Can anyone tell me how this is legal? This is really getting pathetic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/11smoking.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/11smoking.html?_r=1
This is really sad.
- Thread starter surfmac211
- Start date
- Status
I could swear that is called DISCRIMINATION. Turning away people for one reason or another. I mean, businesses aren't allowed to not hire women, old people, gay people, ugly people, black/white/Asian/Mexican people.
*Sigh* I hate the way society is going.
*Sigh* I hate the way society is going.
In Texas it is technically legal, I've been refused jobs for it, I've been docked pay for smoking in uniform before too.
Its also illegal to unearth sealed criminal records, and to refuse to hire or rent property based on such information. Yet I've been expelled from a university, from a damned -hotel-, cannot get an apartment, and if a job checks my background I simply will not get hired -- all for what effectively amounts to something unbelievable stupid I did as a minor (I will say that it was not theft, nor assault or damage of a person or their property of any kind, I only harmed myself, and nobody pressed charges. . .so the state did. The records were sealed, but apparently not very damned well. I paid my penance, and instead of being deemed rehabilitated I've been deigned a criminal unfit for society -- nice)
Its also illegal to unearth sealed criminal records, and to refuse to hire or rent property based on such information. Yet I've been expelled from a university, from a damned -hotel-, cannot get an apartment, and if a job checks my background I simply will not get hired -- all for what effectively amounts to something unbelievable stupid I did as a minor (I will say that it was not theft, nor assault or damage of a person or their property of any kind, I only harmed myself, and nobody pressed charges. . .so the state did. The records were sealed, but apparently not very damned well. I paid my penance, and instead of being deemed rehabilitated I've been deigned a criminal unfit for society -- nice)
Just one more reason to be glad I'm retired. As for the federal estimate that smokers cost more than $3K/yr to businesses it is just one more unsubtantiated number thrown out there.
Doesn't mean we have to like it, or even accept it.
Business tycoons were a dying breed when the Industrial Revolution swept the U.S. so forcefully it helped to bring an early end to Reconstruction in 1877 -- and suddenly poor men who rose to riches (a breed LONG since nearly extinguished) to fill in the ranks of those tycoons, even supersede them.
Today 'old money' that actually has control over any major players on the world economic stage are likewise a dying breed, but through a bit of in-breeding and the sheer force of their will (money actually but the point is valid) they have kept their way of life very much alive, and probably always will as long as the world market exists. And any God-fearing American can 'earn' 60k per year interest per million. . . heh heh.
What we need to do then, I suppose, is establish some kind of "sanctuary" for smokers, a new kind of business establishment would be ideal, something like a "smoke-easy" in the form of a nation-wide chain of private clubs that are also shops and perhaps bars.
My knowledge of private club law even as applicable only to my state is a bit vague, but I'm fairly certain it could be pulled off.
Hey Warren Buffet has always liked investing in tobacco due to the MASSIVE profit margin (even with these insane taxes) -- anyone got his number? I can't see why he'd turn us down.
Business tycoons were a dying breed when the Industrial Revolution swept the U.S. so forcefully it helped to bring an early end to Reconstruction in 1877 -- and suddenly poor men who rose to riches (a breed LONG since nearly extinguished) to fill in the ranks of those tycoons, even supersede them.
Today 'old money' that actually has control over any major players on the world economic stage are likewise a dying breed, but through a bit of in-breeding and the sheer force of their will (money actually but the point is valid) they have kept their way of life very much alive, and probably always will as long as the world market exists. And any God-fearing American can 'earn' 60k per year interest per million. . . heh heh.
What we need to do then, I suppose, is establish some kind of "sanctuary" for smokers, a new kind of business establishment would be ideal, something like a "smoke-easy" in the form of a nation-wide chain of private clubs that are also shops and perhaps bars.
My knowledge of private club law even as applicable only to my state is a bit vague, but I'm fairly certain it could be pulled off.
Hey Warren Buffet has always liked investing in tobacco due to the MASSIVE profit margin (even with these insane taxes) -- anyone got his number? I can't see why he'd turn us down.
No offense my friend but yes you have to accept it, sorry.
I don't like it either, but what are you going to do? I mean really,...."What are you going to do?" Or better yet,...."What can you get done?" Nothing.
Cigarette smokers are considered animals that need to be "exterminated" by the vast majority of the world...and unfortunately we as pipe smokers are lumped in with those who smoke cigarettes, and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is NOT going to change that.
I think from now on I'm going to do my best not to open threads that have anything to do with ordinances, bans or laws. They only ruin my day, and I don't need the aggravation. :? Wish me luck.
I don't like it either, but what are you going to do? I mean really,...."What are you going to do?" Or better yet,...."What can you get done?" Nothing.
Cigarette smokers are considered animals that need to be "exterminated" by the vast majority of the world...and unfortunately we as pipe smokers are lumped in with those who smoke cigarettes, and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is NOT going to change that.
I think from now on I'm going to do my best not to open threads that have anything to do with ordinances, bans or laws. They only ruin my day, and I don't need the aggravation. :? Wish me luck.
Are cigarettes merely "offensive speech", or are they hazardous enough to us to be considered "dangerous speech"?
We happy few understand that "smoking" is too broad an umbrella to be practical, but the world around us does not. What I've said all along is that we need some division between the smoking that is harmful, and the smoking that has considerably less harm.
It's a tough call. Do we band together with the cigarettes and the cigars and the hookah and the chaw and fight for all tobacco, even if if maintains Phillip Morris' ability to poison their product? Or do we segregate, and in the separation, draw more attention to the hazards posed by the tobacco additives and not the tobacco itself?
I saw it first thing yesterday morning. I didn't post anything about it since I immediately assigned it to Carter to write about.
"It's a tough call. Do we band together with the cigarettes and the cigars and the hookah and the chaw and fight for all tobacco, even if if maintains Phillip Morris' ability to poison their product? Or do we segregate, and in the separation, draw more attention to the hazards posed by the tobacco additives and not the tobacco itself?"
IMO pipe and premium cigars smokers should stick together. Any association with cigarettes is a losing battle. Keep the issue very targeted. Make the fight about pleasure vs. addiction. 8O
IMO pipe and premium cigars smokers should stick together. Any association with cigarettes is a losing battle. Keep the issue very targeted. Make the fight about pleasure vs. addiction. 8O
You've got at least one cigarette smoker on yer side -- even though many of you seem to harbour the same hatred for my loved (even moreso than pipes) hobby non-smokers do. And while I get it, especially from the perspective of the non-smoker crusade on cigarettes effects you as well -- I say that should engender a brotherhood, a realization of an injustice that non-smokers who aren't anti's can't understand. Rather than the kind of resentment it seems to more commonly bring.
Flanative I think you're spot on with the biggest issue I see with the whole ordeal "Banning anything is nonsense."
Flanative I think you're spot on with the biggest issue I see with the whole ordeal "Banning anything is nonsense."
To yoru, who said: :... a "smoke-easy" in the form of a nation-wide chain of private clubs that are also shops and perhaps bars."
There is a clause in the public smoking ban ordinance that just went into effect in San Angelo, Texas (close to you?) which says 'venues established to get around this ordinance are prohibited'. So your good idea is nipped in the bud, around here, at least.
As for the DISCRIMINATION tag, the antis will just say that one has no choice in their sex, race, handicap, etc. but smoking is a choice, so that can't be "discrimination". :crazy:
There is a clause in the public smoking ban ordinance that just went into effect in San Angelo, Texas (close to you?) which says 'venues established to get around this ordinance are prohibited'. So your good idea is nipped in the bud, around here, at least.
As for the DISCRIMINATION tag, the antis will just say that one has no choice in their sex, race, handicap, etc. but smoking is a choice, so that can't be "discrimination". :crazy:
Well its still effective in bars here in Denton (its in Texas at least, not sure how close Dallas and San An are), in fact every bar in town is a private club.
Besides, you put Warren Buffet('s money) behind virtually anything, it gets done. Especially when he's fighting things he can so easily get a Republican Supreme Court to overturn (and these laws fall into that category), he and people like him have done it hundreds, if not thousands of times.
Still don't think it would in reality, but its a nice thought.
Besides, you put Warren Buffet('s money) behind virtually anything, it gets done. Especially when he's fighting things he can so easily get a Republican Supreme Court to overturn (and these laws fall into that category), he and people like him have done it hundreds, if not thousands of times.
Still don't think it would in reality, but its a nice thought.
yoru,
Well, I don't know about stand-alone bars, but I was in Denton last year for the North Texas graduation. The big motel we stayed at was 100% non-smoking, including their bar (which I didn't like... nor the college kid bartender who SHOOK my Manhattan :evil: ) I did ask to see the manager and politely informed him that ACCOMMODATION for smokers as well as non-smokers would be a good idea. :
:
Well, I don't know about stand-alone bars, but I was in Denton last year for the North Texas graduation. The big motel we stayed at was 100% non-smoking, including their bar (which I didn't like... nor the college kid bartender who SHOOK my Manhattan :evil: ) I did ask to see the manager and politely informed him that ACCOMMODATION for smokers as well as non-smokers would be a good idea. :
:
Daveinlax wrote "IMO pipe and premium cigars smokers should stick together. Any association with cigarettes is a losing battle. Keep the issue very targeted. Make the fight about pleasure vs. addiction. "
Unfortunately, association with tobacco of any type is a losing battle , its the beastie du jour.
Also, where would you draw the line with "premium" cigars and pipe tobacco?
Im sure a Graycliff Gran Cru would be acceptable,a Partagas Black Label? Sure, why not? What about a Swisher Sweet? or a White Owl? Not "premium enough?
I personally keep 4 or 5 lbs of Prince Albert on hand at all times, certainly not "premium" by any stretch. Guess I would be out of luck. Of course Dunhill blends would be acceptable....Altadis blends? Hmmm..borderline there.
Maybe we could apply the same principle to alcohol! I mean, beer is so low brow, Wine or a good scotch, well, thats just fine............................
i think Ill shut up now and go hide my PA.
Unfortunately, association with tobacco of any type is a losing battle , its the beastie du jour.
Also, where would you draw the line with "premium" cigars and pipe tobacco?
Im sure a Graycliff Gran Cru would be acceptable,a Partagas Black Label? Sure, why not? What about a Swisher Sweet? or a White Owl? Not "premium enough?
I personally keep 4 or 5 lbs of Prince Albert on hand at all times, certainly not "premium" by any stretch. Guess I would be out of luck. Of course Dunhill blends would be acceptable....Altadis blends? Hmmm..borderline there.
Maybe we could apply the same principle to alcohol! I mean, beer is so low brow, Wine or a good scotch, well, thats just fine............................
i think Ill shut up now and go hide my PA.
The trouble with "divorcing" ourselves from cigarette smokers is that THEY are the ones that make it possible for upscale cigars and pipe tobacco to exist! How many tobacco growers (and companies) would stay in business by catering only to the "carriage trade"? Not many.
- Status