I've never wyomed. Is it better than drinking?
···
On 1/19/08, mickeycrimm <mickeycrimm@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you think it is legal to get drunk, try Wyoming.
Smoking Bans - WAS Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas BLOG - 13 JAN 2008
Mr. Dave,
I'm voting for you!!! 
Robert
> In Nevada practically all of the politicians are owned by the casino
industry. So you are probably going to have to wait until the
National Smoking Ban goes into effect before smoking is knocked off
the casinos floors in Nevada. But the NSB is probably not that far
down the road.
National Smoking Ban.
If the Dems win it will exist because they want full health care for
everyone and it would be a way to reduce costs.
If the Repubs win it will exist because they cater to big business and
insurance companies are tired of paying for health care for smokers.
If I win, it won't exist because I feel everybody should be able to
kill themselves as they see fit. However, if you blow smoke in
somebody's face they can hit you with a bat, since you did just
assault them with a deadly weapon.
-Dave
···
mrdave2006 <dave.feuer@gmail.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BTW, I admit to all that I am biased on this subject. I lost my
mother to small cell lung cancer who died at the age of 57. She was a
three pack a day smoker. She even smoked incessantly with me in the
car as a young child, with the windows hermetically sealed.
Tomorrow, the first cousin of the family to die is being buried. She
was also a smoker who died of small cell lung cancer. She was 53.
According to the ACS, 88% of people who get small cell lung cancer are
smokers. I would not be surprised if many of the other 12% breathed
in second hand smoke.
They aggressively enforce their Drunk in Public law. You don't even
have to be drunk, just drinking.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "King Fish" <vpkingfish@...> wrote:
On 1/19/08, mickeycrimm <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
> If you think it is legal to get drunk, try Wyoming.
I've never wyomed. Is it better than drinking?
Love it. Next time I get "smoked" I am going to tell the person that
if they do not stop, I am going to call the police and compain about
assault with a deadly weapon. Fantastic!
As an aside, I think there might be a correlation between smokers and
gamblers as both tend to be addictive behavior.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mrdave2006" <dave.feuer@...> wrote:
If I win, it won't exist because I feel everybody should be able to
kill themselves as they see fit. However, if you blow smoke in
somebody's face they can hit you with a bat, since you did just
assault them with a deadly weapon.-Dave
Marvele,
Well, if I'm not allowed to make a generalized observation because
you don't smoke and drink at the same time, then you should not do
the same. I am not obese, in fact I'm 6ft, 170 lBS. I eat mostly
salads in the casino and I rarely eat desserts. As such, I guess I
have a right to worry about second hand smoker....yeah?Just because you're a smoker who plays well and doesn't drink is
not
the point. Although I may have been wrong that 90% of all good VP
players are non-smokers, we are definitely smoking less than the
casino population at large.BTW, approximatelt 22% of the US population smokes (as per the
American Heart Assoc, since you'd like me to back uo my statements.
Most gamblers in general smoke. As such, you have to assume that
they are either self destructive or have addictive personalities,
or
that the tooth fairy makes them smoke.
Read someplace that one in four of U.S. population smokes (It varies
by race, ethnics, and regiions) and that one in two casion patrons
are smokers. I cannot reference that statistic, but it seemed
reasonable at the time.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "sjs5572z" <sjs5572z@...> wrote:
sjs5572z wrote:
BTW, I admit to all that I am biased on this subject. I lost my
mother to small cell lung cancer who died at the age of 57. She was
a three pack a day smoker. She even smoked incessantly with me in
the car as a young child, with the windows hermetically sealed.Tomorrow, the first cousin of the family to die is being buried. She
was also a smoker who died of small cell lung cancer. She was 53.According to the ACS, 88% of people who get small cell lung cancer
are smokers. I would not be surprised if many of the other 12%
breathed in second hand smoke.
I'm entirely empathetic to a rationalization for restrictions on
smoking based on second-hand health considerations. However, in
forums such as this, you may as well (forgive the expression) save
your breath.
Those receptive to the message are already with you from word one.
Those who haven't already bought it, won't, under any circumstance.
As far as I'm concerned though, as I've indicated, I can reason
restrictions on other merits.
- Harry
Why doesn't everyone really say what outlawing
smoking really is? It's social engineering and
politicians that want power over people to take
away their rights. Seat belt laws, helmet laws
and many more similar laws are all the same.Bob
When I was young I worked at a university hospital
in a small rural State. I used to see all sorts of
people who exercised their rights not to wear seat
belts, not to use a helmet and not to have health
insurance.
These cases frequently costs taxpayers north of 1/2 a
million dollars each. If you want the freedom it
needs to be coupled with responsility -- it seldom is.
worldbefree22001:
Why doesn't everyone really say what outlawing
smoking really is? It's social engineering and
politicians that want power over people to take
away their rights. Seat belt laws, helmet laws
and many more similar laws are all the same.Bob
When I was young I worked at a university hospital
in a small rural State. I used to see all sorts of
people who exercised their rights not to wear seat
belts, not to use a helmet and not to have health
insurance.These cases frequently costs taxpayers north of 1/2 a
million dollars each. If you want the freedom it
needs to be coupled with responsility -- it seldom is.
Maybe that it cost taxpayers is the problem. Assuming wearing helmets
makes a significant difference, what's wrong with a law that says that
if a motorcyclist neither wears a helmet, pays for health insurance,
nor can pay for medical treatment, he's not entitled to it? Smoking
in a way that doesn't hurt anyone else shouldn't be outlawed, but
whoever can't pay for treating the medical problems that smoking
caused shouldn't be entitled to it.
BOB
>> Why doesn't everyone really say what outlawing
>> smoking really is? It's social engineering and
>> politicians that want power over people to take
>> away their rights. Seat belt laws, helmet laws
>> and many more similar laws are all the same.
>>> WORLD
>
>When I was young I worked at a university hospital
>in a small rural State. I used to see all sorts of
>people who exercised their rights not to wear seat
>belts, not to use a helmet and not to have health
>insurance.
>
>These cases frequently costs taxpayers north of 1/2 a
>million dollars each. If you want the freedom it
>needs to be coupled with responsility -- it seldom is.BOB
Maybe that it cost taxpayers is the problem. Assuming
wearing helmets makes a significant difference, what's
wrong with a law that says that if a motorcyclist neither
wears a helmet, pays for health insurance, nor can pay for
medical treatment, he's not entitled to it? Smoking
in a way that doesn't hurt anyone else shouldn't be
outlawed, but whoever can't pay for treating the medical
problems that smoking caused shouldn't be entitled to it.
Clearly we don't do that in the US. My only point is that
there's no conspiracy of pols to steal these rights, just
attempts to control behaviour that can be harmful to society
at large. Happens all the time. Note that I'm not condeming
smokers. I've found most will do anything to accomodate
non-smokers if they simply ask. Like all things though,
it's frequently about how you approach the problem.