Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,089 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 930,651
Pageviews Today: 1,241,063Threads Today: 283Posts Today: 5,812
11:21 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden

 
Suck the smog
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 12:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
you dumb anal retentive non-smokers inhale smog from plants and cars all day long and ingest and inhale posionous chemicals every moment of your miserable waking lives but you haven't got the balls or guts to do anything about it besides teeing off on smokers, even in the suposed sanctuary of their own homes

go suck on smog you losers



Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
AKARP, Sweden, March 9 (UPI) -- A Swedish woman has been sued for smoking in her own garden.

Her neighbor in Akarp in southern Sweden, a lawyer, demands 15,000 kroner ($2,000) in damages for her previous smoking plus another 2,000 kroner ($280) every time she lights up in the future, The Local reported. She has received a district court summons to respond to his complaint.


"It makes me sad and angry," the 49-year-old single mom told Aftonbladet. "Should somebody else be able to control my life?"


The woman said she has already made concessions to her neighbor's dislike of cigarette smoke, including picking a spot to light up that is more than 20 feet from his property.


In court filings, the lawyer complains that he is hit with cigarette smoke every time he enters or leaves his house and has been unable to open his windows.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 206852
Germany
03/10/2007 01:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
This is fascism, pure and simple.

I'm a heavy and happy smoker living in Europe. Soon we won't be able to smoke in bars. I am now considering moving to a Latin American country where smokes are cheap and the people are much freer.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 147938
United States
03/10/2007 01:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
Kill the control freaks
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 128244
United States
03/10/2007 02:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
It is not much different here in the US, and soon I am sure, with the flagrant fraud of the "second hand smoke" argument as its primary target, but with "smokers health" as the secondary, we are paying exhorbitant taxes on tobacco, and our rights are being sliced and diced in numerous ways.

There was even one mother (dont recall where or when, but I'm sure it can be found) who lost custody of her son because the father took her to court for custody because she smoked, and he won. The child was brainwashed into demonizing his mother because of her use of tobacco.

Police, Fire Fighters, Doctors, Nurses, etc are being relieved of their positions, as are other professionals, even if they accept going through a quitters course. One man got fired from his job, even though his position had nothing to do with physical fitness, his health was not ailing due to smoking or anything else, and he never even took a break for a cigarette while on company time. He only smoked at home or when out with friends or family.

Where we just moved to, they were debating legislation to make all public places non-smoking with few exceptions. Soon this entire nation will declare smoking a criminal offense if it is done where anyone might be offended...and what about when it comes to inside your own home?

This lawyer that brought suit is full of BS! He is just a greedy leech seeking to gain in his wealth.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 10:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
Boehner's Favorite Smoke-Filled Room
His own party's club won't let him light up, so House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has been sneaking over to the National Democratic Club to smoke. Ironic, and a tad scandalous -- considering Boehner sits on the board of the Capitol Hill Club, where Republican members of Congress do their boozing and schmoozing.

But the Capitol Hill Club, unlike the Democratic Club, never got an exemption to get around the District's new smoking ban. And Boehner and other members are no longer allowed to smoke in the House Speaker's Lobby, thanks to Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) new rules. So what else is a Republican to do when he's jonesing for a smoke?

Boehner, who's hooked on Barclays, has popped into the Democratic Club -- a sad sack of a joint (compared to the tonier GOP club), which is frequented by union lobbyists -- on several occasions. Most recently on Wednesday night, when he was puffing and chatting with Democratic Reps. Allen Boyd (Fla.), Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) and Jim Costa (Calif.).

The minority leader was a such a hit that one of Boyd's constituents who was in the club grabbed a menu and asked Boehner to sign it. Boyd told the Sleuth that "while I worry about Mr. Boehner's health, I'm always a fan of Democrats and Republicans being in the same room, even if it has to be a smoky one." And he joked: "A Dem Club menu with the Minority Leader's signature...now that's probably rare enough to be really worth something!"

Lobbyist Tom Jolly, a longtime Democratic Club member, predicted that Boehner would become a fixture at the club since the minority leader can't smoke among his own. "I am one member who is delighted to have him as our guest," Jolly said, recalling how back in the day, in the '70s and '80s, GOP Reps. Ed Derwinski of Illinois and Steve Symms of Idaho were frequent Democratic Club interlopers.

"Democrats and Republicans who drink together after work get along a lot better than those who don't!" says Jolly.

Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy didn't want to divulge too much about his boss's visits to the labor boss's hangout other than to say: "I don't think it was the first time the Leader visited friends at The Democratic club, but getting an autograph request in there is probably a first."

Republicans, meanwhile, are grumbling about the Democratic Club's ability to get the exemption, considering that in order to qualify a restaurant must make at least 10 percent of its profits from tobacco sales.

"We're baffled they qualified," a curious member of the Capitol Hill Club's board told the Sleuth.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 10:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
CommentsPlease email us to report offensive comments.



overthrow this congress. The smoking ban is yet another rule that applies to everyone except them.

Posted by: sean | March 9, 2007 04:53 PM

Oh my God I got a Boehner!!

Posted by: Jeb's Boehner | March 9, 2007 04:58 PM

Last I checked, smoking cigarettes, while now a restricted activity, is nonetheless a legal one. I find it ironic that the representatives of the "nanny state" would allow smoking in their club.

Posted by: Richard | March 9, 2007 05:09 PM

I love it. We dems are enjoying our power. Sorry republican buddies, you have us hell for 10 years. Now you pay.

I am all for the sides coming together and drinking. Bi-partisanship doesn't happen enough.

Posted by: Dan | March 9, 2007 05:09 PM

Considering the tax rates, they may well be getting 10% of their funds from cigarette sales...

Posted by: Max Frost | March 9, 2007 05:10 PM

Bans and prohibitions create black markets and crime. Too bad no one ever learns and we the sheeple continue elect jugheads that try to legislate insane morality that throws feces on liberty.

Posted by: Joe | March 9, 2007 05:11 PM

Dan said - "I love it. We dems are enjoying our power. Sorry republican buddies, you have us hell for 10 years. Now you pay.

I am all for the sides coming together and drinking. Bi-partisanship doesn't happen enough."

You talk of Bi-partisanship and the sentence before you say "Now you pay. If by hell you mean a growing economy, low unenployment (4.5 percent as of today) and a narowing trade defecet, then send me stright to hell. It beats raising my taxes.

Posted by: Pat | March 9, 2007 05:34 PM

Republicans have no more tobacco lobby? Now that's news indeed...

Posted by: amsterdandi | March 9, 2007 05:37 PM

Now all we need for total bipartisanship is for Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani to start bopping Democratic gals.

Posted by: | March 9, 2007 05:42 PM

I thought the Dems were the ones against restaraunts and bars having smoking... heh.

Posted by: Jersey Dave | March 9, 2007 05:48 PM

Hey, Richard!

Last I heard, all those so-called Red States are on the dole to the Federal Government to keep them in business, while all the "Blue" state produce everything and pay all the taxes to keep their "Red" States afloat.

So if by "nanny" state, you mean big, rich, more educated states taking care of small, undereducated, under-producing, government subsidized states I guess you're right on the money.

Posted by: GB | March 9, 2007 05:51 PM

Using bipartisanship and democrats in the same sentence is incongruant.

Posted by: Richard | March 9, 2007 05:54 PM

I like to smoke cigarettes in my apartment

Posted by: Richard | March 9, 2007 05:59 PM

Hey, GB!

Those Blue States that produce everything and pay all the taxes have "red areas" that are the one's who produce everything and pay all the taxes. Red states also give the most to charity. The blue in blue states are just dependent city folk who need the government for everything.

Posted by: David | March 9, 2007 06:03 PM

I love the irony! Firstly let me say that smoking & smokers should be left alone to indulge in their habit. Secondly, I agree that when Democrats & Republicans can tie one one together they are more likely to get along & get more done that actually benefits the American people. Thirdly, The irony that Boener can only smoke among the party that wants to establish the Nanny State for "our own good" is not lost on me....this is priceless!

Posted by: John | March 9, 2007 06:07 PM

Last I heard, all those so-called Red States are on the dole to the Federal Government to keep them in business, while all the "Blue" state produce everything and pay all the taxes to keep their "Red" States afloat.

Not a problem...you blue states can keep your money, and our red states will keep their food crops. We'll see who lives longer.

Posted by: Sliver | March 9, 2007 06:10 PM

David, you don't know what you're talking about. The "red" areas in states like CA and NY, don't produce a fraction of what the "dependant city folk" produce. The technology, finance, and media sectors alone generate vastly greater amounts of revenue than any farmer or factory owner ever will. These industries also pay billions of $ in taxes every year. While the manufacturing and agricultural sectors get government handouts to stay in business. Get your facts straight before you make an ass out of yourself.

Posted by: GB | March 9, 2007 06:16 PM

GB, do you really think it is the dems that are producing all the corporate profits that are taxed, and income that is taxed? Do you not think a blue city is top heavy red and blue heavy bottom? So dems actually get to complaint about corporate fat cats.....then take credit for creating the federal revenue. Do you guys not even see when your positions don't match? Or do you even care?

Posted by: RP | March 9, 2007 06:22 PM

Silver,

Go ahead and keep our food crops. Luckily you won't have to drive your product to market because you won't be able to afford any infrastructure (like roads, for instance). Oh, and have fun without any functioning electrical grid, post office, police force, etc. Because if it wasn't for government handouts of $ that us "city folk" provide in the form of taxes, your state would be out of business.

Posted by: GB | March 9, 2007 06:25 PM

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Please re-phrase in English with proper grammer so that I may be enlightened. Thanks.

Posted by: RP | March 9, 2007 06:27 PM

Hold on a sec, since when did members of Congress become humans first and politicians third? (Smokers logging in at second, of course.) Perhaps I'm too used to my adopted European turf, where the party affiliations drop away more often than not after work hours - and rightly so. If smoking is what it takes to cinch the beltway gap, baby let's light their fires!

And here I was thinking constituencies are not well represented by the bitter, juvenile put-downs between elected officials. After reading some of your 'bi-partisan' comments (supposedly about this editorial, alas not), I think our Congress is spot-on and simply mirroring the citizen majority's 'he said/she said' playground mentality. It's the weekend; take a breath and a big step back - or better yet, a cigarette break.

Don't you know the difference between bull's eye and bulls**?
--from a recovering Texan, voter, smoker and Europe-dweller by choice and demand (yes, if I feel this way, I will gladly stay on this level-headed continent)

p.s. thanks john for reeling it back in on topic


Posted by: amsterdandi | March 9, 2007 06:29 PM

Another post by GB. Do you also think that productivity of a state is based on federal revenue? Do you not realize that federal revenue is but a fraction of the private sector. What is this strange pride in blue states. And again, I would argue that blue states are, of course, not totally blue. And as taxes are paid by basically the upper 30% of income earners, how much of that 30% do you really think is blue? So basically, it is the red folks of your blue states that are the producers. And of course it could be population density, not type of product, that is dictating the states that produce more federal revenue, but that would not fit with your go-blue-team-go attitude on the country.

Posted by: RP | March 9, 2007 06:32 PM

RP,

So you'll admit the coasts foot the bill for the fly-over. Thank you.

Posted by: GB | March 9, 2007 06:40 PM

Let's have a civil war? Red vs Blue
The Red will have guns and the Blue will have suicide bombers. Should be a formidable battle.

Posted by: | March 9, 2007 07:02 PM

I would love that. Somebody should just go ahead and bulldoze the entire middle of the country.

Posted by: GB | March 9, 2007 07:08 PM

Remember RP, when a wise man is arguing with a fool, it's hard to tell wich is wich.

Dont waste your time...his world is small, and he intends to keep it that way.

Posted by: BlueStateTom | March 9, 2007 07:12 PM

What a trivial, absurd topic. Doesn't the Washington Post have anything more important to do?

Posted by: Patrick Curry | March 9, 2007 07:13 PM

GB, you must be a teenager. You're so sure you know something that isn't so. It's amusing.
Some of what you are failing to grasp has already been explained, but consider this. If the red and blue states split(never happen), most of your "blue" producers will immediately move to a red state, as the red states would certainly be more business-friendly. What would be left in your blue states would be lines of people waiting for their government checks.

Posted by: Brian | March 9, 2007 07:21 PM

Hey thanks GB, thanks for making my house payment and buying my groceries !

Posted by: Rob the Red Stater | March 9, 2007 07:40 PM

No way does the Democrat Club make 10% of its profits from tobacco sales. They obviously got the exemption illegally -- because Washington is run by Democrats.

An investigative reporter should have little trouble confirming my that my speculation is spot on. Does such a beast still exist?

Posted by: v | March 9, 2007 07:46 PM

Oh for pete's sake! Ask someone who lives in (blue) New York.

Truth is New York DOES PRODUCE; but most of it ISN'T MONEY!!!! What money they do get goes to handout after handout to support fat, lazy, generational "reproducers", and the rest goes to line the pockets of corrupt lying politicians! And let's not forget about our outrageous taxes and drugs.

Try being one of the New Yorkers who works..Your money is SUCKED out of your pocket before you can get it home. New York is run by a powerful underground of "Demon"crats.

That's why the WORKING New Yorker can't even manage to save enough money to get out. The WORKING NEW YORKER needs all the help they can get from the red states.

THANK YOU RED states for your help.

Posted by: LJ | March 9, 2007 07:48 PM

Name-calling. Typical debate style of the Right (who, ironically, seem to be so wrong about almost everything). Unlike many of you, I'm not making a value judgement on "Red" states vs "Blue" states. I was obviously being facetious when I said "bulldoze the flyover".

My point is simply that it's disingenuous to call a Democratic represented state a "nanny" state. The fact of the matter is, most Federal Tax Revenue is generated by these so-called "nanny" states. This Federal $ is then re-appropriated to the smaller, less productive states. Many of these States would be bankrupt if it wasn't for government subsidies. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the the way it is. It's the price we pay for being in a Union and it's not a bad thing.

Additionally, I went on to make a joke about the term "nanny" by saying that the Blue States are acting as nannies to the Red States.

And when I say Red State and Blue State, I realize there is a mix of many political viewpoints within every state. I'm not referring to individuals, merely the State in which they live and it's general Red or Blue status.

But I'm probably being a little too nuanced for some of you "simpler" folks, so I'll sign off.

Besides, what the hell does any of this have to do with the oh so hard-hitting story of Boehner sneaking into the Dem Club to have smoke?

Posted by: GB | March 9, 2007 07:51 PM

You're welcome, Rob! Glad I could help.

Posted by: GB | March 9, 2007 07:53 PM

"Smoke'em if you got'em!"

Posted by: hack winston | March 9, 2007 08:14 PM

It doesn't matter if blue states "produce" the most money. If this was the case it's because of low taxes and probusiness incentives...which are "red" ideas. Do you think most businessmen are democrats? Pro business and low taxes = more money for everyone...including the government

Posted by: DRhee | March 9, 2007 08:25 PM

no way tobacco is the only thing they're smoking....but hey, I'm sure they do it like their savior, Slick Willy, and make sure not to inhale.

Posted by: redbluewhocares | March 9, 2007 08:29 PM

Hey GB

How can you say that you are not making value judgements about red staters when you refered to them as "undereducated". Typical leftist argument, lecture someone about namecalling and yet makes there own hypocrytical generalizations and stereotypes (without any sort of facts might I add). Why dont you go to inner cities in blue states to find failing educational systems!

Posted by: want to be in red state | March 9, 2007 08:36 PM

FYI Spelling on Symnns

Posted by: Idaho Mike | March 9, 2007 08:38 PM

If the choice is spending time with a midwest dairy farmer or a New York bond trader, I'd rather take my chances with the farmer. He probably wouldn't try to do my wife while picking my pocket.

Posted by: Richard | March 9, 2007 08:42 PM
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
Boehner. Gleam-Eyed Boehner. Bestride the mountain of power longer than the others, but, so what, hey, there they are, together, mountaineers. Admittedly, it is a COMPOST mountain, but nevertheless it is a mountain, their mountain, and they own it, if anybody does.

Take a puff. It's Springtime.

Posted by: HorizonScanner | March 9, 2007 08:48 PM

It looks to me like both sides are winning the name calling, insulting, and arrogance awards in a large chunk of this thread.

The idea that "red" states only produce food and get all of the subsidies (or none, depending) and the idea the the "blue" states only produce goods and money seems rather ignorant to me.

The states are for more diverse than that. And subsidies go across the board. I personally don't see much of a difference between the Dems and the Reps from the viewpoint that they're both constantly trying to legislate how I run my life. And they both portray themselves as being the opposite of that. Ultimately I don't trust either one of them, although I'm currently pretty damned sick of the level of venom coming from the left. However, I recall it being just as bad from the right during the Clinton years...

Posted by: NameCalling | March 9, 2007 08:58 PM

I just love election time...McCain will say and suck up to anyone to get votes and to have people like him...Edwards, is a total idiot! He can't even handle his own staff, do you honestly think that he would be any good under extreme situations, Iran with Nukes, or North Korea? And my favorite line from him so far was when he said Jesus would be appalled by America(Then he turned and went into his Hotel,oh wait his house)I like Obama, I like Clinton. There is just no way anyone will be us this time around...

Posted by: Belial666 | March 9, 2007 09:16 PM

I really must educate GB about the term "nanny state". It doesn't refer to a specific state or a specific geographic location or group of states. It refers to a federal government where the majority of the population begins to depend on it to provide not only for there financial welfare in some way, but their view that personal choices such as where and when a person can smoke a cigarette and where they can eat trans fats and any multitude of other personal choices can be best made by government beauracrats.

To make this a red state/blue state issue is just silly. I'm not calling you silly, I'm just poking fun at your point of view on this matter.

Posted by: Richard | March 9, 2007 09:32 PM

re: anti-smoking policies.
one of the most universal programs to prohibit smoking in public and government buildings,was not initiated by the left liberals in the u.s. but by the "left full government controll freaks" of nazi germany in c1933-1945,and of course all the same arguments about the reduction of cancer cases etc. were cited. It makes you think dose'nt it?


Posted by: george | March 9, 2007 09:54 PM

look at my name.

Posted by: penis | March 9, 2007 09:59 PM

And where does he go when he wants to snort coke and do hookers?

Posted by: Mr Magoo | March 9, 2007 10:11 PM

"look at my name."

....that might well be the most intelligent thing I've read throughout these posts.

Posted by: iron_man | March 9, 2007 10:23 PM

Nothing like being exempt from the rules.

Personally, I hope they all get cancer from it. Democrats, and republicans.

It just makes my blood boil that they can just exempt themselves from the rules that everybody else has to follow.

They have the best healthcare, that we fund, and don't have, vote themselves raises (or have to vote to NOT get one). It's endless.

They have no idea what it's like to live in America any more. They think they're above it all. They're so out of touch.

And I hate it so much.

Posted by: George Johnson | March 9, 2007 10:37 PM

You suck, Penis.

Posted by: Llamahrdr | March 9, 2007 10:39 PM

It is funny how a simple article on a Republican visiting the Dems resulted in name calling and a call for a civil war of red vs blue. We all claim to be sick of political mud-slinging, yet our first response is to do the exact same thing. I guess we never progressed much farther than the 3rd grade. Grow up and debate with logic, not insults.

Posted by: CDC | March 9, 2007 10:46 PM

Thank you for running this story. I have been staying home to drink since the smoking ban started, now I know I can smoke at the NDC, so I'm going to join up tomorrow so once again, I can smoke and drink at the same time in public. Up yours, Mayor Fenty and the Nonsmoking Fascist Brigade!

Posted by: Barclay | March 9, 2007 10:47 PM

I'm sorry for being me.

Posted by: nancy pelosi | March 9, 2007 10:55 PM

Why, Magoo - the Clinton library, of course!

Posted by: beez | March 9, 2007 11:11 PM

Red State - Blue State
The liberals wouldn't even allow that to stand as correct. Red has traditionally stood for the left as in Commie-pinko. Could it be that they are not real proud of what they are doing or they would be waving that red flag. This is the type of real blue smoke Boehner will get and on which we,in fly over country,are choking.


Posted by: True Blue | March 9, 2007 11:51 PM

I hate smoking, though I have the occasional cigar at times.
As much as I hate the Cig. smoke, I am starting to hate the anti Cig. people more.
I think I liked our leaders more when they drank more and smoked. What a wimpy society we have become. I think I may take up Cigs at age 45, what the heck. I will be 95 before I have to worry about lung cancer, right!

Posted by: TG Special | March 10, 2007 12:11 AM

I met Boehner in the 1990s, and he smoked like a chimney then. John, quit, before ya keel over.

Posted by: Cuthie | March 10, 2007 12:17 AM

I came here expecting to see a lot of funny comments on the irony of this news item, and what do I find? Right and left wing wack jobs taking their war to the internet once again. Don't you people have lives? Just once, ONCE, I'd like to arrange for you all to meet in a dark alley with lethal weapons. Maybe then the rest of us could come out here without being assaulted by the rantings of idiotic extremist political automatons. You people suck. I'm going out for a smoke. While I still can.

Posted by: JohnnyT | March 10, 2007 12:20 AM

look at my name

Posted by: cock | March 10, 2007 12:27 AM

The real poin is that we all seem to be ignorant of reality. There is something bigger than all of us. Yes, I speak of our Creator. I dare to say we did not create ourselves and we should look to God for guidance. There is no greater force than God's Love. Say what you want, that should be our starting point with all these discussions about politics in this great country.

Posted by: Immegrant | March 10, 2007 12:39 AM

www.myspace.com/joblessbob

Posted by: Jobless Bob | March 10, 2007 12:47 AM

I like to eat kittens when I smoke cigarettes.

Posted by: Ed Finklestein | March 10, 2007 01:14 AM

Ed, you're a poo-poo head!

Posted by: Burger King | March 10, 2007 01:15 AM

Leave it to some ninny to complain about smoking. Personally, where smoking is prohibited I try to expell as much gas as humanly possible.

Posted by: Scott | March 10, 2007 01:27 AM

I would rather keep my money at home, and use it for the betterment of my family, not taken by the "wise" federal government to be given to the "underprivilaged". I would much rather see a consumption tax, such as HR-25 ( [link to www.fairtax.org)] that would tax spending, not income.

The only reason that the Democrats are back in power is that they seek to buy votes, by offering huge handouts to the lower class, by working to remove as many Americans as they can from the tax rolls, and by raising taxes on those that actually earn the money in the country.

Remember, the top 1% or wage earners in this country pay 40% of the taxes, and the top 5% pay around 90%. How about tax cuts to those that actually earn the money? Works every time it's tried.

Posted by: Lothar | March 10, 2007 02:51 AM

I'm Newt Gingrich & Karl Rove's butt love child.

Posted by: PantyWaste | March 10, 2007 03:06 AM

We talk about Red/Blue states having this great divide. America is not at all a polarized nation, in fact most Americans (like myself )are very close to the center.

Think of the Red and Blue states like the Yin and Yan of Chinese medicine, when they are in balance you have good health.

Posted by: Mechanic | March 10, 2007 03:50 AM

democrats are idiots, they believe in welfare programs which means the poor stay poor because there is no point for them to try in school because they could get free money/food and the money we earn that we worked for all through school, the 2o+ years is given to the people that dont try, you also don't want war, we are hated by many right now and us getting hit by terrorists has a higher probability and you want to decrease our army spening haha you guys are fools

Posted by: Jake | March 10, 2007 03:59 AM

Civil war between the Red and Blue? Blue will have all the stock certificates, merger documents and business contracts. Red will have all the food and the guns. Hmmm... I'm good with that. How about you folks?

Posted by: Robert | March 10, 2007 04:05 AM

MAA: THIMMESCH here! Yes, it is a bit early in the morning (4:20 to be exact: what a coincidence) but nonetheless proud that AKERS! ran this blurb: The Washington Compost is getting its money's worth with you, darling! Well done: Roll Call, eat your heart out!

Love: THIMMESCH!

Posted by: nick.thimmesch@earthlink.net | March 10, 2007 04:23 AM

look at my name!!

Want one?

Posted by: hot karl | March 10, 2007 04:48 AM

I love working 4 to 5 months a year to help pay lazy asses to sit on their asses and do nothing. Ah socialism isn't it great. Thanks Dems brialliant sociilist ideas it works for everyone.

Posted by: real red | March 10, 2007 04:51 AM

just more liberal hypocrisy, they want to ban smoking everywhere but where they go.


Go Dems, you duh SURRENDER PARTY. GET US OUT OF IRAQ.


Posted by: M algore | March 10, 2007 05:54 AM

I am sitting here at my desk in Alaska.
Just got done eating a Caribou sausage, on homemade bread. (yes, I shot it, and processed it)
While reading these whining comments. I have a cigarette burning in the ashtray, and a strong pot of java brewing on the wood stove.(not Starbucks)
It is -36 deg. F out side, as I type this. But, I know that I have a big wood pile that I cut, split and stacked.
I glance around the cabin that my wife and kids, built ourselves years ago. Over my desk is a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America, a Cross, and a picture of my wife. I see the pictures of the kids, and Grandkids on the walls. The honorable discharges and military awards, by the gun cabinet, and foot locker.(from a war fought far away) The LEO certifications and shooting trophy's, in the far corner, by the reloading bench. The dogs curled up on the rug covered floor. The cat on the couch, next to the quilt.(that my wife made)

I see a life's achievements, the touch of a wonderful loving wife, and the Grace of God.

I know in my heart, that we are a dying breed.

We raised up two girls, and one boy.
They grew up to be hard working, drug free. and self sufficient. They are now all happily married, and parents themselves.

NOT ONCE, did ANY family member get public ASSistance, nor welfare.

We believe in the following:

God
King James Bible
Family values
The Constitution Of The United States

As a old fart.
I find some of the comments made here appalling.

This country USED to be.
"RED WHITE and BLUE"

A man WITH a gun is a CITIZEN
A man WITHOUT gun is a SUBJECT

BTW: As a Conservative American, I am lighting up another cigarette!

Out here. NO Liberal panty waist, is going to TELL me that I cant smoke.

The ONLY ones who have the authority to tell me what to do.

Is God, and my wife.

Take care, be safe.
God Bless.
Chris - Alaska

Posted by: Grizzly | March 10, 2007 06:20 AM

I think a lot of you guys are missing the point here. This article is meant as a bit of light humour. Rest your polemics for another space.

Posted by: | March 10, 2007 06:22 AM

God Bless you Grizzly! The rest of you need to lighten up!

Posted by: chris | March 10, 2007 06:53 AM

Can't anyone in this group spell anything correctly?

Posted by: susankit | March 10, 2007 06:58 AM

golly, how much does a hot shot sleuth like Mary Ann get for coming up with her sLight humor?

Posted by: Sandy | March 10, 2007 07:21 AM

Good Lord folks.....the story was about a gut wanting a smoke. The only real question is, did he smoke ciggerettes or did he have enough class to smoke a decent cigar? Jeez, does everything have to start a uncivil war?

Posted by: tomasco50 | March 10, 2007 08:44 AM

The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to legislate over the District of Columbia. What is the source of the power of the District of Columbia to regulate where members of Congress smoke -- or do anything else, for that matter.

The District of Columbia is not a State; it is the seat of the government of the United States and nothing more. This is not a recent change; I doubt if there are very many people living there now who were alive when the Constitutional status was established, so anyone who is there now is there with the full knowledge of the status of the District. If they are unhappy with that status, they are free to move elsewhere.

Posted by: lgp | March 10, 2007 09:09 AM

Democrats, under Pelosi's poison-regs would have us Americans give up our less than perfect lifestyles, while allowing their own imperfections excused, legislated and indulgenced. Very much like Al Gore's indulgence to squander natural energy in his lavish lifestyle while asking us to cut back on everything. Typical, typical typical of Democratic double standards

Posted by: Bob Kord | March 10, 2007 09:22 AM

right on Grizzly!!!

Posted by: xo | March 10, 2007 09:23 AM

This is just typical of people in power. They feel all wonderful about "smoke free workplaces" but when they realize that means they can't have a smoke with their after-work drink, then they try to carve out exemptions for themselves.

The rest of us have to live under the continuing oppression. And I'm not just talking about smoking laws. I'm a non-smoker

Posted by: Jason | March 10, 2007 09:28 AM

"I love working 4 to 5 months a year to help pay lazy asses to sit on their asses and do nothing. Ah socialism isn't it great."

Well I certainly see who's more intelligent. You slave away 60+ hours a week at a desk, while they sit on the front porch of their free government housing and light up. They have all the free time for friends, family, and fornication while you barely get a week or two a year where you have to take care of home maintenance, sick kids, and major holiday preparations. You get sensitivity training and learn never to approach a woman for fear of harrassment charges, they're out living your wildest fantasies and breeding like rabbits. Your bitter that you've been outsmarted and outvoted but your greed and pride just won't let go. You've been shackled like a beast of burden to pull the sled upon which they ride...and still you think you're the smart one!


Posted by: Bling | March 10, 2007 09:34 AM

Red-blue, black-white, male-female, gay-straight... where does it end? You all exemplify what is so very wrong with this simple minded and divided country. We look like fools and for good reason. There's so much more to the world than our petty bickering. Over-population, disease, pollution, crime, education, conservation, energy... we are failing miserably. Remember what happened to Rome? We too shall fall. Maybe we already have.

Posted by: PJK | March 10, 2007 09:38 AM

"But I'm probably being a little too nuanced for some of you "simpler" folks, so I'll sign off."

Simpler isn't stupid, GB. Although I can see where it might appear that way to you when you consider the fact that those "simpler folks" are out working while you're sitting at home posting on a blog.

Posted by: semkins | March 10, 2007 09:58 AM
Shadow

User ID: 205416
Canada
03/10/2007 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
inhale smog from plants and cars all day long and ingest and inhale posionous chemicals every moment of your miserable waking lives but you haven't got the balls or guts to do anything about it besides teeing off on smokers, even in the suposed sanctuary of their own homes
 Quoting: Suck the smog 137330


Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it? I guess citizens are easier to sue than corps.
Over the side and damn the barracuda
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2298
United States
03/10/2007 10:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
If everyone would go back to smoking pure tobacco instead of the chemical laden cancer sticks produced by the cigarette industry, no one would be complaining about their smoke. But what is produced by modern cigarettes is simply another dangerous pollutant that needs to be controlled, especially since it is a totally unnecessary and frivolous pollutant, not like the pollution produced by gas that propels the cars that take people to jobs that provide food and shelter for their families, or the pollutants that come from providing heat in the winter time and keeps people from freezing to death.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 696
Netherlands
03/10/2007 10:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
Who wants to bet a pack of cigarettes that the lawyer is a jew...
SpectrumBlue

User ID: 181546
United States
03/10/2007 10:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
I don't smoke and I'm actually allergic to it, but sueing someone for lighting up in her own garden is screwed up.

It's her OWN friggen garden!! Anal retentive assholes! She should be able to smoke anywhere on her property without fear of being sued.
Dreams will begin as they fade into chaos.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 200910
United States
03/10/2007 10:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
I don't smoke and I'm actually allergic to it, but sueing someone for lighting up in her own garden is screwed up.

It's her OWN friggen garden!! Anal retentive assholes! She should be able to smoke anywhere on her property without fear of being sued.
 Quoting: SpectrumBlue

That's true if the smoke stays on her property. If it doesn't, too f***** bad for her.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 11:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
If everyone would go back to smoking pure tobacco instead of the chemical laden cancer sticks produced by the cigarette industry, no one would be complaining about their smoke. But what is produced by modern cigarettes is simply another dangerous pollutant that needs to be controlled, especially since it is a totally unnecessary and frivolous pollutant, not like the pollution produced by gas that propels the cars that take people to jobs that provide food and shelter for their families, or the pollutants that come from providing heat in the winter time and keeps people from freezing to death.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2298



yes i think you are correct. my family was in the restaurant business and i've been around cigarettes since i was washing dishes at my dad's restaurant since the age of 8 and i don't remember tobacco smoke being all that bothersome. but i also bet there were way fewer chemicals then too. for instance, didn't they just add a retardant in recent years that makes the cig go out if it's burning and not being smoked to cut down on fires? some moves like that are good, but not if the chemical is too dangerous itself. someone here posted the list of ingredients allowed in cigs by the fda. i think it was 500+ chemicals and additives. do we really need 500+ plus additives in a product based on ONE ingredient - tobacco?

maybe your problem lies in there, non-smokers. it's not our fault they're adding all this crap to them. where's our choice in getting 100% natural tobacco at a reasonable price?

i'd also like to see the exact arguments being made by non-smokers over the decades. i'd like to see how the movement against public tobacco use grew and what were the reasons and reactions. i'm not saying even natural smoke is not bothersome, or even potentially unhealthy (there is no conclusive evidence second-hand smoker leads to canacer) but i'd just like to see how the argument has evolved.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 11:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
here let's post the list again, for old times' sake

(only a-to-c alphabetically):


The List of Additives A through C
The list of 599 additives approved by the US Government for use in the manufacture of cigarettes is something every smoker should see. Submitted by the five major American cigarette companies to the Dept. of Health and Human Services in April of 1994, this list of ingredients had long been kept a secret.

Tobacco companies reporting this information were:

American Tobacco Company
Brown and Williamson
Liggett Group, Inc.
Philip Morris Inc.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
While these ingredients are approved as additives for foods, they were not tested by burning them, and it is the burning of many of these substances which changes their properties, often for the worse. Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette, many of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic.
Sponsored Links
Additives
Arkema Inc. produces performance additives
www.arkema-inc.com

Smoking Cessation
Get advice and support here. Brought to you by NicoDerm Canada.
www.NicoDerm.ca

Quit Smoking In 3 Hours?
Find Out How Easy Quitting Can Be. You Will Never Want To Smoke Again!
www.EasyQuitSystem.com
Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia are all present in cigarette smoke. Forty-three known carcinogens are in mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke, or both.

It's chilling to think about not only how smokers poison themselves, but what others are exposed to by breathing in the secondhand smoke. The next time you're missing your old buddy, the cigarette, take a good long look at this list and see them for what they are: a delivery system for toxic chemicals and carcinogens.

Cigarettes offer people only a multitude of smoking-related diseases and ultimately death.

The List
Acetanisole
Acetic Acid
Acetoin
Acetophenone
6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane
2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine
2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran
Acetylpyrazine
2-Acetylpyridine
3-Acetylpyridine
2-Acetylthiazole
Aconitic Acid
dl-Alanine
Alfalfa Extract
Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil
Allyl Hexanoate
Allyl Ionone
Almond Bitter Oil
Ambergris Tincture
Ammonia
Ammonium Bicarbonate
Ammonium Hydroxide
Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic
Ammonium Sulfide
Amyl Alcohol
Amyl Butyrate
Amyl Formate
Amyl Octanoate
alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde
Amyris Oil
trans-Anethole
Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil
Anise
Anise Star, Extract and Oils
Anisyl Acetate
Anisyl Alcohol
Anisyl Formate
Anisyl Phenylacetate
Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins
Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate
1-Arginine
Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil
Ascorbic Acid
1-Asparagine Monohydrate
1-Aspartic Acid
Balsam Peru and Oil
Basil Oil
Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil
Beeswax White
Beet Juice Concentrate
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal
Benzoic Acid, Benzoin
Benzoin Resin
Benzophenone
Benzyl Alcohol
Benzyl Benzoate
Benzyl Butyrate
Benzyl Cinnamate
Benzyl Propionate
Benzyl Salicylate
Bergamot Oil
Bisabolene
Black Currant Buds Absolute
Borneol
Bornyl Acetate
Buchu Leaf Oil
1,3-Butanediol
2,3-Butanedione
1-Butanol
2-Butanone
4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-One
Butter, Butter Esters, and Butter Oil
Butyl Acetate
Butyl Butyrate
Butyl Butyryl Lactate
Butyl Isovalerate
Butyl Phenylacetate
Butyl Undecylenate
3-Butylidenephthalide
Butyric Acid]
Cadinene
Caffeine
Calcium Carbonate
Camphene
Cananga Oil
Capsicum Oleoresin
Caramel Color
Caraway Oil
Carbon Dioxide
Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder
Carob Bean and Extract
beta-Carotene
Carrot Oil
Carvacrol
4-Carvomenthenol
1-Carvone
beta-Caryophyllene
beta-Caryophyllene Oxide
Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract
Cassia Bark Oil
Cassie Absolute and Oil
Castoreum Extract, Tincture and Absolute
Cedar Leaf Oil
Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana
Cedrol
Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin
Cellulose Fiber
Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract
Chicory Extract
Chocolate
Cinnamaldehyde
Cinnamic Acid
Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract
Cinnamyl Acetate
Cinnamyl Alcohol
Cinnamyl Cinnamate
Cinnamyl Isovalerate
Cinnamyl Propionate
Citral
Citric Acid
Citronella Oil
dl-Citronellol
Citronellyl Butyrate
itronellyl Isobutyrate
Civet Absolute
Clary Oil
Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract
Cocoa
Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder
Coconut Oil
Coffee
Cognac White and Green Oil
Copaiba Oil
Coriander Extract and Oil
Corn Oil
Corn Silk
Costus Root Oil
Cubeb Oil
Cuminaldehyde
para-Cymene
1-Cysteine

rest of the list here

[link to quitsmoking.about.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 11:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
While these ingredients are approved as additives for foods, they were not tested by burning them, and it is the burning of many of these substances which changes their properties, often for the worse. Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette, many of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic.


did you get that you non-smoking morons? the list is APPROVED for YOUR FOOD TOO
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 11:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
restaurant customer: yes, can i get a new york strip steak, rare, oh and some Cuminaldehyde on the side, too please? thank you very much (smiles)

waitress: how was your meal sir?

customer (smiles): just fantastic, thank you very much. we'd like to have a couple of nice big slices of Citronellyl Butyrate, for dessert, please (smiles). that's like lemon pie, right?

waitress: oh yes sir, that was baked fresh on the premises today.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 204409
United States
03/10/2007 11:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
Smoking's good for us, even better than war. Like combat, it helps kill off excess people, but, unlike the taxes we pay to send cannonfodder somewhere, those dying smokers pay for their own deaths.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 11:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
I don't smoke and I'm actually allergic to it, but sueing someone for lighting up in her own garden is screwed up.

It's her OWN friggen garden!! Anal retentive assholes! She should be able to smoke anywhere on her property without fear of being sued.

That's true if the smoke stays on her property. If it doesn't, too f***** bad for her.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 200910



go read the story. does the smoker sit in her garden 24/7 smoking with the prevailing winds always blowing towards the guy's house? every time he opens his door smoke comes in. the smoke always makes a beeline just towards his door and windows. yeah right, give me a break
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 11:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
I don't smoke and I'm actually allergic to it, but sueing someone for lighting up in her own garden is screwed up.

It's her OWN friggen garden!! Anal retentive assholes! She should be able to smoke anywhere on her property without fear of being sued.

That's true if the smoke stays on her property. If it doesn't, too f***** bad for her.



go read the story. does the smoker sit in her garden 24/7 smoking with the prevailing winds always blowing towards the guy's house? every time he opens his door smoke comes in. the smoke always makes a beeline just towards his door and windows. yeah right, give me a break
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 137330



looks like they're gonna have to ban outdoor BBQ's soon too, morons
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2298
United States
03/10/2007 11:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
I know that for me, my aversion to secondhand smoke began when cigarette smoke stopped smelling like tobacco, which I always loved, and began to smell like something really putrid that irritated me all day and made me hate the co-workers who were smoking around me, to the point that I quit working for a few years and lived off my savings until when I went back to work, cigarettes had been outlawed in the workplace. I remember telling the smokers that they were causing pollution and it should be outlawed just like other forms of pollution, and they either laughed, or got angry. But what I hoped for and predicted came true. I just knew people wouldn't be able to put up with that putrid smell much longer and I was right.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 137330
United States
03/10/2007 11:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Humanity loses it: Smoker sued for lighting up in her garden
I don't smoke and I'm actually allergic to it, but sueing someone for lighting up in her own garden is screwed up.

It's her OWN friggen garden!! Anal retentive assholes! She should be able to smoke anywhere on her property without fear of being sued.

That's true if the smoke stays on her property. If it doesn't, too f***** bad for her.



go read the story. does the smoker sit in her garden 24/7 smoking with the prevailing winds always blowing towards the guy's house? every time he opens his door smoke comes in. the smoke always makes a beeline just towards his door and windows. yeah right, give me a break



looks like they're gonna have to ban outdoor BBQ's soon too, morons
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 137330



i'm a vegetarian. the smell from my neighbors' BBQing meats makes me nauseous. I'M GONNA SUE ALL MEATEATERS


LOL

News