Miller High Life voiceover actor?

[a***@MIX.COM]

At any rate, to collect on my bet, I believe my best chance isn't to prove
that the actor-of-ridiculously-high-stature didn't do it, but to prove
that somebody else did. The terms of the bet only specify that I need to
prove the actor didn't do it, but short of contacting the actor or his
management to get a direct "What are you smoking?"

This is generally a pretty good way to find out... Most actors have
agents who will happily talk about all the stuff their guys have done.

I can't think of a
better way to prove my point.

Well, there's an ad agency and some production company who would know
for sure. But I don't kow who either of these are. They would probably
be easy to find, by asking the press/pr people at Miller who did those
ads for them. A few quick phone calls should suffice here...

Frequently cheap-o actors that sound like someone a lot more expensive
are used, especially when it's just a voice over and you never actually
see them on camera.

Billy Y..

[Paul Wylie]

***@mix.com wrote:
[...]

Post by a***@MIX.COM
Frequently cheap-o actors that sound like someone a lot more expensive
are used, especially when it's just a voice over and you never actually
see them on camera.

Well, in this particular case, the voiceover actor didn't seem to be
trying to sound particularly like the actor my adversary claims did the
voiceover. I think it's just a case of temporary insanity here.

At any rate, somebody on Panix found the actor responsible is a guy named
Doug Jeffers.

http://www.dougjeffers.com/commercials.htm

His "Mixed promo demo" has a Miller High Life commercial as the first item
in the demo.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

[Jim Thompson]

I realize this is an incredibly inane question, but I'm involved in a bet
with someone who shall remain nameless

Anthony Hopkins?
--Blair
"This game is more fun than yours."

Blair, I missed it... did you write a letter-to-the-editor? All I've
seen is the "attack" responses ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson

"This game is more fun than yours."

Blair, I missed it... did you write a letter-to-the-editor? All I've
seen is the "attack" responses ;-)

Go to the Arizona Republic website and put "Houghton"
in the search box at the bottom-left and you should
find it. The eds titled it "It's not just the ban."
You can put Russel's name in to find his original letter
I was responding to.

I've already sent a reply to his reply to my response to
his letter, because I think he's decided to completely
change the subject. The submission guidelines said
replying to letters is okay, but replies to replies
would usually not get printed, so I wasn't expecting his
response, and frankly I don't think it warranted printing,
so I hope they'll be fair with my reply and print it,
because I think it brings the issue back into the front
of the discussion.

--Blair
"And if you can follow that, you're
one up on me."

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson

"This game is more fun than yours."

Blair, I missed it... did you write a letter-to-the-editor? All I've
seen is the "attack" responses ;-)

Go to the Arizona Republic website and put "Houghton"
in the search box at the bottom-left and you should
find it. The eds titled it "It's not just the ban."
You can put Russel's name in to find his original letter
I was responding to.
I've already sent a reply to his reply to my response to
his letter, because I think he's decided to completely
change the subject. The submission guidelines said
replying to letters is okay, but replies to replies
would usually not get printed, so I wasn't expecting his
response, and frankly I don't think it warranted printing,
so I hope they'll be fair with my reply and print it,
because I think it brings the issue back into the front
of the discussion.
--Blair
"And if you can follow that, you're
one up on me."

I can't find your letter... looks like it timed out on the site :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

[Paul Wylie]

Post by Jim Thompson
I can't find your letter... looks like it timed out on the site :-(

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/0710selets07102.html

Or, the wrap-friendly version:

http://tinyurl.com/hobj

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Paul Wylie

Post by Paul Wylie

Post by Jim Thompson
I can't find your letter... looks like it timed out on the site :-(

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/0710selets07102.html
http://tinyurl.com/hobj
--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

Looks like Blair and I have different ideas about government
regulation of businesses.

While I'm a non-smoker I just don't understand why government should
have *any* say in whether I allow smoking in my establishment.

Ask Adam Selden, GM of John Henry's restaurant in Tempe, what
no-smoking regulations have done for his bar business.

I guess if you elect a queer for Mayor that's what you get.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

[Paul Wylie]

Post by Jim Thompson
Looks like Blair and I have different ideas about government
regulation of businesses.
While I'm a non-smoker I just don't understand why government should
have *any* say in whether I allow smoking in my establishment.
Ask Adam Selden, GM of John Henry's restaurant in Tempe, what
no-smoking regulations have done for his bar business.
I guess if you elect a queer for Mayor that's what you get.

Not to change topics, but that's certainly a non-sequitur. The fact is
that the Tempe smoking ban was passed in a really low-turnout election. I
don't have the figures handy, but ISTR seeing turnout was somewhere around
20%. If Tempe voters really wanted to keep smoking in their bars, they
only had to actually show up at the polls and vote against the ban.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:42:27 +0000 (UTC), Paul Wylie

Post by Paul Wylie

Post by Jim Thompson
Looks like Blair and I have different ideas about government
regulation of businesses.
While I'm a non-smoker I just don't understand why government should
have *any* say in whether I allow smoking in my establishment.
Ask Adam Selden, GM of John Henry's restaurant in Tempe, what
no-smoking regulations have done for his bar business.
I guess if you elect a queer for Mayor that's what you get.

Not to change topics, but that's certainly a non-sequitur. The fact is
that the Tempe smoking ban was passed in a really low-turnout election. I
don't have the figures handy, but ISTR seeing turnout was somewhere around
20%. If Tempe voters really wanted to keep smoking in their bars, they
only had to actually show up at the polls and vote against the ban.
--Paul

I'm sure that's true... I guess no one gives a damn... until it's too
late :-(


...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

[Brian Trosko]

Post by Paul Wylie
don't have the figures handy, but ISTR seeing turnout was somewhere around
20%. If Tempe voters really wanted to keep smoking in their bars, they
only had to actually show up at the polls and vote against the ban.

Those aren't "their" bars.

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Paul Wylie
don't have the figures handy, but ISTR seeing turnout was somewhere around
20%. If Tempe voters really wanted to keep smoking in their bars, they
only had to actually show up at the polls and vote against the ban.

Those aren't "their" bars.

Eminent domain says otherwise.

Then nobody owns property but the state.
You comfortable with that?

I have the deed to my property. I know the parameters
of my "ownership". They're rather broad, and include
fair-value compensation for most sorts of taking. Yes,
I am comfortable with that. Especially since it means
that I, as a member of our democratic government, have a
voice in (the properly painful process of) throwing bad
actors off what they erroneously believe is property from
which they can not be evicted.

No man is an island.

--Blair
"Though some try to be median strips."

[Brian Trosko]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Brian Trosko
Those aren't "their" bars.

Eminent domain says otherwise.

Then nobody owns property but the state.
You comfortable with that?

I have the deed to my property.

And the bar owners have the deed to their property.

Post by Blair P. Houghton
I know the parameters
of my "ownership".

Do you?

Post by Blair P. Houghton
They're rather broad, and include
fair-value compensation for most sorts of taking.

So what makes your house any more your property than the bar the bar
owner's property?

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Brian Trosko
Those aren't "their" bars.

Eminent domain says otherwise.

Then nobody owns property but the state.
You comfortable with that?

I have the deed to my property.

And the bar owners have the deed to their property.

Post by Blair P. Houghton
I know the parameters
of my "ownership".

Do you?

Post by Blair P. Houghton
They're rather broad, and include
fair-value compensation for most sorts of taking.

So what makes your house any more your property than the bar the bar
owner's property?

I don't see why that's an issue.

--Blair
"Do you?"

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson
Looks like Blair and I have different ideas about government
regulation of businesses.

Not so different, once you learn a few things about how
it works. Basically, I don't think any business should
be run on the basis of endangering the public.

Post by Jim Thompson
While I'm a non-smoker I just don't understand why government should
have *any* say in whether I allow smoking in my establishment.

The government has to pay the medical bills for your
employees when they show up with lung cancer and no
insurance 30 years later.

Oh, and by "the government" I mean "your tax dollars,
man."

Making the butt-heads walk outside to light up saves you
money. Which is the Republican reason to support the ban.
The thing about the lung cancer is the Democrat reason.
Which just leaves Libertarians and other irrational actors.

Post by Jim Thompson
Ask Adam Selden, GM of John Henry's restaurant in Tempe, what
no-smoking regulations have done for his bar business.

Actually, I think the new Happy-Hour structure at The Vine
across the parking lot has done more to adjust that.

Which was my original point. People are blaming the
smoking ban, but I've seen no credible evidence of the
cause and effect.

Does JH's have a TV in there? I haven't been inside
since about '95. Remind me to tell the story of how we
all went to McGurk's one Friday in 1990 or '91 for H-Hour
and discovered it had been completely renovated and turned
into a froofy eurocentric restaurant and they made us a
pizza (even though there's no pizza on the menu) and it
was the best pizza we've ever had...wait...I just did,
so you don't have to remind me.

Anyway, if he's got a TV, I think I'll be in there tomorrow
afternoon to watch the Diamondbacks' game.

Post by Jim Thompson
I guess if you elect a queer for Mayor that's what you get.

Don't tell Dubya. He'll wonder why it's okay for a President
to be congenitally bent.

--Blair
"Beer doesn't need you to smoke."

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
Looks like Blair and I have different ideas about government
regulation of businesses.

Not so different, once you learn a few things about how
it works. Basically, I don't think any business should
be run on the basis of endangering the public.

Maybe cigarettes should be banned?

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
While I'm a non-smoker I just don't understand why government should
have *any* say in whether I allow smoking in my establishment.

The government has to pay the medical bills for your
employees when they show up with lung cancer and no
insurance 30 years later.

I would require tobacco purchasers to sign a waiver, waiving their
right to free medical care.

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Oh, and by "the government" I mean "your tax dollars,
man."
Making the butt-heads walk outside to light up saves you
money. Which is the Republican reason to support the ban.
The thing about the lung cancer is the Democrat reason.
Which just leaves Libertarians and other irrational actors.

I believe the second-hand-smoke theory has been full quashed.

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
Ask Adam Selden, GM of John Henry's restaurant in Tempe, what
no-smoking regulations have done for his bar business.

Actually, I think the new Happy-Hour structure at The Vine
across the parking lot has done more to adjust that.
Which was my original point. People are blaming the
smoking ban, but I've seen no credible evidence of the
cause and effect.
Does JH's have a TV in there? I haven't been inside
since about '95. Remind me to tell the story of how we
all went to McGurk's one Friday in 1990 or '91 for H-Hour
and discovered it had been completely renovated and turned
into a froofy eurocentric restaurant and they made us a
pizza (even though there's no pizza on the menu) and it
was the best pizza we've ever had...wait...I just did,
so you don't have to remind me.
Anyway, if he's got a TV, I think I'll be in there tomorrow
afternoon to watch the Diamondbacks' game.

I think he has a TV in there. I eat regularly in the restaurant (Adam
has a wine-tasting/dinner event about once a month), but I don't go
into bars.

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
I guess if you elect a queer for Mayor that's what you get.

Don't tell Dubya. He'll wonder why it's okay for a President
to be congenitally bent.
--Blair
"Beer doesn't need you to smoke."

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

[Paul Wylie]

Jim Thompson <Jim-***@analog_innovations.com> wrote:
[...]

Post by Jim Thompson
I believe the second-hand-smoke theory has been full quashed.

[...]

It's not so much that it's been disproved, as much as the "facts"
surrounding the claims have been shown not to support the claims (neither
do they explicitly disprove the claims--they're inconclusive). However,
only one widely-misquoted study has been done on the topic, so the jury is
still out. It certainly seems sensible, though, that if first-hand smoke
is bad for you, then second-hand smoke isn't likely to be good for you.

I've never seen a study proving that lighting yourself on fire is bad for
you, but I have a pretty good idea that it isn't.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:36:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul Wylie

Post by Paul Wylie
[...]

Post by Jim Thompson
I believe the second-hand-smoke theory has been full quashed.

[...]
It's not so much that it's been disproved, as much as the "facts"
surrounding the claims have been shown not to support the claims (neither
do they explicitly disprove the claims--they're inconclusive). However,
only one widely-misquoted study has been done on the topic, so the jury is
still out. It certainly seems sensible, though, that if first-hand smoke
is bad for you, then second-hand smoke isn't likely to be good for you.
I've never seen a study proving that lighting yourself on fire is bad for
you, but I have a pretty good idea that it isn't.
--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

Actually I don't go to restaurants that have smoking sections. I was
just arguing the against the government heavy-handiness.

I think customers "regulate" business behavior, unless, of course,
you're Microsoft ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

[Bob Nielsen]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:36:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul Wylie

Post by Paul Wylie
[...]

Post by Jim Thompson
I believe the second-hand-smoke theory has been full quashed.

[...]
It's not so much that it's been disproved, as much as the "facts"
surrounding the claims have been shown not to support the claims (neither
do they explicitly disprove the claims--they're inconclusive). However,
only one widely-misquoted study has been done on the topic, so the jury is
still out. It certainly seems sensible, though, that if first-hand smoke
is bad for you, then second-hand smoke isn't likely to be good for you.
I've never seen a study proving that lighting yourself on fire is bad for
you, but I have a pretty good idea that it isn't.
--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

Actually I don't go to restaurants that have smoking sections. I was
just arguing the against the government heavy-handiness.
I think customers "regulate" business behavior, unless, of course,
you're Microsoft ;-)

One of the local restaurants recently (and voluntarily) eliminated
smoking. While the bar initially lost some patronage, the overall
result is that many people who were previously offended by the smoke
(which was pretty bad, as it is a small place) have started going there
and the overall business has improved.

However, there are way too many things which government gets into and
once involved, they tend to stay involved.

As Jefferson said, "That government which governs least, governs best."
And he was a Democrat!

Unfortunately, government is like entropy, it can only increase.

Bob Nielsen
Bainbridge Island, WA

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Bob Nielsen
However, there are way too many things which government gets into and
once involved, they tend to stay involved.

I won't disagree with the fact that there are some
things government fucks up royally, but banning smoking
in enclosed public (or publican) spaces isn't one of them.
Using this issue to lobby for smaller government only
weakens the argument for smaller government.

My replies to Rick Russell are only necessary to inform
the less intelligent among the Republic's readers that
they're not fooling anyone.

Post by Bob Nielsen
As Jefferson said, "That government which governs least, governs best."
And he was a Democrat!

And he was living 200 years ago, before anyone had figured
out how to fake revenues by setting up offshore corporate
rondeaus.

Post by Bob Nielsen
Unfortunately, government is like entropy, it can only increase.

I don't think it's a law of nature, but, as our President
is demonstrating for us, neither is mendacity on the topic.

--Blair
"I bet the Rothschilds had a few
rondeaus nobody knew about..."

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Basically, I don't think any business should
be run on the basis of endangering the public.

Maybe cigarettes should be banned?

Almost certainly tobacco should be banned as a public
menace. Instead, with the assistance of industry
lobbyists, we refuse to regulate it properly, and instead
see it as a means for the government to profit from the
addictive poisoning of future cancer patients. Which is
no way to run a government, either.

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton
The government has to pay the medical bills for your
employees when they show up with lung cancer and no
insurance 30 years later.

I would require tobacco purchasers to sign a waiver, waiving their
right to free medical care.

I think it's more humane to make it so they can't start
smoking.

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Oh, and by "the government" I mean "your tax dollars,
man."
Making the butt-heads walk outside to light up saves you
money. Which is the Republican reason to support the ban.
The thing about the lung cancer is the Democrat reason.
Which just leaves Libertarians and other irrational actors.

I believe the second-hand-smoke theory has been full quashed.

The fact is, no study funded by tobacco companies has found
a link, and no study not affiliated with the industry has
not found a link.

I tend to believe the truly independent research, because
it's independent.

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Anyway, if he's got a TV, I think I'll be in there tomorrow
afternoon to watch the Diamondbacks' game.

I think he has a TV in there. I eat regularly in the restaurant (Adam
has a wine-tasting/dinner event about once a month), but I don't go
into bars.

I didn't go today. We were aiming for the Vine since
Tuesday and I got distracted. I think more people are
voting with their wallets than their feet on that corner.
HD's side of the lot was empty for lunch, but The Vine's
was busier than usual. And both have exactly the same
air-quality restrictions. The Vine is marketing much more
successfully lately. HD's needs to get out the vote.

Both of them will be losing more of my business in the
future, because I've found an alternative: I bought a
really nice grill, and a Tilia FoodSaver, and now when I
see steaks on special (Ribeyes are $3.49/lb at Fry's right
now) I buy 3 or more; vacuum-packed by the FoodSaver they
keep for up to 2 years. Burgers, bratwursts, spatchcocked
chickens, lamb, you name it. I'm set for a long Winter.

--Blair
"Now make the argument that I'm doing
to my arteries what I say you shouldn't
be allowed to do to your lungs. And
I'll make the argument that I'm getting
calories, protein, and vitamins out of
it; where you're just getting the weakest
buzz known to heads."

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Basically, I don't think any business should
be run on the basis of endangering the public.

Maybe cigarettes should be banned?

Almost certainly tobacco should be banned as a public
menace. Instead, with the assistance of industry
lobbyists, we refuse to regulate it properly, and instead
see it as a means for the government to profit from the
addictive poisoning of future cancer patients. Which is
no way to run a government, either.

[snip]

I disagree. I'm a Scot by ancestry. Smoked a pipe for 38 years.
Quit smoking upon insistence by the "management" when we built the new
house. Five years later had a heart attack... must've been quitting
that caused it ;-) Smoking is in my ancestry... yet my father is
still alive and quite healthy (will be 85 on Columbus Day). I always
enjoyed my pipe... might even go back to going outdoors ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

[Marc 182]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Basically, I don't think any business should
be run on the basis of endangering the public.

Maybe cigarettes should be banned?

Almost certainly tobacco should be banned as a public
menace. Instead, with the assistance of industry
lobbyists, we refuse to regulate it properly, and instead
see it as a means for the government to profit from the
addictive poisoning of future cancer patients. Which is
no way to run a government, either.

[snip]
I disagree. I'm a Scot by ancestry. Smoked a pipe for 38 years.
Quit smoking upon insistence by the "management" when we built the new
house. Five years later had a heart attack... must've been quitting
that caused it ;-) Smoking is in my ancestry... yet my father is
still alive and quite healthy (will be 85 on Columbus Day). I always
enjoyed my pipe... might even go back to going outdoors ;-)

This is anecdotal, means absolutely nothing.

Mark

[Marc 182]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:21:14 -0700, Marc 182
[snip]

Post by Marc 182

Post by Jim Thompson
I disagree. I'm a Scot by ancestry. Smoked a pipe for 38 years.
Quit smoking upon insistence by the "management" when we built the new
house. Five years later had a heart attack... must've been quitting
that caused it ;-) Smoking is in my ancestry... yet my father is
still alive and quite healthy (will be 85 on Columbus Day). I always
enjoyed my pipe... might even go back to going outdoors ;-)

This is anecdotal, means absolutely nothing.
Mark

Of course it's anecdotal. My point is that every individual reacts
differently to "chemical" exposure. *All* my ancestors smoked, *none*
had lung cancer. Of those that didn't die early in accidents, *all*
lived past 85.

The information about your ancestors is also anecdotal and means
nothing. Inserting asterisks does not enhance the quality of the data.
It also doesn't support your point, the individual is not his ancestors.

Your point that every individual reacts differently to chemical exposure
is well taken, however it's also pointless because it's not predictive.

Marc

[Brian Trosko]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
I would require tobacco purchasers to sign a waiver, waiving their
right to free medical care.

I think it's more humane to make it so they can't start
smoking.

'cause that's worked *so* well with marijuana.

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:22:27 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
I would require tobacco purchasers to sign a waiver, waiving their
right to free medical care.

I think it's more humane to make it so they can't start
smoking.

'cause that's worked *so* well with marijuana.

Of course, ROTFLMAO!

A few weeks ago my lawn maintenance guy presented me with some leaves
and asked if they were mine. Being the nerd that I am I didn't even
recognize what they were until he told me ;-)

I suspect the next door neighbor and/or his near-adult sons. The
scary part is that the neighbor is an anesthesiologist :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:22:27 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
I would require tobacco purchasers to sign a waiver, waiving their
right to free medical care.

I think it's more humane to make it so they can't start
smoking.

'cause that's worked *so* well with marijuana.

Of course, ROTFLMAO!

Part of the problem with Marijuana is that we allow Tobacco,
and the paraphernalia and culture of "lighting up".

--Blair
"It's not that funny."

[Brian Trosko]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:22:27 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
I would require tobacco purchasers to sign a waiver, waiving their
right to free medical care.

I think it's more humane to make it so they can't start
smoking.

'cause that's worked *so* well with marijuana.

Of course, ROTFLMAO!

Part of the problem with Marijuana is that we allow Tobacco,
and the paraphernalia and culture of "lighting up".

'cause that's worked *so* well with heroin, then.

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:22:27 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
I would require tobacco purchasers to sign a waiver, waiving their
right to free medical care.

I think it's more humane to make it so they can't start
smoking.

'cause that's worked *so* well with marijuana.

Of course, ROTFLMAO!

Part of the problem with Marijuana is that we allow Tobacco,
and the paraphernalia and culture of "lighting up".

'cause that's worked *so* well with heroin, then.

Yes, it has. How many people do you know who do heroin?
Or inject anything into their veins at all?

Culturally, we don't have a trope for shooting-up while
having a conversation in TGI Friday's. Not so for firing
up a butt.

Heroin is rather dramatic, as drugs go, but it's also rather
rare.

--Blair
"Now go laugh at the junkies."

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Jim Thompson
I believe the second-hand-smoke theory has been full quashed.

It has, but that has hardly stopped the pissers and moaners...
Too bad they can't just say they don't like how it smells and
leave it at that.
Billy Y..

Exactly!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson
I believe the second-hand-smoke theory has been full quashed.

It has,

...not.

One study got a lot of press a year or so ago, but it
was pretty well cocked-up, and isn't even close to the
only study of the subject.

--Blair
"Vitamins won't help."

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
Looks like Blair and I have different ideas about government
regulation of businesses.

Not so different, once you learn a few things about how
it works. Basically, I don't think any business should
be run on the basis of endangering the public.

[snip]

Post by Blair P. Houghton
--Blair
"Beer doesn't need you to smoke."

I agree with Rick Russell's response in this morning's Ahwatukee
section. Quoting President Reagan, "Government *IS* the problem".

Democrats should be rounded up and put in camps ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Jim Thompson
Looks like Blair and I have different ideas about government
regulation of businesses.

Not so different, once you learn a few things about how
it works. Basically, I don't think any business should
be run on the basis of endangering the public.

I agree with Rick Russell's response in this morning's Ahwatukee
section.

I don't, especially since it's the second time the paper
has printed it, and this time they added (back?) more
material to it. Despite my reply that I sent to them
on Monday. Now you know why I refuse to subscribe to
that fishwrap.

Post by Jim Thompson
Quoting President Reagan, "Government *IS* the problem".

Reagan was likely suffering from Alzheimer's when he said it.

Anyone who thinks government is the problem deserves to
live without one.

Maybe we should put them in jail for a few days to show
them the sort of people they'd have to fight off daily if
there were no laws.

Not to mention the corporate offenses that would be committed
against us.

You and I, being descended from Scots, would likely have
been born into slavery under a Roman hegemony, if the world's
history had gone the way you desire.

Post by Jim Thompson
Democrats should be rounded up and put in camps ;-)

Republicans should be forced to live under George W. Bush
for 18 more months.

--Blair
"Our revenge is that they got what
they wanted."

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Not so different, once you learn a few things about how
it works. Basically, I don't think any business should
be run on the basis of endangering the public.

Sounds to me like you should be trying to outlaw bars altogether then, no?

No. Although denying people the right to drive away from
them until they can blow below .08 would be rational. Oh
wait. We already deny them that right. It's up to them
whether to obey that law or not.

Post by Blair P. Houghton
The government has to pay the medical bills for your
employees when they show up with lung cancer and no
insurance 30 years later.

So one injustice gets solved by another. I getcha.

Welcome to government. If you don't want this law, I'll
see about the ones that keep me from raiding you refrigerator
and raping your daughter every Saturday night.

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Anyway, if he's got a TV, I think I'll be in there tomorrow
afternoon to watch the Diamondbacks' game.

I hate televisions in bars.

You don't like being distracted from your O'Doul's?

--Blair
"Yeesh."

[Brian Trosko]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Not so different, once you learn a few things about how
it works. Basically, I don't think any business should
be run on the basis of endangering the public.

Sounds to me like you should be trying to outlaw bars altogether then, no?

No. Although denying people the right to drive away from
them until they can blow below .08 would be rational.

What's that got to do with it? Bars exist to serve alcohol, a toxic,
debilitating, and addictive poison.

Sounds like a business based on endangering the public to me, and you
should therefore support their eradication, unless you're being a flaming
hypocrite.

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Not so different, once you learn a few things about how
it works. Basically, I don't think any business should
be run on the basis of endangering the public.

Sounds to me like you should be trying to outlaw bars altogether then, no?

No. Although denying people the right to drive away from
them until they can blow below .08 would be rational.

What's that got to do with it? Bars exist to serve alcohol, a toxic,
debilitating, and addictive poison.

Only if you don't use it correctly or understand your
genetic limitations. It doesn't harm the person serving
it to you or the person sitting next to you.

Post by Brian Trosko
Sounds like a business based on endangering the public to me, and you
should therefore support their eradication, unless you're being a flaming
hypocrite.

The endangering of the public happens after you leave
the bar. Not while they're sitting in it. Unless you
have a behavioral problem and shouldn't be allowed out
in public yourself. Whether you endanger someone after
going to a bar is your choice, and the police are sitting
out on the street to ensure you don't.

This is entirely different from smoking, which endangers
everyone in the space you occupy.

You're still free to go out on the patio and destroy your
own lungs, but maybe you shouldn't be allowed to do that
if you're going to end up costing my health-care system
money.

--Blair
"Next time, bring a point."

[Brian Trosko]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Sounds to me like you should be trying to outlaw bars altogether then, no?

No. Although denying people the right to drive away from
them until they can blow below .08 would be rational.

What's that got to do with it? Bars exist to serve alcohol, a toxic,
debilitating, and addictive poison.

Only if you don't use it correctly or understand your
genetic limitations.

Huh?

Alcohol is a drug, a toxin, a poison. In mild doses it causes depression
of the central nervous system, and increases the user's risk of various
forms of cancer. It also is addictive, psychologically and physically.

Nicotine is a drug, a toxin, a poison. In mild doses it causes
stimulation of the central nervous system, and increases the user's risk
of various forms of cancer. It also is addictive, psychologically, and
physically.

Ingesting either of these substances is harmful. Bars base their business
on facilitating the consumption of alcohol by their customers. Bars
therefore base their business on endangering the public, and by your own
argument, you support their eradication.

Post by Blair P. Houghton
It doesn't harm the person serving
it to you or the person sitting next to you.

Now you're simply moving the goalposts. The last I checked, nobody was
obligated to either work at or enter an establishment whose owner decides
to permit smoking. Has that changed in Arizona since I've been away?

Post by Blair P. Houghton
The endangering of the public happens after you leave
the bar. Not while they're sitting in it.

Demonstrably untrue, by the chemical properties and physical effects of
alcohol.

Post by Blair P. Houghton
You're still free to go out on the patio and destroy your
own lungs, but maybe you shouldn't be allowed to do that
if you're going to end up costing my health-care system
money.

Or perhaps the health-care system shouldn't allow my behavior to
jeoparidize your weekly allowance. One injustice cannot be cured by
another.

[James J. Lippard]

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Sounds to me like you should be trying to outlaw bars altogether then, no?

No. Although denying people the right to drive away from
them until they can blow below .08 would be rational.

What's that got to do with it? Bars exist to serve alcohol, a toxic,
debilitating, and addictive poison.

Only if you don't use it correctly or understand your
genetic limitations.

Huh?
Alcohol is a drug, a toxin, a poison. In mild doses it causes depression
of the central nervous system, and increases the user's risk of various
forms of cancer. It also is addictive, psychologically and physically.
Nicotine is a drug, a toxin, a poison. In mild doses it causes
stimulation of the central nervous system, and increases the user's risk
of various forms of cancer. It also is addictive, psychologically, and
physically.
Ingesting either of these substances is harmful. Bars base their business
on facilitating the consumption of alcohol by their customers. Bars
therefore base their business on endangering the public, and by your own
argument, you support their eradication.

Well, except that there are numerous studies showing that moderate
alcohol consumption provides a number of health benefits, most notably
a 25%-40% reduction of risk for coronary heart disease
(http://www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/alcohol.html,
http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=46). I am
unaware of any similar results for moderate smoking.

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by James J. Lippard
Well, except that there are numerous studies showing that moderate
alcohol consumption provides a number of health benefits, most notably
a 25%-40% reduction of risk for coronary heart disease
(http://www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/alcohol.html,
http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=46). I am
unaware of any similar results for moderate smoking.

There was data published in the movie "Sleeper" which
indicated that "it's the best thing for you".

--Blair
"I'm sure it'll show up on
the picket lines."

[Paul Wylie]

Brian Trosko <***@panix.com> wrote:
[...]

Post by Brian Trosko
Alcohol is a drug, a toxin, a poison. In mild doses it causes depression
of the central nervous system, and increases the user's risk of various
forms of cancer. It also is addictive, psychologically and physically.

[...]

Actually, alcohol in mild doses has been shown repeatedly to have health
benefits. It acts as a natural blood thinner, reducing the risk of stroke
and heart attacks, much the way aspirin does. The health risks associated
with alcohol come from repeated ingestion of large quantities. Also, I
know of no evidence that alcohol is physically addictive--recent research
seems to indicate that alcoholism itself is actually a symptom of clinical
depression or related emotional/brain maladies.

Post by Brian Trosko
Ingesting either of these substances is harmful. Bars base their
business on facilitating the consumption of alcohol by their customers.
Bars therefore base their business on endangering the public, and by
your own argument, you support their eradication.

[...]

Your argument is based on the flawed assumption that all consumption of
alcohol is harmful to those consuming it, which is clearly not the case.
Also, the consumption of alcohol by one person does not inevitably involve
the passive consumption of alcohol by others nearby. Your analogy doesn't
work. Any claims you make regarding the deleterious effects of alcohol
must be considered in the context of *abusive* consumption. Moderate
consumption is beneficial--not deleterious. There is no such health
benefit for moderate consumption of nicotine by smoking.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

[Jim DeClercq]

The first part I will drink to. Yes, it is used to depress unwanted
emotions by some people, but it does do some good for other people.

Alcohol is also a stimulant to the peripheral nervous system, which is
what causes trouble. Brain is depressed, body wants to do something.

But nicotine is also a CNS depressant, and I will not say that this may
not be a benefit to someone.

The area of second hand smoke has been studied, in the context of people
who lived together for at least 20 years, where one of them smoked at
least two packs a day, and one did not, and the one that did not was dead.
The question to be answered was "what did they die of?". The answer was
that they died of the same things, in the same percentages, as people in
general. Nothing stood out, given all that second hand smoke.

That particular study was ignored by the EPA, but not ignored by a Federal
Judge, who refused to enforce part of their rules, on grounds of fraud,
but did note that kids do not like the smell. This is new enough that a
web search might find some tracks of it, but otherwise such is found in
technical journals in a specialty library. That is if you want to read the
original study. Ask a librarian. Finding stuff like that is what they do.

Jim

Paul Wylie <***@wylie.removemunged.net> writes:

: Brian Trosko <***@panix.com> wrote:
: [...]
: > Alcohol is a drug, a toxin, a poison. In mild doses it causes depression
: > of the central nervous system, and increases the user's risk of various
: > forms of cancer. It also is addictive, psychologically and physically.
: [...]

: Actually, alcohol in mild doses has been shown repeatedly to have health
: benefits. It acts as a natural blood thinner, reducing the risk of stroke
: and heart attacks, much the way aspirin does. The health risks associated
: with alcohol come from repeated ingestion of large quantities. Also, I
: know of no evidence that alcohol is physically addictive--recent research
: seems to indicate that alcoholism itself is actually a symptom of clinical
: depression or related emotional/brain maladies.

: > Ingesting either of these substances is harmful. Bars base their
: > business on facilitating the consumption of alcohol by their customers.
: > Bars therefore base their business on endangering the public, and by
: > your own argument, you support their eradication.
: [...]

: Your argument is based on the flawed assumption that all consumption of
: alcohol is harmful to those consuming it, which is clearly not the case.
: Also, the consumption of alcohol by one person does not inevitably involve
: the passive consumption of alcohol by others nearby. Your analogy doesn't
: work. Any claims you make regarding the deleterious effects of alcohol
: must be considered in the context of *abusive* consumption. Moderate
: consumption is beneficial--not deleterious. There is no such health
: benefit for moderate consumption of nicotine by smoking.

: --Paul
: ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim DeClercq
The area of second hand smoke has been studied,

Several times, contrary to the current misconception.

Post by Jim DeClercq
in the context of people
who lived together for at least 20 years, where one of them smoked at
least two packs a day, and one did not, and the one that did not was dead.
The question to be answered was "what did they die of?". The answer was
that they died of the same things, in the same percentages, as people in
general. Nothing stood out, given all that second hand smoke.

Every study that did not find a link was funded by the
tobacco industry. Every study that found a link was not.

--Blair
"What's that tell you?"

[Jim DeClercq]

Generalizations are generally wrong. This one too. It is interesting in
that the EPA paid for the study, and did not like the results of it. They
had their minds made up, their regulations written, and there was truth,
the results of a statistically valid and cleverly designed study to
confuse them. So they ignored it.

The grant writer probably was the only one who came out perfectly fine. I
learned that a current fee for writing a grant application to the USG for
money is 7,000 USD. I need to learn to do that.

Jim

Blair P. Houghton <***@p.h> writes:

: Jim DeClercq <***@panix1.panix.com> wrote:
: >The area of second hand smoke has been studied,

: Several times, contrary to the current misconception.

: >in the context of people
: >who lived together for at least 20 years, where one of them smoked at
: >least two packs a day, and one did not, and the one that did not was dead.
: >The question to be answered was "what did they die of?". The answer was
: >that they died of the same things, in the same percentages, as people in
: >general. Nothing stood out, given all that second hand smoke.

: Every study that did not find a link was funded by the
: tobacco industry. Every study that found a link was not.

: --Blair
: "What's that tell you?"

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim DeClercq
Generalizations are generally wrong. This one too.

That one especially, in this case.

Post by Jim DeClercq
It is interesting in
that the EPA paid for the study, and did not like the results of it. They

Whose EPA?

Post by Jim DeClercq
had their minds made up, their regulations written, and there was truth,
the results of a statistically valid and cleverly designed study to
confuse them. So they ignored it.
The grant writer probably was the only one who came out perfectly fine. I
learned that a current fee for writing a grant application to the USG for
money is 7,000 USD. I need to learn to do that.

Anyone wanting money can write a grant application.
I have no doubt the price goes from a half-hour of your
dead time to $millions if you involve outside preparatory
research and legal assistance.

--Blair

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Sounds to me like you should be trying to outlaw bars altogether then, no?

No. Although denying people the right to drive away from
them until they can blow below .08 would be rational.

What's that got to do with it? Bars exist to serve alcohol, a toxic,
debilitating, and addictive poison.

Only if you don't use it correctly or understand your
genetic limitations.

Huh?
Alcohol is a drug, a toxin, a poison.

Oxygen is a drug, a toxin, and a poison, as well.

Post by Brian Trosko
In mild doses it causes depression
of the central nervous system, and increases the user's risk of various
forms of cancer. It also is addictive, psychologically and physically.
Nicotine is a drug, a toxin, a poison. In mild doses it causes
stimulation of the central nervous system, and increases the user's risk
of various forms of cancer. It also is addictive, psychologically, and
physically.

Nicotine isn't carcinogenic. There are other chemicals
that are. If you want to sit in a bar and chew nicotine
gum, go right ahead. Just don't try to spit it in my face
every 20 seconds.

Post by Brian Trosko
Ingesting either of these substances is harmful. Bars base their business
on facilitating the consumption of alcohol by their customers. Bars
therefore base their business on endangering the public, and by your own
argument, you support their eradication.

By your own argument, you support endangerment of the
public in as many ways as possible. Alcohol isn't nearly
the danger that smoking is, and the use of it doesn't
innately endanger everyone in the room.

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton
It doesn't harm the person serving
it to you or the person sitting next to you.

Now you're simply moving the goalposts. The last I checked, nobody was
obligated to either work at or enter an establishment whose owner decides
to permit smoking. Has that changed in Arizona since I've been away?

Nobody has a right to smoke. Has that changed on Earth since
you've been away?

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton
The endangering of the public happens after you leave
the bar. Not while they're sitting in it.

Demonstrably untrue, by the chemical properties and physical effects of
alcohol.

You don't read too well. You can endanger yourself all
you want. Don't endanger everyone else. And don't expect
me to pay for it.

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton
You're still free to go out on the patio and destroy your
own lungs, but maybe you shouldn't be allowed to do that
if you're going to end up costing my health-care system
money.

Or perhaps the health-care system shouldn't allow my behavior to
jeoparidize your weekly allowance. One injustice cannot be cured by
another.

Okay. So kidnapping murderers and killing them can't
cure murder.

--Blair
"What planet of the moral relativists
did you vacation on?"

[Brian Trosko]

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Nicotine isn't carcinogenic.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20001028/fob5.asp

Post by Blair P. Houghton
There are other chemicals
that are. If you want to sit in a bar and chew nicotine
gum, go right ahead. Just don't try to spit it in my face
every 20 seconds.

Blair, if you don't want to go into a bar where people are smoking, you
have that right. You have no more expectation that the people in the bar
should stop smoking to please you than you have that they'll stop drinking
to please you.

Post by Blair P. Houghton
By your own argument, you support endangerment of the
public in as many ways as possible.

You got me.

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Brian Trosko
Now you're simply moving the goalposts. The last I checked, nobody was
obligated to either work at or enter an establishment whose owner decides
to permit smoking. Has that changed in Arizona since I've been away?

Nobody has a right to smoke.

Wow.

I'd like to see you support *that* legal argument. If we're going to get
into the issue of rights, then rights in our system aren't granted by laws
or the Constitution; the Constitution explicity recognizes certain ones,
states that others exist, and sets limits on the powers of government.

Seems to me that the right to do what you want with your own property, be
that property your body, your lungs, or your bar, is pretty firmly
enshrined as a right. You can see the recent Supreme Court decision on
that matter if you're confused.

Post by Blair P. Houghton
"What planet of the moral relativists
did you vacation on?"

The one that says revoking someone's ability to dispense with their
private property as they see fit is an immoral act.

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton
Nicotine isn't carcinogenic.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20001028/fob5.asp

Totally inconclusive.

Nicotine isn't carcinogenic.

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton
There are other chemicals
that are. If you want to sit in a bar and chew nicotine
gum, go right ahead. Just don't try to spit it in my face
every 20 seconds.

Blair, if you don't want to go into a bar where people are smoking, you
have that right.

And now, I have the right to make the smokers go outside.

Post by Brian Trosko
You have no more expectation that the people in the bar
should stop smoking to please you than you have that they'll stop drinking
to please you.

The law says otherwise, and it can, and if you don't obey
it, you are fined or jailed.

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton
By your own argument, you support endangerment of the
public in as many ways as possible.

You got me.

Moron.

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Brian Trosko
Now you're simply moving the goalposts. The last I checked, nobody was
obligated to either work at or enter an establishment whose owner decides
to permit smoking. Has that changed in Arizona since I've been away?

Nobody has a right to smoke.

Wow.
I'd like to see you support *that* legal argument.

Where is it written that you have a right to smoke?

It is written that you don't have the privilege of smoking
in restaurants in Tempe. How could that stand if you have
the right to smoke?

You don't have the right to smoke.

Post by Brian Trosko
If we're going to get
into the issue of rights, then rights in our system aren't granted by laws
or the Constitution; the Constitution explicity recognizes certain ones,
states that others exist, and sets limits on the powers of government.

Irrelevant to the fact that you don't have the right to
smoke, and the laws banning smoking should tell you that.

Post by Brian Trosko
Seems to me that the right to do what you want with your own property, be
that property your body, your lungs, or your bar, is pretty firmly
enshrined as a right. You can see the recent Supreme Court decision on
that matter if you're confused.

You can point out any Supreme Court decision that says
you have a right to smoke, if you can find it. But don't come
back until you do.

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Blair P. Houghton
"What planet of the moral relativists
did you vacation on?"

The one that says revoking someone's ability to dispense with their
private property as they see fit is an immoral act.

"The right to swing my fist ends at the point of another
person's nose"
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

That's your clue for the day, responsibility-boy.

--Blair
"There's lots of you nitwits living
on green baloney at my expense."

[Blair P. Houghton]

Looks to me like *you* are the *moron* ;-)
Heaven save us from socialists and Democrats.

Uh-huh.

Should you like some real data, the last two times I've
gone to the Vine at Elliot and Rural, I've walked away
without even entering the door, because there was a
line coming out of it.

Including tonight, which is Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the Vine on 48th and Warner, which is in Phoenix
and permits smoking, is only moderately full.

Heaven save us from Republicunts pretending they know
anything more about economics than "screw the other guy."

--Blair
"You're someone's other guy."

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Looks to me like *you* are the *moron* ;-)
Heaven save us from socialists and Democrats.

Uh-huh.
Should you like some real data, the last two times I've
gone to the Vine at Elliot and Rural, I've walked away
without even entering the door, because there was a
line coming out of it.
Including tonight, which is Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the Vine on 48th and Warner, which is in Phoenix
and permits smoking, is only moderately full.
Heaven save us from Republicunts pretending they know
anything more about economics than "screw the other guy."
--Blair
"You're someone's other guy."

*Really* struggling for an argument are we ?:_)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Why is it that Democrats can't debate politely?
And are only rude and interruptive.
Lack of mental capacity?

[Marc 182]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Looks to me like *you* are the *moron* ;-)
Heaven save us from socialists and Democrats.

Uh-huh.
Should you like some real data, the last two times I've
gone to the Vine at Elliot and Rural, I've walked away
without even entering the door, because there was a
line coming out of it.
Including tonight, which is Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the Vine on 48th and Warner, which is in Phoenix
and permits smoking, is only moderately full.
Heaven save us from Republicunts pretending they know
anything more about economics than "screw the other guy."
--Blair
"You're someone's other guy."

*Really* struggling for an argument are we ?:_)

Tucson banned smoking in restaurants some time ago. The brew 'n pub
folks were aghast. How could the survive without their core smokers? The
law allowed an exception for establishments that could claim a 20% drop
in income following the change. Out of the entire city, only two even
applied. I recall that one was a Village Inn on the freeway that catered
to truckers.

The banning of smoking mostly meant that nonsmokers (the majority) were
much more willing to go out.

California banned smoking in bars more than a year ago. Is night life
in Cali now dead?

No one has a right to spew smoke, neither out of an exhaust pipe nor
your lips, upon another. It's not protected and is ripe for regulation.
One pollutes outdoors, the other in, I breath in both places.

Marc

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Looks to me like *you* are the *moron* ;-)
Heaven save us from socialists and Democrats.

Uh-huh.
Should you like some real data, the last two times I've
gone to the Vine at Elliot and Rural, I've walked away
without even entering the door, because there was a
line coming out of it.
Including tonight, which is Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the Vine on 48th and Warner, which is in Phoenix
and permits smoking, is only moderately full.
Heaven save us from Republicunts pretending they know
anything more about economics than "screw the other guy."
--Blair
"You're someone's other guy."

*Really* struggling for an argument are we ?:_)

No, we aren't. The argument ended when you ceased to
have any point.

--Blair
"This is so over."

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Looks to me like *you* are the *moron* ;-)
Heaven save us from socialists and Democrats.

Uh-huh.
Should you like some real data, the last two times I've
gone to the Vine at Elliot and Rural, I've walked away
without even entering the door, because there was a
line coming out of it.
Including tonight, which is Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the Vine on 48th and Warner, which is in Phoenix
and permits smoking, is only moderately full.
Heaven save us from Republicunts pretending they know
anything more about economics than "screw the other guy."
--Blair
"You're someone's other guy."

Private economics shouldn't be the concern of government.

What if "government" decided there should be no bars? I could go for
that, arguing that bars promote DUI.

I could go for regulating religion also. Too damned many people
running around who aren't of my religious flavor.

And I don't like apartments either ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| Jim-***@analog_innovations.com Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Why is it that Democrats can't debate politely?
And are only rude and interruptive.
Lack of mental capacity?

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Jim Thompson
Private economics shouldn't be the concern of government.

Define "private economics."

Is that when you pay yourself for sex or something?

Post by Jim Thompson
What if "government" decided there should be no bars? I could go for
that, arguing that bars promote DUI.

Bars don't promote DUI, DUI promotes DUI.

Post by Jim Thompson
I could go for regulating religion also. Too damned many people
running around who aren't of my religious flavor.

Only significant where their attitudes actually affect your
health. And those significances are already illegal.

Post by Jim Thompson
And I don't like apartments either ;-)

You just don't like the people.

--Blair
"There are easier ways to go off the rails."

[a***@MIX.COM]

Post by Brian Trosko
Bars exist to serve alcohol, a toxic,
debilitating, and addictive poison.
Sounds like a business based on endangering the public to me, and you
should therefore support their eradication, unless you're being a flaming
hypocrite.

Yea but he might as well start with an even more offensive situation
by ridding himself of any automobiles he owns. Just the mere fumes
they emit kill plenty of people...

Billy Y..

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by a***@MIX.COM

Post by Brian Trosko
Bars exist to serve alcohol, a toxic,
debilitating, and addictive poison.
Sounds like a business based on endangering the public to me, and you
should therefore support their eradication, unless you're being a flaming
hypocrite.

Yea but he might as well start with an even more offensive situation
by ridding himself of any automobiles he owns. Just the mere fumes
they emit kill plenty of people...

Name one.

--Blair
"Go ahead, absurdist-boy."

[Blair P. Houghton]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:11:36 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Paul Wylie
don't have the figures handy, but ISTR seeing turnout was somewhere around
20%. If Tempe voters really wanted to keep smoking in their bars, they
only had to actually show up at the polls and vote against the ban.

Those aren't "their" bars.

Eminent domain says otherwise.

Then nobody owns property but the state.
You comfortable with that?

Of course he is, he's of the crowd who would decide how big a 'burger
or ice cream you will be allowed to eat.

You're being absurd.

Some of you think I jest, but have you been following the actions of
one John F. Banzhaf, III?
He was a classmate of mine at MIT, majored in EE, class of 1962 (page
249 of the annual. I'm on page 305 :-) Went on to law school and
became a fascist so he can sue schools for having Coke machines and is
going after McD, etc., to enforce what you can't eat.
He's the one responsible for all the anti-smoking suits... and your
vice is next.
Blair ought to love the guy ;-)

You ought to, since you'd rather we believe nonsense than
reality.

--Blair
"McDonald's can kill you just by
walking into one."

[Blair P. Houghton]

Post by Paul Wylie

Post by Blair P. Houghton

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:11:36 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Paul Wylie
don't have the figures handy, but ISTR seeing turnout was

somewhere around

Post by Blair P. Houghton

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Paul Wylie
20%. If Tempe voters really wanted to keep smoking in their bars, they
only had to actually show up at the polls and vote against the ban.

Those aren't "their" bars.

Eminent domain says otherwise.

Then nobody owns property but the state.
You comfortable with that?

Of course he is, he's of the crowd who would decide how big a 'burger
or ice cream you will be allowed to eat.

You're being absurd.

Some of you think I jest, but have you been following the actions of
one John F. Banzhaf, III?
He was a classmate of mine at MIT, majored in EE, class of 1962 (page
249 of the annual. I'm on page 305 :-) Went on to law school and
became a fascist so he can sue schools for having Coke machines and is
going after McD, etc., to enforce what you can't eat.
He's the one responsible for all the anti-smoking suits... and your
vice is next.
Blair ought to love the guy ;-)

You ought to, since you'd rather we believe nonsense than
reality.
"McDonald's can kill you just by
walking into one."

You lost the argument, ROTFLMAO ;-)

How? Rotflfmk.

--Blair
":-/"