sell your ride
post your service
sell your stuff
post your class
browse all jobs
post a job
post your listing
If you're looking for "I Spys," dating or LTRs, this is your scene.
If you're looking for full-on kink or group play, you'll get what you need here.
The smoker pictured in your article has his country’s thanks for serving in Korea. He should realize, however, why he and the other UN troops were there: to stop North Korea from imposing their way of life on South Korea.
After many decades, it’s still very obvious when looking at North Korea just how catastrophic that imposition would have been on the economy, health and lifestyle of the South Korean people if it had succeeded.
In a similar way, smokers, with and without thinking, impose their filthy and unhealthy habit on anything or anyone around them.
And when they’re done with their cigarettes in their now-designated outdoor smoking locations (or ANYWHERE outside), where do the majority of the butts go? On the sidewalk, street or ground, without regard to consequences.
It’s usually only after a diagnosis of a major smoking-related illness, if then, that a smoker finally sees the light and resolves to give up the finally-admitted unhealthy habit that put them in their current health crisis.
Smokers need to come to the realization that they’re coming to the end of the ‘smoke where you want’ road, and they need to start adjusting their unhealthy lifestyles, AND attitudes, before that road abruptly ends and they are left with their severe habit and ‘out in the cold’ or with NOWHERE to go for that nicotine fix.
As for Peters likening the new smoking policy to "elder abuse", it is partly because of similar nonsensical smoker addict statements on smoking laws that the public is adopting No Smoking ordinances nearly every week in towns & cities across our country.
And to show just how far the No Smoking push has gone, even Moscow is coming out with laws against it.
In response to the posting by Timothy Fair on 06/24/2014 at 5:02 PM
Tobacco is still 'legal' and still being sold solely for financial/political reasons, because any other product that had anywhere near the known health risks of tobacco would have been pulled off the shelves and completely banned years ago.
You stated that 'it simply stands to reason that smokers still have the right to smoke', but where in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution or Bill Of Rights does it call out smoking as a right of ANY kind?
Nowhere did I see Life, Liberty and the pursuit of the next tobacco fix, and smokers need to grasp, understand and accept the fact that their habit is NOT a 'right'.
You then moved on to 'Do we outlaw certain types of music', but there have already been Boom Box bans enacted for just that reason. (If they want to listen to their music, of any type, they must do it with headphones or earbuds so that their music preferences are not forced on those nearby.)
And your introduction of the unprotected sex detritus seems to be only to cloud the discussion, because unless you're joining in on a threesome, the unprotected sex of others is not directly, or even indirectly, affecting your health.
There was a time, years ago, when the full arrival of Fall was obvious when the smell of burning leaves wafted through the neighborhood air, and that annual ritual has been banned in virtually every municipality.
It's time that the smokers came to the realization that the days of 'smoke where you want' are also coming to an end......everywhere in public.
The mayor and council should have been fired and exiled from the city for their selfish inaction on previous attempts at smoking bans.
I say selfish, because either they, or the people they knew, were smokers, and they did not want the very selfish and unhealthy habits of those people disturbed. (If they are intelligent people, that is the only logical explanation for their obstinacy and inaction on the smoking bans.)
We can only hope that when they are out of office and a full smoking ban is finally passed, as city-after city around our country are doing, that the people of Burlington City will look back on the inaction of the mayor and council and remember them as the do-nothings that they currently appear to be.
Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents, but they are also supposed to act in the best interest of those constituents.
Vetoing those previously-proposed laws was NOT acting in the best interests of the people of Burlington City regardless of how many resident smokers it appeased.
As to councilor Knodell's stated-neutral (but probably anti-ordinance) stance on the ban solely for economic reasons, that should be almost the very last item to consider. If something is as unhealthy as smoking has been proven to be, in the mind of any intelligent person, there should be absolutely no question that a total smoking ban is necessary.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Act in the best (healthiest) interests of the constituents, or vacate your seat.
Before you do that, though, you owe it to yourself and your constituents to do a Jeff Nick-style cleanup of cigarette butts around the entire city to learn, firsthand, what the vast majority of selfish, self-centered smokers, whether walking or driving, do with their butts when they're done with them.