Man loses round in smoking ban fight

Man loses round in smoking ban fight

There are 75 comments on the KOB.com Eyewitness News 4 - New Mexico story from Sep 25, 2008, titled Man loses round in smoking ban fight. In it, KOB.com Eyewitness News 4 - New Mexico reports that:

Stephen Brown was so opposed to New Mexico's ban on smoking in public places that he got himself cited for lighting up in a Catron County bar just minutes after the new law took effect.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOB.com Eyewitness News 4 - New Mexico.

confederate1978

Scottsville, KY

#21 Sep 26, 2008
Yosemiti Sam wrote:
They are second class citizens! Their rights shouldn't trump those of us who prefer to breath clean air!!! &Y%%*%*
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE AND SO ARE THE ANTIS THAT PUSH BULLCRAP OFF AS FACT,only to create hate against their fellow man........go kiss the a.ss of a smoker and thank them for not beating you up..........and for paying 5 times the taxes you ever will...but of course if you insist like a good lil joe biden yo momma supporter feel patriotic and pay more taxes.....
Bonnie

United States

#22 Sep 26, 2008
Whisky River Crabb wrote:
<quoted text>
And while we are at it we need to ban f*rting in public places. After a good bowl of beans and chili that smells worse than any cigarette I ever lit up. Then we can ban coal, which is used to generate over 60% of our electricity, so the silly little electric cars people are buying now will have no way to get charged up.
Since we have a large agricultural base here we need to send task forces to all corners of the state with large hammers and corks to stop all the livestock from polluting our air with methane gas.
I think we should ban sewage treatment plants. The effluent, cleaned up water, that comes out of these things are used to water golf courses, the largest waste of water and real estate known to man. Lets all use outhouses instead. Wait a minute!! We already have a ban on outhouses! Crap, I guess we are stuck.
You see what I am getting at folks? We don't need the government telling us how we are supposed to live our lives. If you don't like cigarette smoke, don't come to my house. If I am at your house I will not smoke in it. It's the same for private businesses. If they allow smoking, don't patronize the place. Go to another bar, restaurant or whatever that does not allow smoking. If you keep going to a place that serves watered down drinks or sorry food, it's your own fault, not the business owner. But, does that give you the right to ban the business or force it to close?
It's all about Big Brotherism. We do not need government telling private individuals how to run their private business. All it takes is ten cents worth of paper, a magic marker and scotch tape to hold it up. Smoking allowed or no smoking allowed. It's that simple. But, nobody in government, or many in business, can figure it out.
If we don't put a stop to it now, pretty soon they will be telling us how many kids we can have and were we have to live and work.
Sunny Delight

Albuquerque, NM

#23 Sep 26, 2008
Let's ban all motor vehicles as they throw pollutants into our air, that affect our ability to breath.
confederate1978

Scottsville, KY

#24 Sep 26, 2008
We can safely say today,that the rediculous has become the norm and the norm the rediculous.The patients have taken over the insane assylum.

“Down in the Bayou”

Since: Apr 08

Vancleave Mississippi

#25 Sep 26, 2008
I smoke wherever I feel like it..and I have yet to get a ticket or a fine..so they can all kiss my American Buttocks!..

“Down in the Bayou”

Since: Apr 08

Vancleave Mississippi

#26 Sep 26, 2008
and I notice..when I light up in a bar..others do also..and the bars never say a thing about it...course..since the ban came into effect...I do not frequent the pub scene as I used to..

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#27 Sep 26, 2008
Yosemiti Sam wrote:
They are second class citizens! Their rights shouldn't trump those of us who prefer to breath clean air!!! &Y%%*%*
You are a no class illegal alien and you have no rights.

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#28 Sep 26, 2008
Daniel in Hobbs wrote:
I smoke wherever I feel like it..and I have yet to get a ticket or a fine..so they can all kiss my American Buttocks!..
Thank you!

;-)

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#29 Sep 26, 2008
confederate1978 wrote:
We can safely say today,that the rediculous has become the norm and the norm the rediculous.The patients have taken over the insane assylum.
Well stated!

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#30 Sep 26, 2008
A lawyer and a redneck are sitting next to each other on a long
flight. The lawyer is thinking that rednecks are so dumb that
he could get over on them easy...

So the lawyer asks if the redneck would like to play a fun game. The
redneck is tired and just wants to take a nap, so he politely
declines and tries to catch a few winks.

The lawyer persists, that the game is a lot of fun.'I ask you
a question, and if you don't know the answer, you pay me only $5;
you ask me one, and if I don't know the answer, I will pay you $500.

This catches the redneck's attention and to keep the lawyer quiet,
agrees to play the game.

The lawyer asks the first question.'What's the distance from
the Earth to the moon?' The redneck doesn't say a word, reaches in
his pocket pulls out a five-dollar bill, and hands it to the lawyer.

Now, it's the redneck's turn. He asks the lawyer,'What goes up a
hill with three legs, and comes down with four?'

The lawyer uses his laptop, searches all references. He uses the
airphone; he searches the Net and even the Library of Congress. He
sends e-mails to all the smart friends he
knows, all to no avail.

After one hour of searching he finally gives up. He wakes up the
redneck and hands him $500.
The redneck pockets the $500 goes right back to sleep.

The lawyer is going nuts not knowing the answer. He wakes the
redneck up and asks,'Well, so what goes up a hill with three legs
and comes down with four?'

The redneck reaches in his pocket, hands the lawyer $5 and goes back
to sleep.

Don't mess with us rednecks.
We only talk dumb....
open

Albuquerque, NM

#31 Sep 26, 2008
Lies don't become the truth just because they're often repeated. My problem is that is smoking is the extreme health hazard "they" claim; where are all the bodies? If it was the problem "they" claim, there should be bodies lining the street. Not to make light of it but not enough people die of directly atributable smoking risk. In the fifties/sixties/seventies smoking was highly popular; how come the life expectancy continued to rise? Maybe some people are just meant to have lung cancer, gene abnormality etc.

Try thinking for yourself and stop quoting unatributed items "they" tell you.

“Old Sailors Never Die.”

Since: Aug 08

Land of The Brave

#32 Sep 26, 2008
Yosemiti Sam wrote:
They are second class citizens! Their rights shouldn't trump those of us who prefer to breath clean air!!! &Y%%*%*
You are one dumb turd. If you live in Albukooky all you have to do is step outside and you are not breathing "clean air". I doubt anyone has ever forced you to patronize a business that allows smoking, the choice is yours alone.

By your reasoning, if I am sitting next to you in a restaurant and you hike a leg and cut loose with something that has all the colors of the rainbow in it, I am not supposed to be offended. But, if I light up you have every right to be offended?

You need to wake up to the facts. By allowing government to tell me what I can or cannot do, they will soon be telling YOU what you can or cannot do. Then we will hear you talking out of the other side of your face.
confederate1978

Scottsville, KY

#33 Sep 26, 2008
open wrote:
Lies don't become the truth just because they're often repeated. My problem is that is smoking is the extreme health hazard "they" claim; where are all the bodies? If it was the problem "they" claim, there should be bodies lining the street. Not to make light of it but not enough people die of directly atributable smoking risk. In the fifties/sixties/seventies smoking was highly popular; how come the life expectancy continued to rise? Maybe some people are just meant to have lung cancer, gene abnormality etc.
Try thinking for yourself and stop quoting unatributed items "they" tell you.
WELL SAID bravo

“"Behaving this month"”

Since: Aug 08

Albuquerque

#34 Sep 26, 2008
Yosemiti Sam wrote:
They are second class citizens! Their rights shouldn't trump those of us who prefer to breath clean air!!! &Y%%*%*
I assume you don't drive a car, If you really want to breathe clean air, we need to get rid of them, and the factories and anything else that pollutes..... your lawmower must be electric, right? The whole topic of smokers vs non smokers boils down to being polite. It is just not necessary to smoke inside anywhere, or in any crowd of people. Nor is it necessary to refer to someone who smokes as a "second class citizen". Nicotine is more addictive than heroin, lets cut folks a break (smokers, unlike heroin addicts are not offered methadone or anything else to replace the nicotine, and what is available is costly and not covered by insurances like methadone is, plus they don't work, from what I am told) and hope they can break the addiction. Its a hard one to cope with.
Doing what about it

Las Cruces, NM

#35 Sep 26, 2008
Hey Stephen smoke all you want, I could care less if you die from cancer but keep your damn smoke away from me and others who don't smoke.

I have never smoked, it makes me sick but I don't care if others do, just not around me.

The best solution for the smoking problem is to allow some bars and restaurants to allow smoking.

Then those that want to puff their life away can go to those places and give the rest of us a chance to breath and live longer.
Smoking ban

Las Cruces, NM

#36 Sep 26, 2008
I wonder how long before they pass a law making it illegal to smoke inside your own home?

And in your yard, garage and on the sidewalk in front of your home.

The is such a thing as overdoing it when they keep passing more and more laws instead of enforcing the good laws we have now.

Enough already on picking on the citizen but allowing the billion dollar industry that adds the drug to the long white or brown tobacco stick hooking you on their greedy profit making business.

OUTLAW TABBACO and arrest those that sneak it in.

We all know that will never happen, those companies line our politicians pockets with millions of hidden dollars.
Albucynic

Cedar Crest, NM

#37 Sep 26, 2008
How about making a statement or a point first & then putting a link to your statistics so that we can decide if we want to indulge in your propaganda?
confederate1978 wrote:
EPA Study Soundly Rejected
In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.
Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data.... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association.... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."
The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."
In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.
Propaganda Trumps Science
The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.
In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.
The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.
Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr.([email protected]) is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.
For more information ...
James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98," British Medical Journal, May 2003: http://www.heartland.org/article.cfm... .
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
sad to hear

Louisville, KY

#38 Sep 26, 2008
Whisky River Crabb wrote:
<quoted text>
And while we are at it we need to ban f*rting in public places. After a good bowl of beans and chili that smells worse than any cigarette I ever lit up. Then we can ban coal, which is used to generate over 60% of our electricity, so the silly little electric cars people are buying now will have no way to get charged up.
Since we have a large agricultural base here we need to send task forces to all corners of the state with large hammers and corks to stop all the livestock from polluting our air with methane gas.
I think we should ban sewage treatment plants. The effluent, cleaned up water, that comes out of these things are used to water golf courses, the largest waste of water and real estate known to man. Lets all use outhouses instead. Wait a minute!! We already have a ban on outhouses! Crap, I guess we are stuck.
You see what I am getting at folks? We don't need the government telling us how we are supposed to live our lives. If you don't like cigarette smoke, don't come to my house. If I am at your house I will not smoke in it. It's the same for private businesses. If they allow smoking, don't patronize the place. Go to another bar, restaurant or whatever that does not allow smoking. If you keep going to a place that serves watered down drinks or sorry food, it's your own fault, not the business owner. But, does that give you the right to ban the business or force it to close?
It's all about Big Brotherism. We do not need government telling private individuals how to run their private business. All it takes is ten cents worth of paper, a magic marker and scotch tape to hold it up. Smoking allowed or no smoking allowed. It's that simple. But, nobody in government, or many in business, can figure it out.
then what is the gov for? you appreciate the gov when it is protecting your rights, just not so much when it is trying to protect your health. you want it both ways and it wont work like that. they used to hang those little paper signs in the windows of stores that said "no blacks" also. that didnt work out so well, huh, if you want to "run" a business you cannot pick and choose a select group to serve, if you want to do that then you need to open a group, like redmans club, something where you pay dues to join, and then do what you will, but if your open to the public, how can you decide who, smoking or non that you want to serve? just cause you want to smoke?
confederate1978

Scottsville, KY

#39 Sep 26, 2008
duh its at the bottom in the write up
didnt you follow it.
you effin idiot

Batavia, OH

#40 Sep 26, 2008
Whisky River Crabb wrote:
And while we are at it we need to ban f*rting in public places. After a good bowl of beans and chili that smells worse than any cigarette I ever lit up.
Chili and burrito farts make for the best dutch ovens!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Reserve Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News November candidates to 'interview' in Las Cruces Aug 8 Irene 3
News Bulls bring top riders to Wild, Wild West Pro R... (Jun '15) Jun '15 I love the southwest 1
News NM, Arizona senators on wildfire tour (Jun '14) Jun '14 Mary 1
News 1,200 firefighters battle record New Mexico blaze (Jun '12) Jun '12 non-resident trapper 6
News Smoke shifts directions from Gila fire (May '12) Jun '12 non-resident trapper 5
News Only two utilize Red Cross services (Jun '11) Jun '12 non-resident trapper 5
News Record-Setting N.M. Fire Expected to Burn for W... (Jun '12) Jun '12 non-resident trapper 2

Reserve Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Reserve Mortgages