Are you happy with this year's election results?

I am. We got our powerdyke, Democrat governor Janet Napolitano back in office (surprising for a Republican state.) We also become the first state to vote down a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which is very surprising for a conservative state. We also banned smoking in almost all public places, took rights away from illegals, and made English the official language.

The only thing I'm unhappy about is the minimum wage increase. I used to make almost $2 above minimum wage, now I only make a quarter more.

Locally, not at all. Blagojevich is a crook who only got another term as Governor because most of Chicago votes straight-ticket Democrat. The Cook County Democratic machine needs to die a painful death.

Nationally, we'll see. I don't have much hope for anything better than total gridlock, but maybe that will be enough.

Well, it certainly seems like an unusual situation so "Yes", but you're still goddamn crazy burgerboy nutheads.

Mostly, yes. Ohio's issue 5 prohibits smoking in all public places. It's next to illegal to smoke in Ohio now. I don't smoke, but it is a very unfair legislation that puts way too much restriction on smokers. You can't even have smoking sections in restaurants, what the hell? Sure, not all smoking sections keep all the smoke out (LOOKING AT YOU, DENNY'S), but how about a sensible solution, such as enforcing stricter regulations and guidelines on how to build smoking sections? At least it's not an amendment.

Issue 4, on the other hand, would make it a constitutional right to smoke in public places such as bars and restaurants where it is permitted by the owner. It had some fairly strict guidelines as to where smoking was allowed, and made it so that all smoking would take place in segregated areas, away from non-smokers. It was almost reasonable, but I didn't like that it made it a constitutional amendment.

Thanks to idiotic anti-smoking propaganda, most people thought issue 4 would let people smoke anywhere. They literally claimed it would let people smoke in all public places. I had a flier from them, it was totally insane. The pro-smoking "propaganda" mostly pointed out that issue 5 is a very unreasonable action to take against smokers, making it illegal almost everywhere. And they were right. But organizations like SmokeFree used hate-centered propaganda of the tobacco industry to crush individual rights. Bastards.

They didn't need to ban issue 5. They didn't need EITHER. Just make it up to the business if they want to allow smoking. Let the customers decide if they want to go there. You know, CHOICE. I'm all for banning smoking in "important" public areas such as hospitals, city halls, even parks. Things that are not privately owned. But bars and restaurants? Please. Most businesses do better when smoke free. Smoking is a declining habit anyway. They didn't need to go tramping around on people's rights to reduce second hand smoke exposure.

Then there's issue 3, which would open casinos around the state to fund public education and scholarships. People who were against it often claimed that most of the money would go to the casino owners (duh?) and not much would go to scholarships. Um, okay, but without it, they get no money. Nice thinking, Ohio. I think the reason most people voted no because "gambling is evil" and opening casinos will "ruin 109,000 lives." Please. Not only am I skeptical about the numbers of gambling addicts casinos may open, it's their fault. Our government should not protect people from themselves. Besides, people just drive to adjacent states and satisfy their gambling addictions there.

Also issue 2, which was to raise the minimum wage to $6.85. I voted yes, but now I wish I hadn't. I read the whole bill, but I didn't realize the implications until later. They snuck in a clause that makes all your paycheck and financial records with an employer completely public. What the hell, Ohio.


Oh well. At least the most important candidates made it in for state and national levels. Stephanie Tubbs Jones gets another year as a representative, and ******** Mike DeWine is out of the senate. Oh, and of course we have a good governor now.

Not American, but if I were, yes.

Sure, why not. If even FGR voted yes, I don't think I have any real grounds to think differently.

yes but i'm an ignorant idiot sounded more tempting.

Yea, I think its promising.

i agree with almost everything you said, there.

except on issue 3: the math worked out to $400 per SCHOOL. not student, PER SCHOOL.

how is that going to help toward a college education? i mean ffs you go to RIT, one of the more expensive schools in the northeast, was your share of your senior class' $400 gonna help you out? i didnt think so.

it just wasn't worth it.

also i am a smoker, and issue 5 passing really pisses me off. i would rather have had both 4 and 5 pass (thus invalidating 5) that just that. but it felt morally wrong to vote on something that took away the rights of local government.

but whatever. i guess theres no point complaining. just gotta start lobbying to get this **** changed.

No-smoking laws are stupid.

Stand somewhere else if you don't like it.

Anti-rape laws are stupid.

Be somewhere else if you don't like it.

No I'm not. Democrats claimed every state seat except the governor. I really thought the GOP had a chance at the state offices. But, I still live in CA. Props 85, 90 were defeated (parental notification for minors getting abortions, eminent domain restrictions). That did not please me. And of course having to hear Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi makes me cringe.

I disagree. Why should non-smokers endure other people's crap? If it were just an unpleasant smell, it would be easier to cope with, but enduring something that is hazardous to your health is another.

I don't smoke because I want to stay healthy. Where's the worth if I have to have my lungs go ****-sided because of second hand smoke? Which, by the way, is worste than the what is dragged through the filter itself

Might as well make murder legal. Hey its hazardous to your health, but I enjoy doing it. Be somewhere else if you don't like it.

I hate cigarette smoke. I'm glad I don't have to put up with it anymore. I hate going to a bar or bowling alley and leaving smelling like an ashtray.

Think of it this way: it's definitely illegal for a business owner to leave radioactive chemicals and toxins lying around. So why should he be allowed to have carcinogens all up in the air?

Well it should be legal for people to smoke because, well, a lot of people like doing it. Don't you consider that a bit unfair?

I figure if I want to go to a bar and get drunk and not have to walk out onto High St. to smoke a cigarette then I should probably be allowed to. High cholesterol kills way more people than smoking, but I don't see petitioners walking around downtown Columbus working to get a fast food ban on the voting machines next year.

And I'm a little pissed off about my congressional district possibly being run into the ground for two more years by Deborah Pryce. They used an anti-tax-raising campaign against Mary Jo Kilroy, which is bs. Deborah Pryce's campaign slogan was "The Truth Matters." Here's an interesting bit of truth for the Republican party: Running a country costs money, and you can't borrow all of it.

I'm slightly disappointed by this thread, I thought it was just going to be an 'Are you happy?' in general. That said, politics doesn't overly affect my happiness, so I'm gonna say yeah ;).


<3

my town legalized marijuana and voted down a minimum wage increase.

.

hahahaha.

Hopefully the price of weed will drop. Then you'll be ok.

[QUOTE=Vincent Valentine]took rights away from illegals, and made English the official language.[/QUOTE]

Wow... you guys were actually able to pass that stuff? Amazing, in a good way...

Meh.

I dunno. I just watch.

Why shouldn't you just move?

Example from when I used to smoke;

I'm standing at the bus stop. Not in the little seated room thingy, but at the back corner.

Someone asked me to stop smoking at the bus stop, that it bothered them. I told him not to stand down wind of me. He asked me again, and before he could finish I asked him if he had ever seen star wars in 3d.

He said no. So I flicked my ciagarette at him and got on the bus.

Was that rude? Yes.

Was being retarded about something as stupid as going out of my way to smoke AWAY from everyone else stupid? Yes.

It's not that difficult of a concept, if you don't like it go somewhere else.

Some people don't like people with different skin. I seem to remember something about making them go to seperate schools. Yeah, that lasted a reaaaal long time.

It's really close to being that you can only smoke in your own home, and thats STUPID.

If I want to carry around a boom box and blast that JayZ+Linkin Park CD, is it rude for other people to tell me to turn it down? If they don't want to hear it, they can go somewhere else.

Who's worse: the annoyer or the annoyed?



Yeah, but when other people stuff their faces with big macs, I don't have to eat it too.

That's how it is here (Ontario), not sure about the rest of Canada. No smoking in indoor public places, or even outside if it's under a canopy or awning. You also have to be a certain distance from buildings (5 feet or something, but obviously that isn't enforced). It's ridiculous, and I don't even smoke.

How is it ridiculous? I don't care if people endanger their own lives by smoking, but why should they have the right to endanger mine?

So...

Move?

Considering the caliber of my graduating glass, probably.


This is why I think smoking should be banned in enclosed, public areas which are not privately owned. Bars and restaurants should be up to the owner, and it should be up to the people to decide if they want to go their. If a restaurant wants a non-smoking section, it should be built to strict requirements and regulations to ensure that the smoking section is well sealed off and highly ventilated. Some restaurants have absolutely useless dividers between smoking and non-smoking section. I'm looking at you, Denny's. Denny's doesn't have non-smoking. They have smoking and coal mine.

As far as public areas like parks, the open air diffuses the smoke to the point of making it negligible to your health. Walking by a smoker in the park even on a stagnant, non-windy day is not going to harm your health. Even if you do it six times a day, it isn't going to matter. If you work in a bar, however, that's different.

Most business owners are finding it more profitable to ban smoking on their own anyhow, since most people don't smoke, and the rate of new smokers is declining thanks to health awareness. It should be up to the owner if they want to allow smoking, and up to the customers if they want to enter.

And please, none of this "If you don't wanna be raped, go somewhere else!" crap. That is an invalid comparison. It would only work if you had smokers who actively sought out others and blew smoke in their faces, which is probably illegal under other laws anyway.

Oh, and none of this "but there are no other bars in the area!" Well, tough ****. It's the bar owner's choice to allow smoking and it's your choice to enter.



That seems fairly reasonable to me. It sounds like they try to prohibit smoking where second hand smoke can build up to harmful levels.

There were guys that smoke outside my dorm room last year because that's where one of the exits was. They walked outside and smoked there. I was in a lounge converted to a triple, so I had many large windows. I could have asked them to move around the corner which was 10 feet away, but I didn't care that much. It was mostly odor. And I was usually in bed already, and I decided I'd rather live six seconds less than get out of bed to ask them to stop.

But why should I have to move? I'm not doing anything wrong. You are.

Thats the thing.

It's starting to rapidly progress towards NOT being the bar owner's choice to allow smoking.

[QUOTE=Vincent Valentine]But why should I have to move? I'm not doing anything wrong. You are.[/QUOTE]


I'm not doing anything wrong either.


You're the one whining about it. So you should be the one that has to move, not me.

You don't like vagina, so you don't go out of your way to date women. And you sure as hell don't go around telling women to remove their genitals because you only like the penis.

I'm not trying to be rude.. I'm trying to phrase it in a way you'd understand.

I'm not wrong for smoking outside where you're free to move somewhere else if you don't like it anymore than you're wrong for being gay.

thank you emon. and rob.

rational non-smokers, who agree that smokers have rights too.

Yeah, but standing next to a vagina won't make me smell, cough, or get cancer in 20 years.

Vinny, that's why smoking in open, public areas where people don't have a choice to use gets pretty sticky. You can chose not to go into a smoke filled bar, you can't chose to just take another subway system.

I think, in this situation, we need more information regarding light second hand smoke and its effects in open areas, if any have been done. Preferably none of that AHA and ACS endorsed "second hand smoke kills 50,000 people per year" bull****.

I really doubt standing 10 feet away from a smoker will give you cancer twenty years later. I doubt it will give you cancer even if you stand next to him every day for a year.

Also, for the record, I am not a smoker and dislike the smell of cigarette smoke.

I'm not saying I'm going to drop dead because someone's smoking near me. But it's not just about the cancer-potential, it's also smelly and gross.

The only subways I've ever been in have had more than a high enough clearance in the terminal for second hand smoke not to be an issue.

If it was, I wouldn't light up in one.

[QUOTE=Vincent Valentine]But it's not just about the cancer-potential, it's also smelly and gross.[/QUOTE]
I was at the RIT library this past spring quarter putting together a project. There was this really obese guy that sat down about ten feet away from me. He stank like all kinds of ***. I think his body must have had odor generators that spew forth horrific scents from bodily orifices. It wasn't that bad when he sat still, but every time he walked by I had to hold my breath. And I couldn't let it go right when he passed, I had to wait a good 30 seconds, too.

In retrospect I should have gotten up, but my workplace was set up nicely and I didn't want to move just because his smelly *** walked by every twenty minutes.

I think you see where I'm going with this.

Edit: Oh by the way, he had an annoying fatman wheeze in his breath, too.


Smoking in public places is a delicate situation. It needs to be addressed without violating the rights of those who want to be free from second hand smoke without violating the rights of those who want to smoke. When second hand smoke becomes concentrated enough to do harm, it should be banned. When it's just the smell, people should live with it. I voted no on both issues because I felt that they were both unreasonable solutions to a problem. I suppose it's better that issue 5 passed, because it will ensure public health but still be easy to change later, as it is not an amendment. Issue 4, however, was an amendment, and would be next to impossible to change in the future.

Just outlaw smoking and be done with it.

While you're at it, lets outlaw everything else that could be construed to smell or could conceivably damage health;

Drinking
Fast Food
defecating
exhaling carbon dioxide in enclosed spaces
Money (Dirty as hell)


etc

Driving