Reply With Quote
obviously there aren't many smart restaurantors. It's really a shame that a smoking ban is needed.
back then, we all weren't really aware of just how dangerous second hand smoke is. The smart restaurantors simply divided the sections into smoking and non-smoking.
obviously there aren't many smart restaurantors. It's really a shame that a smoking ban is needed.
I absolutely don't like the inconsistencies and the reasoning they keep giving as to why marijuana is illegal.
We're smart enough now...so why was the choice taken away?
Because of Nazi ing dumbasses, that is why.
But you see, the ban wasn't needed. The non-smokers were, and are, too stupid to open a restaurant for non-smokers. That's why the ban is needed, because the non-smokers are ignorant Nazi idiots, incapable of not going into a restaurant that allows smoking, incapable of opening a non-smoking restaurant.
Again, it isn't a customer issue. The law is a worker safety/worker's rights issue. At least, that was the justification here when the law was passed in MI a couple weeks ago.
And restaurants getting more business after the bans (which were the trend in NY IIRC) was just an unforeseen benefit to the owners, and an unfortunate property right removed from the owner.
As I was saying before from the instance of chris chelios (a non smoking NHL player) it was a fear that your compe or would have the edge if you banned smoking. But the reality is that the fear was unjustified, at least in the case of NY.
Ok so if everyone knows the evil of smoking and the benefit of non-smoking establishments, why is the ban still needed?
Obviously, it was brilliant and now everyone knows what they didn't know then...so there should be no need for a ban.
So why is there still one?
I mean, we know the dangers now...having a no smoking establishment actually helps business(at least in NY)...so why is the ban needed?
don't the cooks/waiters/workers have the ability to choose either a smoking or non-smoking establishment to work at?
i don't see where my scenario has any flaws. there are markets for both types of establishments.
faceslap
no can do.Ride a ing bike then.
done.Leave for work earlier.
ok.Don't work far away from your house.
Those are good ideas. I also like that government is telling manufacturers to make more efficient cars. Do you?IOW why don't you change your own life before you go around changing eveyrone else you stupid ing piece of .
And why do you need the government to do it for you? Dumbass.
/face slapIt's not your ing restaurant/bar ...do you ing understand thaT?
nah. You just blew a whiff of harmful smoke in my face. It's not that far from assault.Don't insult me by telling me you are with me on anything. You are not with me on anything.
You understand nothing about individual rights, you are a fascist Nazi and I most certainly am not.
hazzard? Get them Duke boys.Hopefully, we'll outlaw stupid people, the true hazard to everyone's health.
Drinking alcohol is a health hazzard, why don't we just outlaw bars hypocrite?
Second hand drunk doesn't effect anyone directly in the bar, dumbass.
you being a ing lardass does not affect my health.Being a ing lardass is a burden on the taxpayer and health hazard?
Why don't we just outlaw being a lardass?
you having too many kids does not affect my health.People having too many kids is a burden on the taxpayer? Why don't we just outlaw having too many kids?
//face slapThe non-dumbass FAIR solution is to let bars and resturants choose to be either smoking or non-smoking.
post smoking ban economics have shown many favorable results even if you are too stupiid to realize that.You and your anti-American Nazi ing ilk are too stupiid to realize that.
You and your Nazi iong ilk are too ing stupid to even see the economic potential over the choice.
///face slapYou're just a ing Nazi, who doesn't give a about individual rights. You are the one imposing on others.
You do not have the right to slap me because it not your business. You bigoted, nazi.
Nazi, bigot, piece of .
You do not have more rights than me, or a business owner, because you are non-smoker. You ing bigot.
It is not the same thing. You see, the owner welcomes smokers, that is his perogative, it is not yours to go into his business and tell him, or me, what we can or cannot do.
It's your perogative to off and go find a place where smoking is not allowed and then be offended when people smoke.
Blake, you going into a smoking establishment and being offended is like me going to a re convention and being suprised to see you there.
Jesus Christ endorses smoking pot?
A Catholic Archbishop with a PHD:
http://www.honoluluasa.org/cannabis_religion.htm
And I'll toss in my own contribution from Acts 10:
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
I'll toss in another one for emphasis from Genesis 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
God made weed, man makes all the other we put into our bodies. You are calling what God made unclean, you are putting man above God.
God and Jesus did not make it illegal, Napoleon first did, and then about 70-80 years ago a group of MEN came along and made it illgeal here. Man, not God. It is not illegal because of the will of God or Jesus, it is illegal because of the will of men.
You cannot find a single reference to God or Jesus saying don't smoke pot, don't use it. You can only point to your own interpretation and that of other men. You cannot point to the word of God or Jesus to back your claim and because there is not specificity, you cannot claim the Bible is on your side.
So why did ya'll try to?
In fact the only negative references to drugs or intoxication are made in reference to man made ones...both alcohol, and drugs(sorcery or pharmacology)
What does our society do now? Gods plants are illegal, but our drugs we make are not.
That is not the will of God, he clearly says, on page 2 of the bible, if I made it, it's there for you to use. And every other anti-drug reference he or Jesus makes is to man-made ones, not the ones he made.
In fact he's quite fond of the plants he made, including marijuana. so much so that he himself told Moses to put it into the oil used to annoint Prophets, Kings and Messiahs, at least according to the Talmud.
It's also a fact it was used by Hebrew women of antiquity during child birth. That is God's plant...yet man can come along and make a pill from it and say this is ok, the plant is not...and so many so devoted to the word of God will directly contradict his most basic statement...
That if he made it, it is good, and it is there for you to use. It's the crap we make that comes with the warnings.
Last edited by whottt; 12-28-2009 at 09:08 AM.
That hardly passes as Jesus Christ endorsing marijuana use, and by the term “use” I’m referring to “recreational use”.
Let’s clarify the position of the Catholic Church;
"The Catholic Church says that drugs "cons ute direct co-operation in evil" and does not seem to make exceptions for marijuana. The Vatican has condemned legalizing "soft drugs" like marijuana, and its newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, recently scolded Italian lawmakers for liberalizing pot-possession laws"
Off the Charts out of context whottt, you have tortured these scriptures beyond recognition (you are aware of that), this message was a direct reference to the fact that God’s salvation through Jesus Christ was meant not only for Jews, but for all who would accept it.And I'll toss in my own contribution from Acts 10:
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
To suggest that you can use these passages to justify smoking is nothing less that a Biblical misrepresentation of epic proportion.
Heroin comes from the opium poppy plant (an herb too), does Christ also endorse it’s recreational use? (He doesn’t)I'll toss in another one for emphasis from Genesis 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Nonsensical hyperbole, I’m merely saying that the recreational use of drugs is not supported by the tenets of Christianity, and you are light years from having had presented an argument to the contrary.God made weed, man makes all the other we put into our bodies. You are calling what God made unclean, you are putting man above God.
Christians are to be sober minded (scriptural), and inducing mind altering drugs for the fun of it is contrary to that.You cannot find a single reference to God or Jesus saying don't smoke pot, don't use it. You can only point to your own interpretation and that of other men. You cannot point to the word of God or Jesus to back your claim and because there is not specificity, you cannot claim the Bible is on your side.
The effects of marijuana cannot be reconciled with being of sober mind;
Effects of use in moderation;
-disruption of attention
-reduction of coordination
-sense of time and space are altered
Effects of heavy use;
-hallucinations
-memory dysfunction
-disorientation and delusions
Quite contrary to picture of being a sober-minded Christian
If you are strictly a supporter of marijuana use for medicinal purposes only, and that under the care of a physician, then I’m fine with that, if you support the casual use of it, and believe that Christianity should too, then we are at odds (and you are incorrect).
It’s a free Country, and I don’t care that people support it’s legalization (I work in Federally subsidized Housing, there's rarely a day when I'm not in a unit where it's being used. It does't faze me), I do take exception to those few who would suggest that Christianity is supportive of it.
If you want to use it, do so, but Christian’s have no business trying to rationalize it’s use through scripture, it’s not there. For “Christian” users the correct position is that they should acknowledge that they are struggling with a sin (a daily occurrence).
The proof is in the amount of pool halls that have gone under. 5 and counting. Each of them went from a solid business to a mess in less than a year. The big one "Paradise Billiards" is struggling pretty bad right now. Clicks as well. Both of those owners have publicly attacked the smoking ban. Each business has specifically sited the ban as a major contributing factor in loss of revenue. 4 of those pool halls have open their books up to the public so they can see for themselves. Are they just making this up? Did they photoshop the numbers? Its pretty obvious.
If its not the smoking ban and these business thrived in a ty economy a year ago why are they now going under? Is this all a coincidence? 11 places of business, and I know its more, have gone under this year. Each of them have been in business in excess of 8 years here and some much longer. Each one of them were targets of the recent smoking ban in bars, pool halls, bingo parlors and bowling alley's. Each of them went under less than a year after the ban. Its not just a coincidence. The numbers state that as a city even in its entirety is down over 15% in alcohol sales.
I'm pro the smoking ban but not in any establishment that is 21 and up. Adults only. Everyone was on board with the ban until they added the bars and pool halls. Unnecessary bull .
I really don't know what further proof you require. How many businesses need to go under with their owners pointing to the revenue post ban? My guess is that it doesn't matter to you because 90 businesses could go under and each of them could blame the smoking ban and each of them could provide proof of down revenue and you wouldn't buy any of it. Because you're a ing moron.
The ban is needed to protect the ones that can't protect themselves. IE children. A child can't refuse entry in to a restaurant that allows smoking. His parents forced him/her to enter. The banning of smoking protects children from their own ignorant parents or guardians.
To ban smoking in an over 21 establishment blows my mind. No one is forced to enter an over 21 bar against their own will. A kids at the grocery store, restaurant or mall I can understand.
Everything was fine until they attacked the bars and pool halls. That's when the revenue hit rock bottom here. Blake thinks they're just making up to cover for a bad business model but the reality is that there are too many going under...too many adult only establishments hurt by this.
parents can force their kids to be in the sun with no sunscreen too, a situation exactly analogous to yours. i'm all for protecting children from negligent parents, but this is a broad, sweeping regulation that doesn't pinpoint this specific scenario.
I won't disagree with that. Ultimately there should be no smoking ban. Period. It infringes on personal property rights and the rights of the business owner.
Most business owners, at least here in Corpus, were willing to concede some of the ban. Public places including restaurants. Even though some went under, like Crystals who went under after a very public battle. Then they went and attacked all the over 21 places. Too far. They should have never given an inch to begin with.
Last edited by BacktoBasics; 12-28-2009 at 03:47 PM.
The position of the Catholic Church can and does change.
That quote has nothing to with the fact that God's salvation through Jesus Christ was meant only for Jews but all who would accept it.Off the Charts out of context whottt, you have tortured these scriptures beyond recognition (you are aware of that), this message was a direct reference to the fact that God’s salvation through Jesus Christ was meant not only for Jews, but for all who would accept it.
The entire passage:
9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13 A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
There is nothing metaphorical about that particular passage. It's a very literal statement from God. About a very specific incident.
The next passage contains the metaphor of which you speak. And I believe you are still interpreting to your own views, not the actual context.
You keep saying smoking...you do realize you don't have to smoke pot to get high from it.To suggest that you can use these passages to justify smoking is nothing less that a Biblical misrepresentation of epic proportion.
You do realize it has nutritional value as a food source and you can survive by consuming it?
In fact, it's one of the most perfectly balanced food sources there is.
Heroin comes from the opium poppy plant (an herb too), does Christ also endorse it’s recreational use? (He doesn’t)
Both the words of God and Jesus make very specific WARNINGS, not condemnations, of both alcohol and sorcery and more importantly addictions. Physical addictions. And the only condemnation made of the two is against excess, which applies to any and everything else as well, including eating.
The process by which Opium is derived from the poppyseed most definitely qualifies as sorcery. As do most methods of distilling alcohol. And they are both addictive.
You eat Poppies in their natural form and they do not addict you or impair you, they don't even get you high really unless they are young.
The process of getting high from marijuana most certainly is not sorcery. It's not sorcery. You can simply pick it up and eat and it and it will get you high.
No alteration, right there as god made it. As much as you want, without dying, and it's not physically addictive either.
Nonsensical hyperbole, I’m merely saying that the recreational use of drugs is not supported by the tenets of Christianity, and you are light years from having had presented an argument to the contrary.
And I'd say the root of all recreational drug use is a spiritual pursuit in nature, whether anyone realizes it or not. I'd also say just about all recreational drug use is a medicinal pursuit as well.
At the root of all drug use is not the intent to enhance the flesh, it's to escape the limits of it.
Wrong. Sober means from drink. Period.Christians are to be sober minded (scriptural), and inducing mind altering drugs for the fun of it is contrary to that.
The warning of the bible and Jesus consistently and specficially mention alcohol by name, and sorcery(pharmacology) the drugs made by man.
There is not a single reference or warning in the bible against using things god made in their natural state.
Sober means free from drink, it does not mean free from being stoned. Being stoned most certainly is not being drunk. And in fact the bible even says alcohol and man-made drugs have their place...so if they have their place, pretty obviously the ones made by God do.
Oh yes they can, because being sober has absolutely nothing to do with being free from the effects of marijuana, and 100% to do with being free from the effects of alcohol.The effects of marijuana cannot be reconciled with being of sober mind;
By the way, I'd appreciate direct quotes from you for the basis of your opinions, as I have given to you.
Would you like me to list the effects of sugar and caffeine in moderation?Effects of use in moderation;
-disruption of attention
-reduction of coordination
-sense of time and space are altered
Absolutely false, sober means being free from the effects of drinking, not the effects of marijuana.Effects of heavy use;
-hallucinations
-memory dysfunction
-disorientation and delusions
Quite contrary to picture of being a sober-minded Christian
Please show me the quote so that I may challenge it directly.
These are just your words, whereas as I use the words of God directly.
Well I can go into a church and be given alcohol, for non-medicinal use.If you are strictly a supporter of marijuana use for medicinal purposes only, and that under the care of a physician, then I’m fine with that, if you support the casual use of it, and believe that Christianity should too, then we are at odds (and you are incorrect).
Oh well you see, I actually believe the main reason so many relgions, in particular christianity, have been totally ed up, twisted, abused and used for some of the most unholy acts of cruelty and tyranny in the history of man, directly relates to the dismissal of a plant clearly named by the Christian God as a Holy Sacrament.It’s a free Country, and I don’t care that people support it’s legalization (I work in Federally subsidized Housing, there's rarely a day when I'm not in a unit where it's being used. It does't faze me), I do take exception to those few who would suggest that Christianity is supportive of it.
If you want to use it, do so, but Christian’s have no business trying to rationalize it’s use through scripture, it’s not there. For “Christian” users the correct position is that they should acknowledge that they are struggling with a sin (a daily occurrence).
As I said, the first person in the history of Western Civilization to outlaw it, was Napoleon Bonaparte, a man believed by some to be an anti-christ.
Fact:
Christ means the annoited one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ
Fact:
Chrism has the same etymology and means annointing oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrism
Fact:
The recipe for chrism was given directly from God to Moses. And contains over 6lbs of cannabis.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...0&version=NKJV
Fact:
The recipe in it's original form is both a powerful healer and a powerful psychotropic drug.
And finally
Fact:
Jesus most certainly was annointed with that oil according to the Hewbrew recipe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_Jesus
Fact: Jesus told his disciples to use that oil on the sick and posessed(and one could argue all recreational drug users have a few demons).
I give you Mark 3:16
http://niv.scripturetext.com/mark/6.htm
Jesus Sends Out the Twelve
Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. 7Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evilb spirits.
8These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”
12They went out and preached that people should repent. 13They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.
There is your advocacy. I have now shown you substantially more evidence that the words of God and Jesus both advocated it's use, by what generally conidered to be direct references to the plant according to the Hewbrew language, than you have shown me to the contrary.
Whereas you cannot provide me with a single instance of them naming the plant and saying it should not be used.
You can find references to alcohol, and to man made drugs(socery), you cannot find one with even an alleged direct reference to marijuana.
The fact that you put this plant in the same sentence as opium, or perhaps consider it to be the exact same thing as cocaine or alcohol...proves to me you really don't understand what I am trying to say when I claim one is made by God, and the others are made by man.
Simply put: One will get you high simply be eating it. The others are mainly man made concentrations of plant alkaloids.
They should not be lumped together, they do not have the same origin. They are not the same.
I'm not a Christian as you likely define the term, I'm not going to claim to speak for God...but I will say I do have some Christian beliefs(just not all of them) and they are based upon what I consider to be the words of God, not the words of men interpreting his words for me. I see plenty of ample reasons why that should not be done by anyone.
Last edited by whottt; 12-29-2009 at 10:34 AM.
A better question is why hasn't it been legalized already?
The Catholic Church, as previously stated, is against the recreational use of soft drugs, let us know if that changes. Until then, for arguments sake, you have no leg to stand on.
Immaterial, but sure I do (happy that we cleared that up?)You keep saying smoking...you do realize you don't have to smoke pot to get high from it.
So does the fluid of elephant dung (for those that like a drink with their pot), you were aware of that, weren't you?You do realize it has nutritional value as a food source and you can survive by consuming it?
Tastes like crap, and unpractical to think that you could/would ingest enough to live on.In fact, it's one of the most perfectly balanced food sources there is.
Additionally, and more to the point of the discussion, it alters the natural function of the brain. For Christians, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is not to be intentionally abused (and I don't want to hear about how bad other edibles are for you, if they're unhealthy, they shouldn't be consumed either).
.And I'd say the root of all recreational drug use is a spiritual pursuit in nature, whether anyone realizes it or not. I'd also say just about all recreational drug use is a medicinal pursuit as well
B.S., for every Ricky Williams there are 50,000 doing it for the sole purpose of simply wanting to feel stoned (look up the percentage for yourself).
More commonly know as; "it's party time!"At the root of all drug use is not the intent to enhance the flesh, it's to escape the limits of it.
Sober, translated from the Greek as used in the New Testament;Wrong. Sober means from drink. Period.
The warning of the bible and Jesus consistently and specficially mention alcohol by name, and sorcery(pharmacology) the drugs made by man.
Sober means free from drink, it does not mean free from being stoned. Being stoned most certainly is not being drunk. And in fact the bible even says alcohol and man-made drugs have their place...so if they have their place, pretty obviously the ones made by God do.
Sober = Nepho - In the NT nepho is used only figuratively meaning to be free from every form of mental and spiritual "intoxication". The idea then is to be calm and collected in spirit, cir spect, self-controlled, well-balanced, clear headed. Be self-possessed (for believers a more accurate description would be "Spirit" possessed) under all cir stances. It speaks of exercising self-restraint (enabled by the Spirit) and being free from excess, from evil passion, from rashness, etc.
Oops!!
(See Nepho) Oops!!Oh yes they can, because being sober has absolutely nothing to do with being free from the effects of marijuana, and 100% to do with being free from the effects of alcohol. (and) Absolutely false, sober means being free from the effects of drinking, not the effects of marijuana.
(Next time, do your homework).
Knock yourself out.Would you like me to list the effects of sugar and caffeine in moderation?
Not at mine you wouldn't, and for those that serve a nominal amount in the form of communion, it certainly wouldn't have any mind altering affects (actually none) that a couple of drags on a joint would have.Well I can go into a church and be given alcohol, for non-medicinal use.
Okay, you've already informed us that you are well-read on Napoleon, we caught that the first time.As I said, the first person in the history of Western Civilization to outlaw it, was Napoleon Bonaparte, a man believed by some to be an anti-christ
For those that don't claim to serve Jesus Christ; agnostics, athiests, whatever, there are probably some valid reasons for legalizing mj, to each his own, but IMO, to drag Jesus Christ in as an advocate is tantamount to toeing the line of blasphemy (attributing the things of God to Satan and vice versa).
I don't know where you stand regarding Christianity (I may be incorrect, but you seemed to portray yourself as one when you had what you described as a near death experience 2-3 years ago).
If that's the case, perhaps you might want to back off a bit on the stand you've taken, as blasphemy is, according to Scripture, the only unforgivable sin.
(Consider that as no more than longsuffering, doctrinal exhortation).
Last edited by jochhejaam; 12-29-2009 at 04:29 PM.
What is the stance on mood-altering pharmaceutical drugs such as SSRI's (Paxil, Prozac, etc), Methylphenidate (Ritalin), et al?
These drugs are FDA approved, and when administered under the care of a physician, are proven to be beneficial, so for medicinal purposes, not unlike medical mj, if it assists in the treatment of a disorder, use it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions