To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 4988
4987  |  4989
Subject: 
Re: Trying to understand
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:09:46 GMT
Viewed: 
1440 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: Look at tobacco. It started
> with
> > warning labels, then "no smoking" areas in buildings and planes, then no
> > smoking at all in certain buildings or planes and now lawsuits. It doesn't
> > stop, as long as liberals think they can control your behavior and squeeze a
> > buck out of it. Now they're talking about taxing fatty foods(!) - oh, because
> > they care. Puh-lease, all they care about is manipulation and money.
> 
>  At the same time, though, the supposition of courtesy is inadequate against
> the average smoker in my experience--sufficiently so that "no smoking" areas
> in restaurants seem to me a good idea.  I don't think it's necessary to ban
> smoking at the federal level, but some measure of "enforced politeness," if
> only on the level of individual business, doesn't strike me as inappropriate.

As a non-smoker, I agree. Yet if a private property owner wants to have only
smokers in his establishment, that should be up to him.

>  Fatty foods, on the other hand, are another matter!!  Who was the chief
> zealot on that crusade?  I have the impression that it was primarily one
> individual, but I may be incorrect.  Let me know, if you recall.

I think it was from the FDA, not an individual. I hear these things on the
radio news while I'm driving around as part of my job - so I'm half paying
attention.

Bill
> 
> > Every penny we give away in taxes is lost freedom.
> 
> Mildly-ObRef: Guvvamint do take a bite, don't she?
> 
>    Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  Due Process
 
(...) Certainly, as a privately-owned entity it should be allowed to admit or refuse smokers as it sees fit, without being subject to federal heavy- handedness (any more than I as a private citizen should be legally required to lock my guns in my (...) (27 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Trying to understand
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: Look at tobacco. It started with (...) At the same time, though, the supposition of courtesy is inadequate against the average smoker in my experience--sufficiently so that "no smoking" areas in (...) (27 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR