I definately have mixed feelings about a smoking ban.
On the one hand, I don't smoke, nor do I like smoke near me when I'm eating or drinking.
On the other hand, asking for a non-smoking table in Vegas used to get me seated before most everyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by Pinot Envy:
personally I don't care if you are at the next table dropping acid while reading "Juggs" with your IPOD playing a podcast of the Koran...but when I'm paying a chunk of change for a dining experience don't F with my air, my wine, or my food.

You're kidding, right ?
I personally believe Nevada is rather progressive on the whole, but unrealistic in this initiative.
Vegas is and always has been a sin-city. I'd boycott it with a smoking ban.

I am stunned that a progressive place like this stuill serves meat. Every enlightened person knows "Meat is Murder." How am I supposed to enjoy my salad and mineral water when someone is eating a large slab of innocent animal flesh at a nearby table?

quote:

Originally posted by mneeley490:
asking for a non-smoking table in Vegas used to get me seated before most everyone else.

Actually, now that a wait is not thwarted by the cumbersome hurdle of accommodating people who wish to smoke where others are enjoying food and beverages the lines seemed much more fluid.

quote:

Originally posted by cdr11:
I am stunned that a progressive place like this stuill serves meat. Every enlightened person knows "Meat is Murder." How am I supposed to enjoy my salad and mineral water when someone is eating a large slab of innocent animal flesh at a nearby table?

I weep when I think of the silent screams of your asparagus when it was cruelly amputated simply to serve your savage appetites.

You heartless bastard.

quote:

Originally posted by sydthesquid:

quote:

Originally posted by cdr11:
I am stunned that a progressive place like this stuill serves meat. Every enlightened person knows "Meat is Murder." How am I supposed to enjoy my salad and mineral water when someone is eating a large slab of innocent animal flesh at a nearby table?

I weep when I think of the silent screams of your asparagus when it was cruelly amputated simply to serve your savage appetites.

You heartless bastard.

One for the vegans.

Asparagus has no face, silly. Everyone knows that.

I don't smoke and I find it rather disgusting and pointless, not however as disgusting and pointless as a nanny government telling restaurant owners how to run their businesses. If you want to be smoke free, great, if not I will not go there but others will. It's all well and good to celabrate others rights being taken away, just remember someday they will come for you. It is a sad and slippery slope this nation is on.

VT2IT,

You stated what I was attempting to illustrate by my wise a$$ comments. I am always stunned that people think nothing of the rights of others being taken away for their own convenience. This thinking is common among too many people in the world, with baby boomers using it as a credo.

This government intrusion into all areas of our lives is insidious and creeps slowly into more and more areas. Soma may say, "Hey, smoking is disgusting and it's the consensus among intelligent people that it kills you and should be restricted for the good of the majority." The problem is, this reasoning can be applied to all behaviors, traits, or any other aspect of human character, depending on which direction the consensus among intelligent people may go in the future - and this is no way certain. Who would have thought our children would have to wear helmets to go ride their bike? Who would have thought the government would prevent us from developing our own land because of an "endagnered" fly? All of these things came about because some activist wanted his will imposed on others.

We must stop acquiescing and relinquishing our freedoms. I do not smoke but it is a legal product and feel if a business owner wants to permit it on his premises, government should have no say about it. Government has never known when to stop. Nor does it relinquish power willingly.

Damn it Cdr11, I turn my back on the thread for 1 day, and you have already started posting the stuff you heard on Savage this morning. You have to give me a warning so I can have your soap box ready. "CRD11- Fair and Balanced"

quote:

Originally posted by cdr11:
VT2IT,

You stated what I was attempting to illustrate by my wise a$$ comments.

wow CDR--you mean.....you were being a smart a$$--how did I miss that?

And yes smoking is a legal act-- so is taking a crap. Why don't people just take a dump while dining at a PUBLIC restaurant? Sure it can be offensive and foul smelling but hell, this is America--Free Free Free! They can have crap trays for convenience--oh and just sit in the "No Crapping" section! You may occasionally get a whiff of stink but, buck up! This is America--men have died for your right to dump!

Sorry Pinot Envy but taking a crap in public is not legal. Try it sometime and see what happens. However if a private business wanted to allow it on their premsis, they should be allowed to.

You're right, my mistake. Smoking in a dining establishment, legal. Taking a crap in a dining establishment, not legal.
However, the STINK remains the same.

jnasty-

Who is this Savage you keep talking about? You seem to be obsessed with it.

Tell me, my friendly nemesis, what annoying things do you do that you would give up because the government thought it was best for you? How about wine consumption? Smoking in your back yard? Eating food with trans fats? Soft drinks in your school? Spanking your children? The practice of your religion in public?

The government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. -Gerald Ford

quote:

Originally posted by Pinot Envy:
And yes smoking is a legal act-- so is taking a crap. Why don't people just take a dump while dining at a PUBLIC restaurant?

I surely did not expect such talk from you. That was an eye opener.

quote:

Tell me, my friendly nemesis, what annoying things do you do that you would give up because the government thought it was best for you? How about wine consumption? Smoking in your back yard? Eating food with trans fats? Soft drinks in your school? Spanking your children? The practice of your religion in public?

I agree with you on some of these. Every kid could use a good butt whopin', I needed many when I was a kid, and I suspect my kids will also need a few. I enjoy an occasional cigar, but I can wait until the weather gets warmer to smoke one. I like going out to the pubs and coming back not smelling like a smoke stack, even if it means waiting until April to enjoy a Cohiba Habana. But these silly rules come from both sides of the isle. The city smoking ban appeared on the 2004 ballot. The "activists" dont have much pull in Nebraska, and its the 68% registered republican voters that passed the smoking ban in lincoln, so who is to blame? The gov doesnt dream these things up to rob us of our liberties, in many cases, voters pass them directly by casting ballots and by electing representatives. Should we get rid of the voters? How about illegal phone taps on Americans, CDR11, where do you stand on that one. To keep this wine related, I also like to drink at least one bottle of wine before voting.

Phone taps on someone inside the United States, citizen or not, with the call to or from a known terrorist or affilliate in a foreign country? I'm 100% for it and believe it is 100% legal and necessary. Tapping phone calls between American citizens, both inside the United States, without probable cause and a court order - I'm 100% opposed to that.

Laws passed legitimately through referendum or through the elected representatives, acting according to the will of their constituents, is a good thing. We have no arguement there. My concern is with the people - all of us, who are so willing to take away the rights of others, primarily property owners, to do with their property as they wish.

By the way, aren't Cuban Cigars illegal, Mr. Law & Order?

quote:

By the way, aren't Cuban Cigars illegal, Mr. Law & Order?

Illegal and spectacular.

I would be interested to see some of these property issues go before the new Supreme Court. The court has been ruling on property rights and due process for a long time. The standard was set in Butchers' Benevolent Association v Crecent City Livestock Landing and Slaughter House Co (1873) that no state shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens....., but the court has used this precident narrowly in more recent cases like Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987). Individual property rights take a back seat to "compelling state interests" as defined in the slaughter house cases, but the interests must be weighed against individuals and pass a balance test. Which reminds me of a good wine I drank recently. Elk Cove 2004 Windhill... Fantastic!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cdr11:
Phone taps on someone inside the United States, citizen or not, with the call to or from a known terrorist or affilliate in a foreign country? I'm 100% for it and believe it is 100% legal and necessary. Tapping phone calls between American citizens, both inside the United States, without probable cause and a court order - I'm 100% opposed to that.

Laws passed legitimately through referendum or through the elected representatives, acting according to the will of their constituents, is a good thing... QUOTE]


The problem with that example is that the gov't was doing these things based on a secret executive order, in order to sidestep surveillence laws that were already in place to prevent abuses. They only came clean once they were found out. Then they said they'd never listen in on the latter type of calls. Congress had to quickly pass a special law to legitimize what the admin was already doing.
So how can you place your trust in someone not to abuse any directives, when they were so slippery about them in the first place?
The Founders were wary of a large, powerful Federal gov't, and for good reason.

mcneely,

Good points, but I suspect your agruement is more aganist a big, powerful Republican lead government than a big, powerful government per se. You don't oppose a Federal Department of Education or the Interior or Commerce, do you? You thought the Republican politicians' FBI files in the Clinton White House was much ado about nothing, didn't you? Did you find the burning to death of the men, women and children, American citizens all, by United States military on American soil at the Branch Davidians compound troublesome?

I expect my government, whose primary purpose is to protect me and my rights, to aggressively persue terrorists, both inside and outside the country. I have no problem whatsoever with the terrorist surveillance done by the government. I know of no American who has been unjustly harmed by the Patriot Act's provisions. I must admit, however, that the prospect of these powers in the hands of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden and the gang of neo-comm, 60's leftists with wing tips that will be a part of the cabinets, is troublesome to me. I would love to see all of these powers revoked in the event of a Democrat Presidential win.

Let's try to steer this one back toward smoking bans and away from the Patriot Act, etc.

Also, I'm going to move this on over to the more appropriate Travel and Entertainment section.

Thanks,
RT

ccr11,

Whew! In order:
No, you may be surprised to learn that I care no more for a big, powerful Democratic gov't any more than a Republican one. I like the political pendulum firmly in the middle where it belongs. Too far to either side, and we have ridiculously big problems, as we see now.
Education? The underfunded No Child Left Behind Act is the worst piece of trash foisted on state education dept.'s in years.
Interior? It's a joke when former secretarys take high-paying jobs with big oil companies, Indian lobbyists and their pocketed congressmen are headed for jail, and public lands are opened up to private development.
Commerce? I don't work in that area so I don't really have an opinion, except as it relates to Homeland Security. My senator has been trying to get funding for greater inspection of cargo containers entering all our ports for years, to no avail.
I find FBI files on anyone other than terrorists and criminals appalling.
Branch Davidians? Botched. Credit that to poor training of the former ATF. It should never have happened, and those responsible went largely unpunished. Are we going to drag up Iran-Contra or the Bay of Pigs, now?
The Patriot Act was knee-jerk legislation intended to bypass two hundred years of individual liberties. No harm? It has huge problems if you're that lawyer from Oregon who was snatched up, and held for two months without counsel--by mistake! Look at what's happening now in Venezuala. Chavez has had his congress rubber-stamp legislation giving him the power to make all decisions for the next 18 mon