suck on this....

[Sc'Eric (aka darkFIN)]

  How many times am I going to have to tell you people this. I'm not a libertarian. They are almost, but not quite, as bad as Objectivists.... 
  
  
  Actually, Chris, I said that *I* am a Libertarian, not you. And don't  be so hasty to toss the baby out with the bathwater: just because the  *national* Libertarian Party candidates--the only ones really visible  in the media--were a bunch of clowns, doesn't mean the basic principles  are all bad. Your statement is no different than a person saying they  hate all Republicans because GWBush is a conniving fucking lunatic. 
  
    
Also, I still believe that if you don't want to be around 
smokers then you shouldn't go to places where you *know* that
people are smoking. Sure sucks if its someplace you really 
want to go but no one ever said life is fair. If you really 
can't accept that risk then either change the law (not that 
anyone on this list can generally be bothered) or start your 
own place that is smoke free (not that anyone on this list 
generally can be bothered). I can't even imagine what 
any of you would have to say about hooka bars.


  
  Chris, if I am supposed to follow your logic, then I can NEVER LEAVE MY  HOUSE because I *know* that there's gonna be smokers just about every  place I go, including in-transit.  Regarding changing the law...  well, that's exactly what this entire discussion is about, FOOL!   lol
  
  And to answer your question about hookah bars.... I used to be part of  a monthly event that was (and continues to be) held at a Hookah  Lounge.  (I quit once the asthma got worse, though I did put up  with the polyps and nosebleeds for years just for the chance to get out  once a month).  And let me tell you: from an allergic standpoint,  there is a HUGE noticeable difference between cigarette smoke and  hookah smoke!  That aside though, the issue of legality  surrounding a hookah bars (should a state-wide smoking ordinance be  passed) is that smoking is the nature of the establishment's  livelihood--of course it should be allowed to continue  operations.  But I also think that it makes perfect sense that  establishments who want to sell tobacco after a state-wide public  smoking ban takes effect, should have to apply for a license to be  either a vendor or public smoking establishment, no different than  selling beer.  Limit the number of available licenses to a  percentage of
 the overall population within a given jurisdiction--that  ideologically keeps smokers smoking in the places where they pay taxes,  so that those taxes can then go back into that resident's  community.  Have a graduated scale for licensing fees so that more  square-footage pays higher fees.  I might even go so far as to  suggest that existing tobacco vendors that were in business prior to  2005 (were the law to be enacted today) have the option of reduced  licensing fees for the first x-number of years--just to keep the  economy intact during transition and make certain that it isn't just  large chain establishments who can afford to purchase a smoking  license.  
  
  I'm sure I've forgotten something here, but--hey--it's almost 6am and  I'm only 10% finished with checking mail (thanks to all us folks who  won't shut-the-hell up and quit "whining" =).
  
  ~sc'eric  
  

          PAdarkAlternative
  state-wide scene resource
  
    The Lion 90.7fm
  the soundtrack to Penn State 
      <( theAbyss )>
Th/Fr - 00:00 UT
  
      {ca.thar.sis}
  central-PA's darkalt clubnight







		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.