Roll-Your-Own Cigarette Stores Owner Fighting Feds To Stay Open

Jul 24, 2012 Full story: Patch.com 39

A A local businessman is vowing to fight a federal law that has led to the closure of his Tampa Bay area roll-your-own cigarette shops, including the Tobacco Road location on Brandon Boulevard.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jun 12

London, Canada

#25 Jul 28, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
No - They last did the Poll in 2010 - learn to read!
2007, was the last time Gallup ASKED THAT question until this year's July 7-10 survey."
In ALL PREVIOUS POLLS - they ALWAYS included questions about banning in specific locations.- And THEY ALWAYS FOUND THE MAJORITY PREFERED A "SET ASIDE" (SMOKERS AREA)(except for restuarants)
<quoted text>
NO THEY DON'T!- But when the question is asked and NO OTHER OPTIONS GIVEN - like it was presented FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER - IN THIS POLL (A SIMPLE YES OR NO - NO IN BETWEENS)- Then those who would favor a "Partial Ban" (Set aside areas)- are FORCED To choose YES - It's a very deceptive and often used tactic of the Anti's!
JUST DESIGH THE STUDY - SO IT WILL COME OUT IN OUR FAVOR!
<quoted text>
Believe me - YOU'RE NOT!!!!
<quoted text>
That's because you choose to live a small and limited life!
If you weren't so IMMERSED in the Anti-Smoking rheteric - maybe you could learn WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING around you!!
There's not much chance that he really knows what is going on around him.
It's really tough to teach an old dog new tricks after the nanny puts a choke chain on him.
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#26 Jul 28, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not much chance that he really knows what is going on around him.
It's really tough to teach an old dog new tricks after the nanny puts a choke chain on him.
Well, the way he started out - I thought "Mayby he still has an open mind" - but now I can see he's too far indoctrinated to EVEN CONSIDER understanding their lies.

Since: Jun 12

London, Canada

#27 Jul 28, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, the way he started out - I thought "Mayby he still has an open mind" - but now I can see he's too far indoctrinated to EVEN CONSIDER understanding their lies.
Junior the anti's are all like that. It always starts with the line or similar to it " We all know smoking is bad for you " they would like to rub elbows with you then comes the nanny lecture. A famous one " I am a former smoker " .... I know everything about smoking and feel I should be supervising your life for you like it or not just look at all the scientific proof.
For some reason these people just as you say can not accept the fact that there are highly qualifed reasearchers and scientists with views that oppose their own unqualified opinions. There are a number of people among them because of corporate policy could be liable if they are involved in disclosures. I am sure you can name some as I can, hopefully J & J can come up with a better ear wax remover but if you Follow the Money it may not be in their best interest to do so.
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

#28 Jul 28, 2012
I'm not an an "anti", but I don't live in a fantasy world either. The world has changed during my life, and attitudes towards smoking have definitely changed. You folks reject and insult anyone who won't go along with your paranoid fantasies of a giant conspiracy. The Gallup folks don't care if you smoke or if you don't. They don't care if there are smoking bans. They simply report the results of the surveys they conduct.
I used to smoke, but I don't anymore. That's true for a lot of folks as they get older. But I enjoyed smoking when I was younger. I've never tried to convince anyone to quit. Does that sound like an "anti"?
It's been years since I last rode a motorcycle, too. Does that make me "anti-motorcycle"? Nope. You folks are just looking for someone to be the target for your anger.
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#29 Jul 28, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
<quoted text>
Junior the anti's are all like that.
I think what bothers me more than all the illicit money and extreme greed behind it all - is the fact that they can Sooo easily "Just Use" the general public - I don't like the term "sheeple" but it's VERY accurate.

99% of the public - get 99% of their "Knowledge" from headlines & "sound bites" - never having (or taking) the time to check deeper.- If they get it from a trusted source - IT'S GOT TO BE TRUE!

The anti's USE THIS TO THE MAX!- Then Gloat and cackle about it!

I just hope to be around - when the WHOLE THING "BLOWS UP" on them!
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#30 Jul 29, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
I'm not an an "anti", The world has changed during my life, and attitudes towards smoking have definitely changed.
Old Guy - you seem to talk as though you are "old and wise" - at the same time that you continue to defend EVERYTHING that the antismoking movement is working toward.

Well, I don't know how old you really are - but I'm 62 - I have ALSO seen the world change - most of it "for the worse" - but THIS is one of the WORSE that I have seen!

There about 50 Million smokers in the US alone who have become 2nd class citizens - in many cases NOT BEING ABLE to get a JOB or being fired from a job (Just because they smoke - sometimes - JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IN THEIR HOUSE smokes!)

AND YOU DEFEND THIS??

These people are finding it harder and harder to even find a place to LIVE (Just because they smoke - sometimes - JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IN THEIR HOUSE smokes!)

AND YOU DEFEND THIS??

These people pay MUCH HIGHER TAXES and INSURANCE (Just because they smoke - sometimes - JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IN THEIR HOUSE smokes!)

OF COURSE YOU DEFEND THIS!- Only because you have been BRAINWASHED by the LIES that you have been told!

In many places they are being persecuted, sued, openly harrassed, and generally looked on as "outcasts" (Just because they smoke!)

AND YOU DEFEND THIS!!

ALMOST EVERYDAY they are being FORCED to move further away from those "Privileged ones" who don't feel they should have to "be exposed"

Even Doll Himself - was NOT afraid of second hand smoke - IT'S A LIE - and I believe YOU KNOW it's a lie

but YOU DEFEND THIS!!

In Areas of California - People CAN NOT SMOKE IN THEIR OWN HOUSE - if someone is able to SEE THEM - This group has ALREADY STATED that this is what they want EVERYWHERE!

AND YOU DEFEND THIS!!!

KEEP TELLING YOURSELF - YOU'RE NOT AN ANTISMOKER

Probably the MAJORITY of Germans under Hitlers regime - didn't consider themselves NATZI's - but MANY were still BRAINWASHED into believing that the Jews were "smelly" 2nd class people and needed to be "delt with" - so they were "Good citizens" and "just reported violations"

The SAD thing is - YOU ARE ONE OF THE MORE INTELLIGENT people on this forum

And yet - YOU STILL DEFEND THIS!
LearnTheTruth

Jacksonville, FL

#31 Jul 29, 2012
Just to weigh in here...
I am a former smoker, I smoked for nearly 40 years. I do NOT believe in the "second hand" smoke crap!
However I DO believe in being courteous to others.
When I smoked I tried my best to be aware of non smokers around me and tried my best to not subject them to my exhales. I feel everyone has the right to smoke if they so choose.
I think any business should be able to allow smoking in their establishment if they choose, although there are some issues if they rent/lease the building or are located inside a mall. If a business allows smoking,(say Hooters for example) then as a non smoker you can choose not to go there.
Where does it end? Do we stop after banning all smoking every where? There is a possibility that if you have a few drinks with dinner you could kill someone! We should ban all alcohol sales in restaurants and bars! Or maybe just tax the hell out of them so people will stop "on their own"!
At what point is enough, enough?

Since: Jun 12

London, Canada

#32 Jul 29, 2012
LearnTheTruth wrote:
Just to weigh in here...
I am a former smoker, I smoked for nearly 40 years. I do NOT believe in the "second hand" smoke crap!
However I DO believe in being courteous to others.
When I smoked I tried my best to be aware of non smokers around me and tried my best to not subject them to my exhales. I feel everyone has the right to smoke if they so choose.
I think any business should be able to allow smoking in their establishment if they choose, although there are some issues if they rent/lease the building or are located inside a mall. If a business allows smoking,(say Hooters for example) then as a non smoker you can choose not to go there.
Where does it end? Do we stop after banning all smoking every where? There is a possibility that if you have a few drinks with dinner you could kill someone! We should ban all alcohol sales in restaurants and bars! Or maybe just tax the hell out of them so people will stop "on their own"!
At what point is enough, enough?
Enough is Enough ... when you see the Feds OVERTAX a legal product that creates the conditions for the new enterprize of rolling cigarettes, only to be denied with bald 2 faced lies.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#33 Jul 29, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
How about the universe WHERE OVER 80% STILL OPPOSE IT??????
Ah, let's see, 33% can be dismissed as inconsequential. Only about 22%(according to this poll) of adult Americans smoke. So, smoking can be dismissed with a 50% margin.
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

#34 Jul 29, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm 62
I'm surprised. I assumed you were much younger.
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>There about 50 Million smokers in the US alone who have become 2nd class citizens - in many cases NOT BEING ABLE to get a JOB or being fired from a job (Just because they smoke - sometimes - JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IN THEIR HOUSE smokes!)
We have always had "at-will" employment in this country. You can be fired for any reason (or no reason at all.) The Unions gave the workers some power, but their influence has been waning for years. I guess you feel that folks are owed a job?
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
AND YOU DEFEND THIS??
These people are finding it harder and harder to even find a place to LIVE (Just because they smoke - sometimes - JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IN THEIR HOUSE smokes!)
AND YOU DEFEND THIS??
...
OF COURSE YOU DEFEND THIS!
Wow, I guess you're using me a proxy for every complaint you have against the modern world. The fact that we've never talked about these issues, and that I've never expressed an opinion on them doesn't seem to slow you down one bit.
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably the MAJORITY of Germans under Hitlers regime - didn't consider themselves NATZI's - but MANY were still BRAINWASHED into believing that the Jews were "smelly" 2nd class people and needed to be "delt with" - so they were "Good citizens" and "just reported violations"
I should have known a comparison to Hitler wasn't far off. How do you get to be 62 and still not know how to spell "Nazi"?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#35 Jul 29, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
No - They last did the Poll in 2010 - learn to read!
2007, was the last time Gallup ASKED THAT question until this year's July 7-10 survey."
Are you confusing "July 7-10" (a survey taken over the course of four days) with "July 7, 2010"? That is the only possibility I can see that gives your rant any explanation at all.

As to the question itself, there is nothing to indicate whether a definition of "public places" was provided. If you think that definition isn't disputed, you haven't been around the forum for long.

The poll is what the poll is. They asked questions, and they reported the results. They report that, as a binary issue, a national law would please more people than not. Whether the same could be said for other arrangements or not, that is the result of their asking that question.

Are you saying they somehow don't have the right--or their readers don't have the right--to know that?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#36 Jul 29, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough is Enough ... when you see the Feds OVERTAX a legal product that creates the conditions for the new enterprize of rolling cigarettes, only to be denied with bald 2 faced lies.
Why, Grandma, what big incoherency you have!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#37 Jul 29, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, let's see, 33% can be dismissed as inconsequential. Only about 22%(according to this poll) of adult Americans smoke. So, smoking can be dismissed with a 50% margin.
That should have read "smokers can be dismissed with a 50% margin".

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#38 Jul 29, 2012
Typical big government adding to the tax roll collected.
When are people going to finally say enough is enough.
At what point do you define our government as tyrannical?
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#39 Jul 29, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
We have always had "at-will" employment in this country. You can be fired for any reason (or no reason at all.) The Unions gave the workers some power, but their influence has been waning for years. I guess you feel that folks are owed a job?
You're still defending!
Try applying this to an Obese (Even EXTREMELY OBESE) worker
I don't know about where you live - but around here approx. 50% of office workers for the Government are in that category - it makes MOST of them VERY slow moving, a LOT of them - not PLEASANT to smell - and most cost the Gov. EXTRA for larger Chairs (and other accommodations)- BUT THEY CAN NOT BE DESCRIMINATED against!- NOT IN EMPLOYMENT!- But in MORE AND MORE JOBS EVERYDAY - a smoker can!!
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, I guess you're using me a proxy for every complaint you have against the modern world. The fact that we've never talked about these issues, and that I've never expressed an opinion on them doesn't seem to slow you down one bit.
No - What I am trying to get you to understand is that:
This group is NOT CONCERNED with a reduction in smoking rates - they ALREADY HAVE THAT - and HAD they acheived this through "Educating with truth" - I WOULD HAVE APPLAUDED THEM WHOLEHEARTEDLY!- That would have been a GREAT contribution!

But they realized early - that a certain percentage were STILL GOING TO SMOKE - So they MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION to "EXAGGERATE" the risks of Smoking - That helped a LOT but it still wasn't enough.

So in the Mid 70's The "WORLD conference on tobacco and health" determined what they REALLY NEEDED was to turn it into a "Social" issue - so that EVERYONE AROUND a smoker would help to "Turn the screws" - That's when the OUTRIGHT LIES, and the UNDERHANDED DECEPTION started!- you see - until the mid 70's - the MOST common remark was "he's ONLY hurting himself" - Now it's "YOU DON'T CARE THAT YOU'RE KILLING ME, AND EVERYONE ELSE AROUND YOU!"

ALMOST ALL of this was accomplished with BILLIONS from the companies that had the MOST TO GAIN from "Quitting" - along with the BILLIONS that was "squeezed" from the tobacco companies.- BTW - ALMOST EVERYDAY I see stories about the Anti's - fighting, screaming, and kicking, like a bunch of Little Kids - about "GETTING THEIR "OWED" SHARE" of this money!

If you want to SHARE in all this - Be my guest - But at LEAST accept the "Title"
Old Guy wrote:
I should have known a comparison to Hitler wasn't far off.
That's because it's such a CLOSE COMPARISON - He used EXACTLY the same Tactics to "PUSH HIS AGENDA" - and GAIN THE CONTROL, he Sooo desperately wanted.- if He'd had the Internet, along with WORLD WIDE MEDIA coverage - He probably would have HAD the "UTOPIA" that he wanted
Old Guy wrote:
How do you get to be 62 and still not know how to spell "Nazi"?
THAT ONE is embarrassing - All I can say is: It was 2:30am - and I SHOULD have been asleep HOURS before!
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#40 Jul 29, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I should have known a comparison to Hitler wasn't far off.
Just ONE -(1) example:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”.
(Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; 1943).
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#42 Jul 31, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
There about 50 Million smokers in the US alone who have become 2nd class citizens - in many cases NOT BEING ABLE to get a JOB or being fired from a job (Just because they smoke - sometimes - JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IN THEIR HOUSE smokes!)
Drug addicts are typically regarded as something less than first rate citizens, particularly when their addiction causes problems for others. Living with a drug addict can cause problems for people who come to the addict's attention because of your relationship with the addict. It is nothing new for people who are in either of those situations to have difficulty in areas like finding and keeping a job.

There are a range of reasons why employers might reject someone who smokes (it is NOT an inherent element of the person, it is indulgence in a behavior) as an employee.
While less widely applicable, there are also reasons why SOME employers might reject someone who lives with a person who smokes.
Enumerating them is clearly a waste of time, as anyone who is aware of the concepts is almost certainly aware of the reasons.

SO, then, you are saying there are people who would choose smoking over being employed. I gotta say there aren't many "anti-smokers" who defend that.
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
In Areas of California - People CAN NOT SMOKE IN THEIR OWN HOUSE - if someone is able to SEE THEM
Name a couple.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#43 Jul 31, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still defending!
Try applying this to an Obese (Even EXTREMELY OBESE) worker
I don't know about where you live - but around here approx. 50% of office workers for the Government are in that category
Which of your cheeks did you see that statistic hidden under?
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
No - What I am trying to get you to understand is that:
This group is NOT CONCERNED with a reduction in smoking rates - they ALREADY HAVE THAT
I don't really know what group you are talking about. Your claim here is just so bogus I can't believe you actually posted it. Like "What do you mean you need a paycheck? You already HAVE that 'cause I gave you one last week!"
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
But they realized early - that a certain percentage were STILL GOING TO SMOKE - So they MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION to "EXAGGERATE" the risks of Smoking - That helped a LOT but it still wasn't enough.
Do your homework please. As early as the 1920s, a scientist discovered the link between spousal smoking and an increase in lung cancer. Of course, since he was a German and refused to join the Nazi party, his work was largely ignored and his career was suppressed.
The truth

New Port Richey, FL

#44 Aug 2, 2012
Legalize marijuana!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Port Richey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
FL August 23 Florida Primary Election: Will you vote? (Aug '10) 1 hr convict 549 2,517
Rick & Amy de vaul 5 hr Sam 2
The End is Found Mon The END 1
Has anyone lived at Savannah Cove apartments, T... (Aug '07) Mon Onomus 21
FL 2010 Florida Governor Race Election Results a "... (Nov '10) Mon noshellswill 2,977
US Treats Vets How Sep 20 Mouth of History 1
who is VET Sep 19 A REAL VET 1
•••
•••
•••

Port Richey Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Port Richey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Port Richey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Port Richey
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••