🚀 go-pugleaf

On 18 Feb 1995, Tommy the Tourist wrote:

> And this is what you'd like to subject others to, just because 
> you'd rather not refrain from smoking in an enclosed public place 
> like a restaurant?  IOW, since you had to suffer as a kid, other 
> people should also suffer, too, from something you, as a smoker, 
> can prevent?

No, I'd like others not to subject me to flowers and horses in enclosed 
public places, and I'd like my neighbors to quit cultivating grass.

> Nice try, but your analogy fails.  Even the tobacco companies 
> could probably invent better propaganda than that!  The "optional 
> activities" you mention, by their very nature, happen 24 hours a 
> day.  Horses and grass remain what they are around the clock. 

Wrong again, Bermuda-breath. Horses and grass are not activites; this is 
true. Riding horses, showing horses, breeding horses, decorative 
horticulture are activities, and last time I checked, they weren't 
non-volitional. 

> state of being. Are you saying it's "hypocritical horseshit" for 
> a smoker to be considerate (and law-abiding, in California at 
> least) and avoid lighting up for a period of one hour in a public 
> restaurant?  Even a heroin or cocaine addict can usually go for 

No, I'm saying its hypocritical horsehit to protect people who are 
sensitive to tobacco smoke while not protecting people who are subject to 
other environmental incidentals.

> Also, the last time I checked, horses and grass were not known >
carcinogens.  The vast majority of people can be around them >
continuously with absolutely no ill effects.  The same is not > true of
tobacco smoke. > 

So you say, along with some flawed EPA studies. But, I
don't recall the poster to whom I had responding mentioning cancer, but
rather people whose sensitivity to tobacco smoke kept them from some
places. Furthermore, I never said horses and grass cause cancer; I said 
that other people's optional activities involving these elements do, in 
fact, make me sick. The people who do these things are morons and murderers.


Incidentally, the vast majority of people don't need special equipment in
restrooms, ramps, etc. The ADA, which is what was being discussed,
however, requires these. Now, before you say that I'm being
discriminatory, let me assure you that I am in favor of such
accomodations within reason, just as I have no objections to refraining 
from smoking in many situations. The point is that we've become a nation 
of whiners, and dammit, I wish the EPA would do some fucked-up study on 
the effects of that. 

Have a nice trip, Tommy. It's clear that you're on one.

Buster