If you're a non-smoker, chances are you're not aware that our beloved New York State Legislator's have decided to import the caste system from India. In America, smokers are now the "untouchables". With the new cigarette tax, $1.25 per pack, our New York State government is doing all it can to assure that the little guy never gets a break. Just toss in the ridiculous gas prices and increases in food costs, and many families will find it hard to make ends meet.
It's not bad enough you have to stand outside in the winter and other inclement weather, or that you can't sit at a bar and have a smoke, but now it will cost you a lot more - but it's for you own good you see.
When a socialist Democrat decides what's best for you, how can you go wrong?
You should stop smoking, whether you want to or not, because it's not good for you. Just like it's not good to drive without a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet (both are required when my daughter drives), and don't forget our Massachusetts liberal friends who tried to enact legislation to ban spanking.
In the future, look for legislation that bans smoking in cars and in your own home if you have children. The fact that millions of us "boomers" grew up in households where smoking was the norm, and we seem to have survived, means nothing at all.
I quit smoking on September 2, 1997. Now, after ten years of quitting, I've started smoking again. A dumb decision, but mine to make.
So, my fellow smokers, it's time support your local tribe. Whether you drive down to Turning Stone, or up to Hogansburg, it's time we showed our legislators that there's more than one way to skin a cat. Even with the cost of gas, if you can buy multiple cartons, you could make a day of it once a month and stick it to our socialist government. Make sure you're almost on empty by the time you get where you're going, that way you can fill up on cheaper gas and stick it to 'em again.
Are you sick and tired of socialist's condescending to the rest of us; presuming that they know what's best for everyone?
No one political philosophy has all the answers, so before our communist-socialist-liberal friends reach high dudgeon, just try to simmer down and remember your mantra:
"Conservatives are red neck, bible-thumping, gun-toting, know-nothings - we ARE superior".
There, now don't you feel better.
Now, if you could just let us run our own lives, maybe we could concentrate more on the things that bind us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Watson, you have every right to smoke and kill yourself from the process. I wish I didn't have to help pay smokers medical bills but I'm even willing to do that without whining. Are you saying your right to smoke overrides my right not to inhale your second hand smoke? Where is the fairness in that? How do you justify that?
Watson, please quit again. I don't want to lose you.
Watson you said:
"It's not bad enough you have to stand outside in the winter and other inclement weather"
You don't have to stand outside in winter. It's your choice.
You lash out at the government that is protecting non-smokers and liberals, but you are really angry at yourself for starting that self destructive behavior again.
It's an addiction. You should be angry at the drug dealers who have conspired to enslave the American public to a killer drug.
"Millions of Boomers" did not survived, or they survived carrying around an oxygen bottle. There are enough with emphesema that they have invented little backpacks to carry around their own portable oxygen supply because they can't walk across a room without it.
Landlords now have a right to not rent to smokers, you can't smoke on many city streets, and you can't even smoke on some beaches in California. Get with the program Watson. You're killing yourself and you know it.
PCS - I happen to agree with no smoking in an office - that's what the majority prefers. I don't even have a problem with going outside or not being able to smoke in a restaurant, but that should be the restaurants choice, not the states.
That's the bottom line - it should be up to individuals whether they smoke, or allow smoking in their bar or restaurant. When it comes to any law that infringes upon the rights of the individual, it should be placed on the ballot and voted on - which is darn near impossible in New York.
NCL - am I mad at myself for resuming the habit - no. It was stupid, I'll grant you that, but I'm not mad at myself. I have already selected August 10th as my quit date.
With out going into a lot of detail, my response to people who ask why I started smoking again: "It's the only form of suicide that's legal."
I continue in counseling because I suffer from depression; not just from the death of my daughter, but because I am not the same man I used to be and I have come to the realization that I never will be what I was prior to Beth's death. Going back on the tar bars is certainly a manifestation of the depression, but it is only one of the issues I'm trying to sort out.
Sir Charles: thanks for the kind post - I shall indeed resume my non-participation in the world of smoke - you will undoubtedly be able to tell when I've begun by the tone of my posts - I tend to get a little antsy during the first few days of cessation.
"you will undoubtedly be able to tell when I've begun by the tone of my posts"
Well, that gives us all something to look forward to, doesn't it?
watson,
first and foremost, i can only wish you the best of courage, luck, and strength as you move through this difficult time in your life. hopefully a bit of political sparring here and there helps to keep the juices flowing, at least. and that said (cue awkward transition)... i do have a quibble with your thinking about regulation of restaurants and all kinds of other businesses. although restaurants are "private" in the sense that they're not owned by the government, they operate in the public sphere, as such are (and should be) subject to all sorts of rules: for example, they can't discriminate in terms of the customers they serve, the people they hire, or who they do business with. i think the government has just as much business regulating smoking that occurs in public, since secondhand smoke is harmful to others. restaurants don't have a right to smack every third person who comes through the door in the face, do they?
Maybe the individuals who own restaurants should be allowed to determine for themselves how clean they keep their food preparation facilities. We shouldn't have to stand for those stupid socialistic food safety rules. Every individual should have the right to determine whether they want food poisoning or not.
And those damn OSHA Nazis should allow wait staff to decide for themselves if they want cancer, emphesema, broncitis, asthma, rhinitis, chronic headaches, and smelly cloths and hair.
Thanks for the analogies, but focus on the fact that I said the majority should rule. Food poisoning is immediate, and only someone who really likes Chinese food (Garfield on a fork)would not want health inspectors in the kitchen. The effort to link socialism with healthy food is rather specious don't you think?
As far as the employees go, they have a choice as well: work there or don't work there. I think that setting an enclosed area aside, with good ventilation for smokers would minimize any second-hand smoke damage.
It's all about "choice" isn't it my friends? Working out a solution that is equitable?
There will be an initiative on the ballot here in Lewis County this fall to extend the terms of the county legislators to four years instead of two. I think four years makes more sense financially, and from a "green" perspective, less time spent looking at those horrid roadside signs. Whatever your position, at least you get a chance to vote on it. On any issue that will have a great impact, being able to vote on the issue should be the norm, not the exception.
i agree with watson that, in principle, if a restaurant could create a smoking section that's sufficiently ventilated and sealed off from the non-smoking section, then that's just fine. but the devil's really in what you mean by "sufficient" here. i would take it to mean excellent air quality not just for non-smoking customers, but for employees too -- though the cost may make such a standard unattainable. for my taste, it's too ideological to make people choose between working in a manifestly unhealthy environment or not working at all. and as for letting the majority decide, how is that not what already happened? sure, i guess there wasn't a ballot initiative, but what else is the legislature for? was the law passed with a minority of votes?
"The effort to link socialism with healthy food is rather specious don't you think?"
Actually no it isn't. Ever read that book "The Jungle" by Socialist Upton Sinclair? It resulted in the passage of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906. So no it is not specious.
Sorry, we drive through SC and VA twice a year. Both states allow smoking areas in restaurants. Now I smoked 3 a day for 30 years. [Of course back then cigarette smoke didn't smell. Since then they've put some nasty stuff in cigarettes that makes the smell nauseating.] There is nothing worse than eating in a restaurant that reeks of cigarette smoke. It even stinks outside buildings where people stand and smoke while they get pneumonia. Watson, as I've told you in person, I found the five word cure. Once I took it I never wanted a cigarette again. What were those 5 magic words that I heard it 12:15 PM on December 12, 1989? "You're having a myocardial infarction."
That's funny Sir,
Tobacco didn't smell because EVERYBODY smoked.
And you're right about choice Watson, the majority "chose" for you not to smoke around them.
So don't.
In fact don't smoke at all.
Don't make us Liberals go back and make it against the law for Watson to smoke.
We've got the Senate, got the House, working on the Presidency.....don't provoke us Watson.
Post a Comment