🚀 go-pugleaf

Spam-HATER wrote:
> 
> needhamnospam@syix.com wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >
> >  > there should be no need for gay bars ... people
> >  > should be accepted for who they are, regardless
> >  > of who their dance partners are ... to segregate
> >  > gay people from straight people reeks of bigotry ...
> >  > but this is another topic altogether ...
> >
> > Again why should anyone, especially government, regulate gay bars,
> > smoking, non smoking or otherwise (as long as they are ran legally).
> > I've heard you say because of health concerns, but this doesn't wash.
> > For waiters (male & female) there are other wait jobs available. It's
> > their choice where they work, and they must take the good with the
> > bad... that's the bottom line! Patrons who choose to go there or not
> > have made their decision too. There are many jobs with many hazards. Are
> > you as zealous about correcting all them too? People need to be
> > correctly informed first and then allowed to make their own decisions,
> > good or bad...
> 
>   You have to understand the "California mentality" with regards
> to this smoking non-issue. It's not enough for them to tell you
> that it's unhealthy for you, these busybodies woth nothing else
> to do want you to do as they wish, no questions asked.
> 
> >
> >  > smoking bars should be allowed but i don't think
> >  > they will be very profitable ... most people don't
> >  > want to go places where they will stink to the high
> >  > heavens after being there 10 minutes.
> >
> >  > carol
> >
> > This is your opinion and you are entitled, but non smoking bars may not
> > work for everyone and everywhere in the state, right? So why should Big
> > Brother force this on those people and places where it won't work. I
> > know of some very rural towns where bars, if forced to comply will
> > indeed go out of business, in spite of your opinion. Is this fair or
> > right?
> 
>   They don't care. They will have imposed their will upon everyone,
> and that's all that matters to them. All in the name of "safety" or
> "health". Notice the recent passage of the law requiring cars to
> stop when school buses are stopped and flashing their lights,
> REGARDLESS of whether children are crossing the street or not.
> Even if kids AREN'T crossing the street, the underlying rationale
> for passing this law is "safety".
> 
>   I have an idea - let's ban smoking altogether, since smoking
> is responsible for so many health problems, and the problem
> will be solved. Then, after that, the vice police can set their
> sights on ANOTHER vice of their choice, etc etc........The
> individuals with cooler heads can see where this road leads to.
> 
> --
> 
>    Let he who hath understanding reckon the number of the
>    Beast. And that number shall be anything <= 14,400 bps.

MS : I agree 100%. Notice that this stuff isn't happening in Europe, but
in your beloved USA...the nanny state has much deeper roots in Anglo
cultures than in the Med...