone the right of hurting me.

Look it's a parents responsibility to make sure when you're an adult you're an alive well adjusted responsible and *gasp* moral person, and I fully support any tool needed to accomplish that. These phones aren't designed for every kid out there. If you're child is responsible and hasn't given many signs of being a trouble maker save your money and get them a normal phone, but if you have a kid that has a habit of misbehaving in school going places he shouldn't and doing things that can get him in trouble AND STILL WANT TO GIVE SOME AMOUNT OF FREEDOM give him one of these phones for the sake of piece of mind. Or you could boycott the phones and give some tough love. Drop them off at school, pick them up right afterword, make sure all classes were attended, lock them in the house limit time on the television and internet(ofcourse be over their shoulder the whole time) and remind them that their amount of privacy and freedom are comepletely dependent on how well they behave, just like the real world.

At 11/16/07 08:49 PM, notld224 wrote: DON'T buy products from either Verizon, Disney, or Alltell. If you care about your rights then don't contribute to their demise.

HA You don't BUY jack shit as it is. Everything you have is because of your parents. Think you really earned that x-box you bought mowing lawns all summer? Fuck that shit, that's not even half months rent, a family of 5 could eat that in a week. You may think you can make all the decisions of your life now, but trust me, you don't know shit about life and what it can throw at you. Sure you can dodge alot of little obstacles, but you have no idea how much of the big shit your parents have kept you out of. This is another tool to help them do their job, which is raising you and watching out for your best interest. Even if you think you know better. If a parent is inclined to think they need this sort of monitoring for their kid I think I'm gonna side with them. Besides, you don't like it you can always leave your free phone at home.

At 11/16/07 07:28 PM, FutureMarine77 wrote: I know I'm about to piss a lot of people off, but I think that cigarettes should be completely illegal. They are harmfull to smokers, and all of the people around them. There is no reason to smoke other than addiction, and to the people who use that as an excuse, you shouldn't, because you shouldn't have even started smoking. Besides, its expensive.

It also calms you down, creates a high, relieves stress and surpresses hunger. If you want it to be illegal fine, but as long as the government feels it's an adults choice to smoke it should feel that it's an adults choice to inhale second hand.

At 11/16/07 07:29 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote:

At 11/16/07 07:14 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: Why do you insist that ALL public places be smoke free? As long as their is accomidation for both represented there should be no problem.

For public places that have a wide number of non-smokers, it would be unfair for people who care about their health to inhale the nasty carcinagens floating in the air since its a situation of a right that interferes with another persons right. An example of a persons right interfering with a persons right situation would be the issue of loud music. We have the right to listen to enjoy our favorite hard rock or metal band, yet your neighbor has the right to go to sleep in a quiet and peaceful environment, therfore your right is interfering with another person's right. So its the same with smoking, its just as much of a right for someone to breath clean indoor air as it is your right to smoke a ciggarette. Therefore our right of smoking can be fulfilled by doing it outside while respecting the right of the non-smoker.

If I sound-proof my home so that the only disturbance is to those inside then I am well within my rights. Same with a club or a bar. Should they also be required to turn the music down so I could get some shut eye at my corner table? No that would be stupid and selfish to expect that.

:However designated smoking areas in public places are a helpful solution as sometimes it could rain outside while you want a smoke. So designated smoking rooms can be an added conveniance to public places as long as its in reletivly secluded areas of a building (like were restrooms or employee only areas are placed) and are done in closed doors and in rooms with seperate ventalation systems from the other parts of the building. But it would be the choice of the person choosing to constructing the public building to offer designated smoking areas for conveniance but not make it mandatory by law.

That's been a long standing tradition for many places. The one problem I see with that is the same people determined to get bans in place will often flock to those as well. The local technical college has built really nice smoking shacks on campus, four walls ventilation heating and drinking fountains mounted outside and in, not only has it made a nice spot for smokers to enjoy their disgusting habit away from non-smokers, but it's also done a great job at reducing ciggerette waste on campus, smokers actually can sit and enjoy themselves and for the most part everyone is happy. However alot of people find that they're nice places to escape utahs hellish weather for a bit between buildings. They've been trying to get the administration of the school to rename them "weather shelters" and ban smoking entirely on campus, so far the requests have been refused. Because ofcourse it's their right to stay away from nasty weather and do so in a smoke free enviroment. However the shacks wouldn't even be there to begin with if it weren't for a good willed gesture towards smokers that has been accepted and the rest of the campus has been respected because of that.
I guess that's the big one and the cause of all the emotion on the subject. Respect. We're pushed from one area respect the laws and make due, now it's getting to the point that seems silly. There are no longer any valid claims of your rights being violated only your selfish wish to stomp on our territory. There is no respect among non-smokers towards smokers and I must admit that sometimes I would really like to get physicaly violent with people and their lack of respect towards smokers and business owners. Banning smoking in clubs and bars is to make things more comfortable for you with something you WANT not what you NEED, and wanting to take away that comfort from people makes you nothing more then a selfish asshole. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're some health crusader, you're an asshole that wants to cry and get your way.

Why do you insist that ALL public places be smoke free? As long as their is accomidation for both represented there should be no problem.

At 11/16/07 05:01 PM, fli wrote:

At 11/16/07 11:37 AM, BrotherJohn wrote: If we don't take a stand for ourselves, then we will soon find that although we are still well within the scope of the constitution, we are a severely oppressed people. We might be "better off" that way, but what sort of quality of life do you think that would impart?

I don't know if you're sarcastic...
but guess who voted on these laws?

People like me.
This isn't a "big government" situation because I think non-smokers just got fed up when we couldn't savor our food because we're smelling nasty ass smoke. We want to go to social night functions without smelling like smoke at the end of the night.

There's your problem, you sat and bitched and moaned instead of taking your business somewhere else. I don't like smoking around me when I eat. Hey guess what I don't eat around? And if you want to goto a social night function, how bout you throw your own party or seek out and give your business to someone with the smoking policies you want. Besides "smelling like smoke at the end of the night" seems like a pretty rediculous moan. I've never finished a night of clubbing by saying "You know. I'm not gonna shower and change my clothes."

However, I think we ought to be fair too.
Allow some areas designated for smokers, you know. Which need to be a wide open place that's far away from non-smoking areas. (An outdoor cannopied patio, or up-stairs smoke room are good ideas.)

They already have that. There's smoking places everywhere, and some places are getting smart enough to move their ashtrays away from the doors(brilliant). We have something much better though. Comepletely seperate bars. The fact you want them to regulate having seperate smoking and non-smoking areas is as dumb of a concept as me bitching I can't get a large order of fries at jiffy lube. That's not the business they're after. Too fuckin bad I can't get the fries that I want at jiffy lube, but the person who wants his oil changed can go and get what he wants from them.

Otherwise... I think the right for air is greater than the right to smoke.
I can't simply escape from a person who's smoking, at least not in the same room. But a smoker can always smoke at home, or other areas of privacey.

Likewise you can always enjoy your air at home, or other areas of privacy. You're never forced into the same room as ciggerette smoke. The only conievable way that would be possible is if you're spineless and can't stick up for yourself or you really don't care if you're around it and just want to bitch.

At 11/16/07 04:05 AM, fli wrote:

At 11/11/07 09:59 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: We need to keep these bans reasonable, give rights back to business owners and at least keep the choice to places that only cater to adults(bars clubs). And remember we all have a choice as adults to recieve second hand as well as first hand smoke.

Okay, that's agreed upon.
However, I think you're under the impression that bars = smoking. How horrible is not smoking at a bar is? Maybe if they allowed a back area for smokers. I know gay bars have BEAUTIFUL back door canopied gardens for smokers that's lush with green foilage and vines. The rest of the area is smoke free.

Why can't that be applied to other places?

If a non-smoker doesn't want to be exposed to smoke at a bar, then it's a simple matter of not going over to the smoking section. Allowing smoking in bars is much more unfair to people who want to avoid smoking. The most fair choice to keep bars smoke free, unless it's a place meant for smoking. Or have bars that cater to smokers.

In fact, those ciggarette club stores... why can't they extend the business so it can be a bar at night?

That's one thing I love about business regualting its self. I can go to downtown salt lake and choose from any number of bars. Bars that allow smoking everywhere, bars that allow smoking upstairs, bars that allow smoking on the patio and bars that don't allow smoking anywhere. If I"m with friends that smoke, most likely we'll go to an everywhere bar, with friends that don't I'll go to an upstairs or patio bar, and if they want to have a no smokers night they can go to a bar that doesn't allow it anywhere. Hell, if they really want they can even go to the everywhere bar and make that choice themselves. You see there are no standing laws that say you must allow smoking. It's your choice as a business owner, and played out well in a diverse area it can really spell out profit to go smoke free.
Something amazing has happened with this thread. People are having a conversation not an argument, and it's not just a circle jerk for one side or the other. Sure there's the random "Don't like it gtfo" and "Might as well light the place on fire and see what happens" but for the most part it's civil. We're getting our opinions out, well articulated, and we can see eachothers point of view. From the look of things we almost have a comprimise on the subject. It's just too bad there's not any real control on the issue within the realms of newgrounds.

You ever think they just want to know if you're able to read on a subject, retain it, and answer questions pertaining to them? If the person writting them has a liberal bias will show that when writting fictional social issues. I'd hope that someone with a highschool equivalence will be able to seperate that from reality.

At 11/15/07 04:20 PM, BrotherJohn wrote: Is it possible that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions?

More like selfish intentions seem good if enough people agree.

I have an asthmatic friend who is also allergic to cats. A tiny bit of cat dander can set off an attack, sometimes I forget that. A few weeks ago we were together and I asked if she'd mind stopping by petsmart so I could pick up a new filter for my freshwater tank. She said "I can't, cats."
Can you imagine that? How could they allow something in there stores that could put so many peoples health at risk just by walking in? I'm sure she'd love to go in and see all the wonderful items they have available for her dog, but no, they're inconsiderate and don't CARE about her health. It's time someone stepped in for her sake. I propose a ban on any animal that produces harmful dander to be inside any building open to the public, private or not. Ofcourse, that would be stupid. She simply understands that that particular building, although open to the public, is one she won't be going into. Instead she gives her pet business to companies that have the products she needs and doesn't allow animals in the store. Could you imagine the impact on pet store owners if they suddenly were told they can't have dander causing animals anymore without some wacked out restrictions?
Or hell you could just call and ask someone who's going through a similar experience.
801.521.4442
Ouida's Lounge
That is a number to a local hookah bar that with our current bans going in place will either have to shut down business alltogether or stop serving food or drinks. A large portion of business that will most likely lead to bankruptcy and the loss of their business. Now you tell me your rights are being violated. You just have to pick another bar, these guys are losing their income and their business they worked hard to build.

I had a science teacher in high school with a real liberal bias. One time he asked everyone to write a bit on how to cut down on american wastefulnes. I decided to write about "Recycled nutrition" Took him a few weeks to realize I took the long route of telling him to eat shit.

I've seen that at a few meetings, mostly that person gets shot down because someone who's faught that hard already isn't going to give up because they're tired.
The big one is trying to rush something. Often in the same meeting they'll bring up an issue bring in their professionals and call for a vote all in the same meeting.

I'm gonna like havin you around.

At 11/14/07 08:57 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/14/07 06:49 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: So you feel you have more of a right to healthcare over someone else? If we do end up with socialized healthcare who's to say anything along those lines? I could as easily say I have more of a right to get a splinter out of my toe then a welfare mom getting emergency open-heart surgery because I pay more in taxes towards health care then her.

;
Look at it another way... the doctors have been keeping in practice working on all these previous patients heart problems.
So they're more skilled & ready to make sure your going to be fine when you go in for yours ;-)
Plus anyone who purchases goods & services in Canada pays taxes for it, that goes to help fund the hospitals.

Oh I can see the benefits of a national health care system. I was just attempting to point out the problems that can arise when you start to put such superficial rules on who recievs care.

Who cares if it's dangerouse or not? It simply stands that adults who can legally make the choice to smoke are also making the decision to inhale second hand smoke. What's hard to understand about that? Walking into a bar that allows smoking is your choice to go in or to avoid. Understanding that, it's simply wrong to place a government ban on such institutions. Ban it in unavoidable areas and ban it around children. Just don't ban it for some whiner that doesn't have the balls to tell his buddies he doesn't want to go to a smoking club or bar.

That was incredably wierd, I posted this in the smoking thread. I can even backtrack in my browser to the written post and then to the thread it should have gone into. Possible bug to look into mods.

Who cares if it's dangerouse or not? It simply stands that adults who can legally make the choice to smoke are also making the decision to inhale second hand smoke. What's hard to understand about that? Walking into a bar that allows smoking is your choice to go in or to avoid. Understanding that, it's simply wrong to place a government ban on such institutions. Ban it in unavoidable areas and ban it around children. Just don't ban it for some whiner that doesn't have the balls to tell his buddies he doesn't want to go to a smoking club or bar.

So you feel you have more of a right to healthcare over someone else? If we do end up with socialized healthcare who's to say anything along those lines? I could as easily say I have more of a right to get a splinter out of my toe then a welfare mom getting emergency open-heart surgery because I pay more in taxes towards health care then her.

At 11/12/07 12:33 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 11/11/07 08:20 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 11/11/07 04:07 PM, Bolo wrote:

bla

The only difference is, crying babies are not a threat to public health, and if you're forced into a situation where you must sit next to one for a long period of time, all you're likely to suffer from is a lack of sleep. With a smoker, you'll get a slew of chemicals bombarding your lungs, and increasing your risk for lung cancer later in life -- all against your will, I might add -- and if you have asthma, you are likely to lapse into an attack.

The baby, while annoying, cannot kill you in any way. The smoker can.

Can you give me a situation where you're forced into sitting with smokers for a long period of time? It's easy enough avoiding smoking establishments and social situations can easily be solved with a polite request.

At 11/11/07 10:44 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: So no one here believes that when you commit a criminal act you forfeit your rights...
Well thats just dandy.

We take away most government granted rights. The whole idea of HUMAN rights is that they are given to everyone condition free and can't be taken away in a civilised world. NO MATTER WHAT.

At 11/11/07 08:08 PM, fli wrote: I think some places are too far, but know what?
I'm a non-smoker, and I don't like going to a bar that's heavy with smoke. It's not that I dislike it, but it makes my eyes dry as hell.

That's a good reason to avoid bars that allow smoking.

So I think bars ought to be smoke free... unless, smokers make bars that exclusively caters to smokers and people who don't mind smoking.

If they allow smoking they cater to smokers, if they don't they don't. That's the owners choice, the problem with the smoking bans as they're going. They just plain dont allow people to make ANY establishment, even private clubs, that cater to smokers. With the resent ban in my state once in effect I know of 4 hooka bars that wont be able to legally stay in business.

As far a not smoking like inside your car and etc--
that's dumb.

Agreed

I think people just got tired of smokers being such huge fucking pigs and throwing their used butts on the ground. I know I did whenever I went to the park and wanted to sit down a bench. Just fucking disgusting to see the playsand filled with ciggerette butts...

I keep a case in my pocket for unburnt smokes and another smaller one for my butts, walk into a smoke shop they have a huge line of products available to keep your smoking clean if you find yourself away from a tray or trashcan. Hell with that in mind I'd actually like to see doubled littering fines for tobacco waste.

We need to keep these bans reasonable, give rights back to business owners and at least keep the choice to places that only cater to adults(bars clubs). And remember we all have a choice as adults to recieve second hand as well as first hand smoke.