So ... The smoking ban ...

[DeafnDum]

I'm wondering how you all think this thing is unfolding ...
Musicians?
Food Servers?
Conspiracy Theorists?
Old Bald Fat Guys?
Nascar Lovers?

My take is we all knew it was coming and now are just getting used to it. And I'm a smoker. I've lit up twice accidentally while sitting at a watering hole. But the bartenders were cool about it.
Whats the vibe in downtown harristurd?

[HBGOnline]

I had a trade show at the Sheraton last week. After 2 beers I couldn't take not being able to light up and left.

Drove down 2nd Street during the daytime last week. Most of the bars had smoking permitted signs on the doors.

I'm sure there will be a story in the media after a month from the start date of the ban.

Personally I think it SUCKS!!

[zendog64]

Personally, the smoking ban has caused me to stop frequenting alot of places, from my local neighborhood tavern to Denny's. Until the smoking ban took effect, I wasnt aware of how much money I was spending on dining out. I'm probably saving close to a hundred bucks a week since I can no longer smoke in public.

The downside is that I'm sure lots of other people are doing the same thing, and I imagine its only a matter of time before lots of these smaller establishments go out of business. Pennsylvania has alot of smokers, so I imagine this could become an economic disaster.

I've had several clients in the restaurant industry who have complained about how bad business has been since the ban. I've also met two people, a waitress and a bartender, who have recently become jobless because of slow business.

Thanks to this ban people are losing jobs and small businesses are losing customers.

I've also seen ALOT more cigarette butts on sidewalks and in parking lots than I've ever seen before. That cant be good for the environment. Or making millions of smokers "take it outside" so they can pollute the air.

And then theres the constitutionality of it all. Why is this smoking ban any different than putting up signs that say "No Jews allowed", or "Negroes not welcome here".

I say someone should start a "Smoke-In" in protest. Let's get all the smokers together and go to the Capitol and light up simultaneously in the rotunda.

[oquatanginwann]

That is absolutely ridiculous to infer that local businesses will go out of business because smokers aren't allowed to indulge in their privileged addiction of choice. There has been plenty of studies that actually show the opposite. For gods sake, don't blame the economy. Not people deciding to save their money and stay at home due to massive gas, food, grocery, everything prices. Nope, I believe it's a conspiracy brought on by an alien disguised as the Loch Ness Monster wandering around door to door looking for $3.50.

Come on, you inhale smoke laced with anything from Acetone (found in nail polish remover) and Carbon Monoxide to Urea (found in urine) and Methane (that's right, the gas you pass) and are addicted to it. An ingredient in mothballs- naphthalene- is also found in cigarette smoke. Benzene, arsenic and cyanide are all poisons. They’re all in cigarette smoke too. Secondhand smoke contains more than 50 cancer-causing chemical compounds, 11 of which are known to be Group 1 carcinogens. But hey, us non-smokers should have to just suck it up because you're too weak and can't live without it for a few minutes to eat.

Now, you have come to find that in fact it is not your god given right and your pissed. I studied Political Science and History in college and NEVER recall seeing any section in the constitution that states, "thou has the right to smoke while offending those who don't". Where in the constitution does it state this to support your claims of it going against "the constitutionality of it all"? Ewww, maybe it's all a huge conspiracy by the New World Order!

If you're going to be pissed off at someone, be pissed off at the very people that keep you addicted so that you can't even be in public for more than a few minutes without feeling withdraw symptoms. Can't even drink a couple beers without having to light up? Pathetic. In 2006, a Federal judge found that big tobacco companies manipulated nicotine levels to keep smokers addicted. During 1997-2001, smoking-attributable health care costs and productivity losses exceeded $167 billion per year.

On a very serious note, what's even more ridiculous is to liken it to racism. It is extremely offensive to suggest that something as vile and evil as racism of any kind towards anyone is the equivalent to you not being allowed to feed your weak addiction anymore in certain public places. You've seen ALOT more cigarette butts on sidewalks and in parking lots than ever seen before? What does that mean? It means that some smokers are as irresponsible as they are insensitive. Get over it, dry your tears and get used to it.

I'm sure you'll show them with a smoke-in though.

[alongfortheride]

Sept 25, 2008 18:59:50 GMT -5 zendog64 said:

Personally, the smoking ban has caused me to stop frequenting alot of places, from my local neighborhood tavern to Denny's. Until the smoking ban took effect, I wasnt aware of how much money I was spending on dining out. I'm probably saving close to a hundred bucks a week since I can no longer smoke in public.

A simple "thank you" will suffice. Now STFU and enjoy the clean air.

[HBGOnline]

I'd like to see these "studies". I know a bar manager in Philly and he dropped 40% after the Philly no smoking ban. Things got so bad they had to stop bands playing.

I don't see why our state government has to get involved in this issue. Can't the business owners decide if they want to allow smoking or not. I'm not talking sections either. It's all or none. Have a clearly posted sign before entering Smoking or No Smoking Allowed. Let free enterprise have a say, not a politician.

I wish Slick Eddie and our legislators would focus on those making careers from Wefare and other entitlements that will soon be more than 50% of our state budget.

What's next, talking on cell phones while driving?

[sayten]

Sept 26, 2008 7:48:25 GMT -5 oquatanginwann said:

Come on, you inhale smoke laced with anything from Acetone (found in nail polish remover) and Carbon Monoxide to Urea (found in urine) and Methane (that's right, the gas you pass) and are addicted to it. An ingredient in mothballs- naphthalene- is also found in cigarette smoke. Benzene, arsenic and cyanide are all poisons. They’re all in cigarette smoke too. Secondhand smoke contains more than 50 cancer-causing chemical compounds, 11 of which are known to be Group 1 carcinogens. But hey, us non-smokers should have to just suck it up because you're too weak and can't live without it for a few minutes to eat.

BUTT FUCK, THEY ARE DELICIOUS

I wish more places would put up butt cans or something as such... problem there... non-smoking turds put trash in them....


The smoking ban means nothing to me... I smoke... it's not gonna make the bands suck any less in most of those places... if anything it will help you identify the stank located on the person you're trying to get busy with.... you know you don't want to open a christmas present full of Mrs. Pauls....

[TAFKA g0d]

Sept 26, 2008 15:41:57 GMT -5 HBGOnline said:

I'd like to see these "studies".
What's next, talking on cell phones while driving?

Would you like to see these studies, too?

Everytime someone cuts in front of me and nearly takes out one of my front fenders.... there is always a cell-phone involved.

[zendog64]

Hey retard, there are a ton of sources out there that link smoking bans to businesses going belly up. Google "effects of smoking bans on small businesses" and you'll find all the facts you need. For example: www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html

And as far as the constitution goes, nowhere does it say that the government has any authority to ban an activity that is perfectly legal, especially on privately-owned property.

But I guess if enough anti-smoking crybabies like you whine loud enough, the freedom to smoke can be taken away regardless of how it impacts local businesses. Its really a shame that businesses could potentially go bankrupt because of narrow-minded whining pussies who are too weak to handle a puff of cigarette smoke.


Banning smoking in privately-owned businesses is nothing more than a form of discrimination. Of course, idiots like you will argue that secondhand smoke presents a health risk. But if that's the case, the same logic would dictate that bars and restaurants will have to refuse to serve customers with AIDS or hepatitis or genital herpes because they present a potential health risk to the public as well. And I think the odds of me catching a communicable disease by sitting on a toilet seat in a bar's restroom is much higher than you catching lung cancer or emphysema during the thirty minutes or so you spend in a restaurant eating quiche or cottage cheese or whatever it is that limp-wristed nancy boys like you eat.

[TAFKA g0d]

Sept 28, 2008 0:31:24 GMT -5 zendog64 said:

And as far as the constitution goes, nowhere does it say that the government has any authority to ban an activity that is perfectly legal, especially on privately-owned property.

The constitution doesnt say many things... it can be used to both promote and ban almost anything depending on how it is interpreted.

However, there are a lot of legal activities that are not allowed in certain public places (even if they are privately owned).

[zendog64]

alright, give me an example of another legal activity that is banned on a privately-owned property. i cant seem to think of any.

[TAFKA g0d]

Being nude? Government regulates where you are allowed to get nekkid.

Alcohol consumption? Government regulates where and when you are allowed to get your drink on.

True, these may not apply to private residences. But these business are not private residences. They are businesses. And so, therefore, they are subject to ordinances.

[zendog64]

Exactly my point. Being nude, while not a crime, is banned by local ordinances. Local ordinances also regulate the sale and consumption of liquor. The decision to ban smoking was legislated by the state, not a municipal government. I would have no problem if smoking bans were decided by local governments, because then at least smokers would have the option of taking their business somewhere else. Since the ban affects the entire commonwealth, it essentially takes away business and tax revenues from local small businesses and local governments.

I agree that all businesses should be subject to local ordinances, but thats a horse of a different color. We're talking about state government, which has clearly sidestepped the state constitution and made a decision that is best left to municipal government.

[Mickulz]

1. The sale of alcohol is regulated at the state level, not at the local municipality level.

2. Wine is a perfect example of of something that is legal that the sate controls. You can drink it, but not order it and have it shipped to you.

3. How are tax revenues lost? People still buy cigarettes and people still smoke. If you are going to say that they are losing business because people are not going out, then you need to look at your business plan. If 40% of your customers stop coming because they can not smoke, then you probably had a poor product. It is not like they are going to other places (because they can't).

4. You can find studies that point to both facts. It is a lot about number crunching, and how you skew it. A prime example is what smokers say is lost in tax revenue, non-smokers say are saved in health care cost.

I personally think (as a HUGE cigar smoker), that this has no effect at all on me. I am glad to come home from the bar and not have to febreeze myself 100 times.

It is one of those things that the parties will never agree on.

[zendog64]

In regards to local ordinances, I was referring to local goverments who choose to be "dry" towns, or local goverments who can decide what hours of operation a bar can have, but I see your point.

And if a business goes under due to a smoking ban (as many restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls, billiard parlors, etc. have), the local goverment is losing tax revenue, plain and simple. If a restaurant closes and those employees are jobless, the local government loses tax revenue.

Smoking bans have NO effect on healthcare costs whatsoever. No non-smoker has ever "come down with cancer" by sitting in the non-smoking section of a restaurant. Likewise, no smoker has ever quit smoking because of a smoking ban. If you're a smoker, you'll just find a different place to go smoke.

Personally, I think the public would be better served if the state goverment banned gambling. Gambling, like smoking, is a self-destructive addictive behavior. Yet for some reason, Rendell and the rest of the state legislature has no problem throwing millions of tax dollars into casinos. Its funny how the government can condone, support, and propagate one type of destructive behavior, yet it has no problem banning another.

The law must equally apply to everyone. Government cannot punish one group of people while rewarding others for equally destructive behavior. The law must apply to everyone, or no one. To do otherwise is discrimination, akin to racism, sexism, ageism, and every other kind of "ism". In this case, it's "smokeism". Anyone who believes otherwise is a blithering idiot and should be either castrated or euthanized to avoid tainting the human species with your brand of intellectual midgetry.

[Mickulz]

"In regards to local ordinances, I was referring to local goverments who choose to be "dry" towns, or local goverments who can decide what hours of operation a bar can have, but I see your point."

Yes, but you can not just pick and choice parts of an issue that best fit your arguement. You can not just disregard the fact that the state controls the sale and laws first.


"And if a business goes under due to a smoking ban (as many restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls, billiard parlors, etc. have), the local government is losing tax revenue, plain and simple. If a restaurant closes and those employees are jobless, the local government loses tax revenue."

What about the 40% decline in bars, 20% decline in resturants not classified as bars, 65% decline (nationwide) in bolwing alley revenues? All those industries were having issues to begin with. I am not saying that the smoking ban will not impact them, but there were problems long before this. Look at the number of bars who have gone out of business in out area alone.

"Smoking bans have NO effect on healthcare costs whatsoever. No non-smoker has ever "come down with cancer" by sitting in the non-smoking section of a restaurant. Likewise, no smoker has ever quit smoking because of a smoking ban. If you're a smoker, you'll just find a different place to go smoke."


That is incorrect. The quality of air in large city's that have a smoking ban has increased (35 city's were polled from 1998 to 2003). In direct relation, health care cost in those same cities dropped at a higher rate than cities without bans in place.

Personally, I think the public would be better served if the state goverment banned gambling. Gambling, like smoking, is a self-destructive addictive behavior. Yet for some reason, Rendell and the rest of the state legislature has no problem throwing millions of tax dollars into casinos. Its funny how the government can condone, support, and propagate one type of destructive behavior, yet it has no problem banning another.

You are not comparing apples to apples. Smoking is not banned. Where you can smoke is what is regulated. Guess what? The state regualtes where you can gamble. In fact the are more laws regulating gambling and higher penalties and fines for violating those laws than for smoking laws. To to sit there and say that the government does not regulate gambling is just flat out incorrect, or the use of saying smoking is banned is.


The law must equally apply to everyone. Government cannot punish one group of people while rewarding others for equally destructive behavior. The law must apply to everyone, or no one. To do otherwise is discrimination, akin to racism, sexism, ageism, and every other kind of "ism". In this case, it's "smokeism".

See above answer.

Anyone who believes otherwise is a blithering idiot and should be either castrated or euthanized to avoid tainting the human species with your brand of intellectual midgetry.

I belive that law is applied across many different actions, so I guess that make be a "blithering idiot" that needs to die. But I would rather be classified as that, than someone who spouts off comparisions and does not look at facts.

[Mickulz]

And for the record:

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

*
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2

*
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3

*
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4

*
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5

*
Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7

*
Nineteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Montana and Utah prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants; bars will go smokefree in 2009. New Hampshire prohibits smoking in some public places, including all restaurants and bars. Four states - Florida, Idaho, Louisiana and Nevada - prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants, but exempt stand-alone bars. Fifteen states partially or totally prevent (preempt) local communities from passing smokefree air ordinances stronger than the statewide law. Nebraska and Oregon have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken effect yet.8

*
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9

*
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11

*
In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13

*
Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14

*
The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.15

For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website at www.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).



Sources:
1. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
2. Ibid.
3. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available here. Accessed on 7/7/06.
4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition 2002. National Toxicology Program.
6. Shopland, D. Smoke-Free Workplace Coverage. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2001; 43(8): 680-686.
7. Halpern, M.T.; Shikiar, R.; Rentz, A.M.; Khan, Z.M. Impact of Smoking Status on Workplace Absenteeism and Productivity. Tobacco Control 2001; 10: 233-238.
8. American Lung Association. State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues (SLATI). May 8, 2008. Available at slati.lungusa.org/StateLegislateAction.asp. Accessed on June 10, 2008.
9. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Schuster, MA, Franke T, Pham CB. Smoking Patterns of Household Members and Visitors in Homes with Children in United States. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. Vol. 156, 2002: 1094-1100.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses. Second Edition. February 2003.
14. Diethelm PA, Rielle JC, McKee M. The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? The Research Philip Morris Did Not Want You to See. Lancet. Vol. 364 No. 9446, 2004.
15. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available here. Accessed on 7/7/06.

[zendog64]

Talk about picking and choosing parts of an issue....I never said that state government does not control liquor sales, I said that local ordinances are a better and more fair way to regulate the activities of local businesses.

You also state that air quality has improved in cities with smoking bans. This "fact" cannot possibly be correct unless you are referring to areas where smoking has been banned completely, both indoors and out. If a city with 25,000 one-pack-a-day smokers passes a law to ban smoking inside of bars/restaurants and other businesses, that means 500,000 cigarettes will be smoked outdoors daily...thats 15 million cigarettes a month! And you want me to believe that air quality is getting BETTER for it? You cannot possibly be serious.

Your "fact" regarding air quality in those 35 cities does not state if perhaps other factors were responsible for the improvement of air quality. The study you are referencing involves 1998-2003. The national average for the price of gas in 1998 was 1.03 a gallon. By 2003, the price had risen to a national average of 1.72* Mickulz, isnt it possible that perhaps the improvement in air quality might have been caused by the fact that more people were carpooling and taking public transportation in that time period? Since carbon monoxide is a byproduct of both smoking and internal-combustion engines, its impossible to state that smoking bans were responsible for the improvement in air quality.

Your argument about declining health care costs is also misleading. In the same time period of 1998-2003, welfare reform was responsible for millions of people losing health insurance. One investigative report found that 675,000 people lost health insurance coverage in 1997 alone as direct result of welfare reforms that were passed that year**. Chances are, the number of those uninsured had risen exponentially in the following five years, thereby accounting for a decrease in healthcare costs. When millions of people suddenly stop going to the doctor, that is going to skew the statistics.

I have yet to come across any concrete evidence that healthcare costs were impacted by smoking bans. As I have clearly stated, the average person does not spend enough time in a restaurant, bar, bowling alley, or any other business to contract an illness from second-hand smoke.

In regards to the effects of secondhand smoke in young children, how can a smoking ban in bars have any positive effect on this statistic? In anything, parents who had formerly gone to bars to smoke are now most likely smoking in their homes, putting children in MORE danger, not less. Allowing parents to smoke in bars would mean that they would be less inclined to smoke around their children.

And NOWHERE did I say that the government does not regulate gambling. I stated that the government not only supports gambling, but promotes it. From casinos to horse racing to scrath-off lottery tickets, the government promotes gambling because they know they can profit from someone's addictive and self-destructive behavior.

And dont you find it ODD that casinos are exempt from the smoking ban? Why? Because even the state legislature, inept and corrupt as they are, is smart enough to realize that if casinos were subject to the smoking ban, they would go out of business.



*statistics compiled from the Cato Institute, from an article which originally appeared in Investor's Business Daily, May 17, 2006.

**statistics compiled by the University of Michigan, www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/sthealth.html#healins

[TAFKA g0d]

Sept 29, 2008 14:23:24 GMT -5 zendog64 said:

I have yet to come across any concrete evidence that healthcare costs were impacted by smoking bans. As I have clearly stated, the average person does not spend enough time in a restaurant, bar, bowling alley, or any other business to contract an illness from second-hand smoke.

Ummm... we have lots of rules to protect not-average people. I'm pretty sure thats why the ACLU exists. Why not protect the drunks from lung cancer?

[yuppers]

When New Jersey passed their band a lot of places went out of business or are now at the point of going under. This is one place where the government just doesn't belong. With the extreme taxes that businesses pay, the should be able to decide if the want smoking or not. Ol' Eddie boy just trys to go along with trend so the people in Philly will like him. He's the "scene kid" of politics

[DeafnDum]

Welp, I guess I got what I asked for.
First off - Yuppers, its a BAN, not a BAND. "When New Jersey passed their band.." Banned would be the past tense of passing the ban.
Secondly,
I didn't want the political arguments, I was hoping to see if bars were saying "F - it" or are people going to private clubs more, or what?

Jeez - you guys ought to be using this energy to run for a political office.

[zendog64]

Hey, I DID attempt to run for the state house of representatives as an independent in the 87th district. Fell a few dozen signatures short of making it on the ballot. Coincidentally, my platform was built on two issues: smoker's rights and child support reform.

In fact, I announced my candidacy on this very board:


I am making it official.
« Result #89 on Jan 2, 2007, 4:29pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a few months of contemplation, I have decided to announce my intentions to run for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in the 87th District in 2008. I am running as an independent.

Why?

Because I am convinced that the "status quo" is no longer good enough. Because our politicians have lost touch with the people they have sworn to represent. Because I'm tired of going to the polls voting for the "lesser of two evils", or not going to the polls at all because no candidate stands up for what I believe in.

I'm tired of the backroom deals and the "stealth" politics that go on behind closed doors in the middle of the night. The only people who make dirty deals in the dead of the night are thieves and prostitutes; and I've reached the point where I refuse to have my pockets picked or my country pimped out by self-serving career politicians.

Why do I want to be a politician?

I don't. But when your trash can starts overflowing, someone has to take the garbage out. My plan is to get in, clean up some messes, then get out. I'm not looking for a new career, I'm just doing my duty as an American.

It might surprise some of you, but I am not using my personal conservative convictions to run this campaign. The job of a Representative is be a messenger, to be a voice for the people in this district. If the people support abortion, then I vote according to the will of the constituents. If the people support gay marriage, then it shall be my duty to uphold their opinions. That is the essense of democracy, and that is the one thing that has been lost in Harrisburg.

I've outlined my platform at: www.myspace.com/bressiforhouse08

It's time to do some HOUSEcleaning! So let's get to work and make a difference!

[sayten]

Sept 30, 2008 13:42:08 GMT -5 DeafnDum said:

Welp, I guess I got what I asked for.
First off - Yuppers, its a BAN, not a BAND. "When New Jersey passed their band.." Banned would be the past tense of passing the ban.

they should have gotten rid of Bon Jovi when they had the chance!

[yuppers]

yeah, sorry about the error, not always very alert at 7:41 in the morning. it happens.

[TAFKA g0d]

Sept 30, 2008 14:28:35 GMT -5 zendog64 said:

Hey, I DID attempt to run for the state house of representatives as an independent in the 87th district. Fell a few dozen signatures short of making it on the ballot.

I wouldn't be proud of being a few dozen signatures short. It takes a lot of work to receive over 1900 signatures, and to fail to get only a few more shows a lack of some crucial characteristic on your part. Do or do not. There is no try.

Sorry.

[zendog64]

well in my defense, i ran into a few unforeseen difficulties. but it was a good experience, and i think every citizen who is concerned about change ought to consider running for some kind of office at least once in their lives, whether its for mayor, city council, or the state legislature. even if you don't win, you still might make enough noise to shake things up and make people take notice that the political system is a mess and needs to be fixed.