I smoke (you can say whatever you want about it I don't care) and I don't see what the big deal is with the bans other than the point that was brought up about govt control. They did this in Cali several years ago and people [censored]&whined about it...waaah. I've always been very respectful towards non smokers, if everyone else did the same this never would've been an issue. I don't mind having to walk outside to smoke, I smoke less that way anyhow.
The thing I do find funny about the whole anti smoking campaign is no one who's all for getting rid of cigarettes has anything to say about alcohol and I'd be willing to bet there's about as many if not more alchol related deaths in the U.S. every year as opposed to smoking. Thing is they slant the stats on it...if someone dies of natural causes or some unexplained reason or something like that and they happened to be a smoker then the anti smoking people call that a cigarette related death.
Basically it boils down to cigarettes are no longer socially acceptable but alcohol still is. Plus, most of the people on Capitol Hill are boozers anyway so there's no way they're gonna hit the alcohol companies. But I do wonder about this: Did all this anti smoking crap start simply because some of the tobacco company lobbyists didn't pay enough campaign contributions? Given the way out political system works in this day and age I think that's a plausible theory.
'00 Blk CSVT #1087/2150 built 12/23/99
