Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

"Now that professionals are gone, the remaining troops will predictably
spend half their energy squabbling with each other. I'd be surprised
if they took another whole state, but I wish they'd try. Their defeat
would signal the beginning of the end."
--Robert <no@e.mail> (Robert Wagner), Apr 28, 2008

Re: Pennsylvania

On 11 Jun 2008 05:24:24 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

>"Now that professionals are gone, the remaining troops will predictably
>spend half their energy squabbling with each other. I'd be surprised
>if they took another whole state, but I wish they'd try. Their defeat
>would signal the beginning of the end."
>--Robert <no@e.mail> (Robert Wagner), Apr 28, 2008

I meant a referendum, because they require organized campaigns.

Re: Pennsylvania

In article <eopu44l6uep5cuk2bgajbsfoo60lch2fd4@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

> On 11 Jun 2008 05:24:24 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >"Now that professionals are gone, the remaining troops will predictably
> >spend half their energy squabbling with each other. I'd be surprised
> >if they took another whole state, but I wish they'd try. Their defeat
> >would signal the beginning of the end."
> >--Robert <no@e.mail> (Robert Wagner), Apr 28, 2008
>
> I meant a referendum, because they require organized campaigns.

Going back on your own words, I see. Public smoking will definitely
become illegal in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's state legislator is split
on how to pass a public smoking ban, but all sides agree that it needs
to be done. Strange how that's occurring despite your statement and
without the supposed help of big pharma. Hmm. I wonder which state will
be next to ban smoking after Pennsylvania.

"I'd be surprised if they took another whole state, but I wish they'd
try. Their defeat would signal the beginning of the end."

Robert, those are your words.

Re: Pennsylvania

On Jun 11, 5:55 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> In article <eopu44l6uep5cuk2bgajbsfoo60lch2...@4ax,com >,
>
>  Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> > On 11 Jun 2008 05:24:24 GMT, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> > >"Now that professionals are gone, the remaining troops will predictably
> > >spend half their energy squabbling with each other. I'd be surprised
> > >if they took another whole state, but I wish they'd try. Their defeat
> > >would signal the beginning of the end."
> > >--Robert <n...@e.mail> (Robert Wagner), Apr 28, 2008
>
> > I meant a referendum, because they require organized campaigns.
>
> Going back on your own words, I see. Public smoking will definitely
> become illegal in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's state legislator is split
> on how to pass a public smoking ban, but all sides agree that it needs
> to be done. Strange how that's occurring despite your statement and
> without the supposed help of big pharma. Hmm. I wonder which state will
> be next to ban smoking after Pennsylvania.
>
>  "I'd be surprised if they took another whole state, but I wish they'd  
>   try. Their defeat would signal the beginning of the end."
>
> Robert, those are your words.

It's very interesting that these three extremist nut-cases hold such
weight in these silly matters as they forever scribble their own
legacies on the the internet walls as being dull and boring zealous
whack-jobs. Bans. Shmans. Where there are any laws there are
loopholes. Just ask The BIG N. However, uptightness, anger, neuroses,
stupidity, fanaticism, emotional immaturity, etc. - that's a heavy
load that these fruitcakes to be hauling around.

TBN - Always have 'em, will always smoke 'em

Re: Pennsylvania

In article <srhi-A6FC67.05553911062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:

>Pennsylvania's state legislator is split
>on how to pass a public smoking ban, but all sides agree that it needs
>to be done.

They are no longer split. It passed the legislature and the
bill is on the way to the governor's desk for signing. He said
he would. It becomes law 90 days later.

Re: Pennsylvania

In article <1213197292.574769@irys.nyx,net >,
anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

> In article <srhi-A6FC67.05553911062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> >Pennsylvania's state legislator is split
> >on how to pass a public smoking ban, but all sides agree that it needs
> >to be done.
>
> They are no longer split. It passed the legislature and the
> bill is on the way to the governor's desk for signing. He said
> he would. It becomes law 90 days later.

Right you are! I read this afternoon that a bill to ban public smoking
was sent to Pennsylvania's governor for him to sign and all indications
are that Rendell will sign it.

Three months after the bill is signed, smoking in bars that serve food,
75% of casino gaming areas, all restaurants, sports arenas, and work
places will be illegal.

What a great development this is for all of Pennsylvania. Yup, poor
Schizo Nizo will have fewer places to stink up with his vastly
overpriced smelly cancer sticks.

Re: Pennsylvania

On Jun 11, 7:39 pm, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> In article <1213197292.574...@irys.nyx,net >,
>  anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> > In article <srhi-A6FC67.05553911062...@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
> > Shawn Hirn  <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> > >Pennsylvania's state legislator is split
> > >on how to pass a public smoking ban, but all sides agree that it needs
> > >to be done.
>
> > They are no longer split. It passed the legislature and the
> > bill is on the way to the governor's desk for signing. He said
> > he would. It becomes law 90 days later.
>
> Right you are! I read this afternoon that a bill to ban public smoking
> was sent to Pennsylvania's governor for him to sign and all indications
> are that Rendell will sign it.
>
> Three months after the bill is signed, smoking in bars that serve food,
> 75% of casino gaming areas, all restaurants, sports arenas, and work
> places will be illegal.
>
> What a great development this is for all of Pennsylvania. Yup, poor
> Schizo Nizo will have fewer places to stink up with his vastly
> overpriced smelly cancer sticks.

Not at all, lonely spiteful troll. No affect on The BIG N at all. The
BIG N sees it as something for everybody. Not to worry, doofus, no
chance of you ever seeing me in your fast food and junk buffets. LOL!.
Sorry Troll Shane, I'll still be stinking up the same places with my
affordable Havana's. You my huddle with the masses if you choose.

TBN

Re: Pennsylvania

On Jun 10, 10:50 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2008 05:24:24 GMT, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >"Now that professionals are gone, the remaining troops will predictably
> >spend half their energy squabbling with each other. I'd be surprised
> >if they took another whole state, but I wish they'd try. Their defeat
> >would signal the beginning of the end."
> >--Robert <n...@e.mail> (Robert Wagner), Apr 28, 2008
>
> I meant a referendum, because they require organized campaigns.

No you didn't, liar. The word "referendum" did not appear anywhere in
the posting Bruce quoted from, nor was it in any way implied.

Re: Pennsylvania

Malcolm wrote:
> On Jun 10, 10:50 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>> On 11 Jun 2008 05:24:24 GMT, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Now that professionals are gone, the remaining troops will
>>> predictably spend half their energy squabbling with each other. I'd
>>> be surprised if they took another whole state, but I wish they'd
>>> try. Their defeat would signal the beginning of the end."
>>> --Robert <n...@e.mail> (Robert Wagner), Apr 28, 2008
>>
>> I meant a referendum, because they require organized campaigns.
>
> No you didn't, liar. The word "referendum" did not appear anywhere in
> the posting Bruce quoted from, nor was it in any way implied.

See Rule #1 = Smokers ALWAYS Lie!

Especially Robert Wagner the pathetic tobacco addict.

Re: Pennsylvania

In article <ffd2f538-98c0-4119-9a9f-6fb7b21ccfbd@u6g2000prc.googlegroups,com >,
Malcolm <rbronews2@broughton.ca> wrote:
>On Jun 10, 10:50 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>> On 11 Jun 2008 05:24:24 GMT, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>> >"Now that professionals are gone, the remaining troops will predictably
>> >spend half their energy squabbling with each other. I'd be surprised
>> >if they took another whole state, but I wish they'd try. Their defeat
>> >would signal the beginning of the end."
>> >--Robert <n...@e.mail> (Robert Wagner), Apr 28, 2008
>>
>> I meant a referendum, because they require organized campaigns.
>
>No you didn't, liar. The word "referendum" did not appear anywhere in
>the posting Bruce quoted from, nor was it in any way implied.

For the sake of accuracy, his quote was lead by:

"They represent all that remains of the anti-smoking movement. The first
and second string teams have been reassigned to other causes. Why?
Because it became evident the goal of 12% smokers by 2010 would not
be achieved. This illustrates the difference in management style
between government and business. Government will pour money down the
drain of lost causes for years; Big Pharma will not. You have to give
them credit for being realists."

He does mention government may continue the trend toward more
smoking bans but Big Pharma will not. However, he does
not mention referenda specifically. There are many more ways
to eliminate public smoking than a vote by the public.

I took it that he was predicting the demise of the smoking-ban
trend and the pendulum swinging back. That anti-smoking forces
will be ineffective because of a lack of leadership, i.e., money.

Where smoking bans have slowed it is where states are close to
passing one, such as Alabama, Wisconsin, and Kansas and where
state law prohibits (preemption) localities from passing
ordinances stronger than state law, such as Michigan,
North Carolina, Virginia, and (until preemption is repealed)
Pennsylvania.

Elsewhere--Mississippi, Texas, Indiana, South Carolina, and
Missouri--local bans continue at rate of about 3 per week.

Robert is waiting for signs the pendulum is swinging back
and posits Big Pharma is no longer interested and, therefore,
without its participation, the trend will falter.

But the evidence is to the contrary. Only the the nicotine addicted
in denial see it otherwise.

Re: Pennsylvania

On Jun 11, 4:29 pm, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> In article <ffd2f538-98c0-4119-9a9f-6fb7b21cc...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Malcolm  <rbrone...@broughton.ca> wrote:
> >On Jun 10, 10:50 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> >> On 11 Jun 2008 05:24:24 GMT, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >> >"Now that professionals are gone, the remaining troops will predictably
> >> >spend half their energy squabbling with each other. I'd be surprised
> >> >if they took another whole state, but I wish they'd try. Their defeat
> >> >would signal the beginning of the end."
> >> >--Robert <n...@e.mail> (Robert Wagner), Apr 28, 2008
>
> >> I meant a referendum, because they require organized campaigns.
>
> >No you didn't, liar. The word "referendum" did not appear anywhere in
> >the posting Bruce quoted from, nor was it in any way implied.
>
> For the sake of accuracy, his quote was lead by:
>
> "They represent all that remains of the anti-smoking movement. The first
> and second string teams have been reassigned to other causes. Why?
> Because it became evident the goal of 12% smokers by 2010 would not
> be achieved. This illustrates the difference in management style
> between government and business. Government will pour money down the
> drain of lost causes for years; Big Pharma will not. You have to give
> them credit for being realists."
>
> He does mention government may continue the trend toward more
> smoking bans but Big Pharma will not. However, he does
> not mention referenda specifically. There are many more ways
> to eliminate public smoking than a vote by the public.
>
> I took it that he was predicting the demise of the smoking-ban
> trend and the pendulum swinging back. That anti-smoking forces
> will be ineffective because of a lack of leadership, i.e., money.
>
> Where smoking bans have slowed it is where states are close to
> passing one, such as Alabama, Wisconsin, and Kansas and where
> state law prohibits (preemption) localities from passing
> ordinances stronger than state law, such as Michigan,
> North Carolina, Virginia, and (until preemption is repealed)
> Pennsylvania.
>
> Elsewhere--Mississippi, Texas, Indiana, South Carolina, and
> Missouri--local bans continue at rate of about 3 per week.
>
> Robert is waiting for signs the pendulum is swinging back
> and posits Big Pharma is no longer interested and, therefore,
> without its participation, the trend will falter.
>
> But the evidence is to the contrary. Only the the nicotine addicted
> in denial see it otherwise.

A compromise ban. Something for everybody. Sorry fanatic assholes, no
"all or nothing" this time. The Big N's private clubs, and favorite
haunts virtually unaffected, Still got 'em,
still smokin 'em.

The BIG N - lovin' the show.

Re: Pennsylvania

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT), The BIG N <nizo1@verizon,net > wrote:


>A compromise ban. Something for everybody. Sorry fanatic assholes, no
>"all or nothing" this time. The Big N's private clubs, and favorite
>haunts virtually unaffected, Still got 'em,
>still smokin 'em.

"in 2005-2006, NYC issued 601 citations to smokeasies." Those are the ones it knows about.
So much for voluntary compliance.

http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeasy

Re: Pennsylvania

In article <333154dkev8rujr3ndcnt5c5qaugkiabla@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT), The BIG N <nizo1@verizon,net > wrote:
>
>>A compromise ban. Something for everybody. Sorry fanatic assholes, no
>>"all or nothing" this time. The Big N's private clubs, and favorite
>>haunts virtually unaffected, Still got 'em,
>>still smokin 'em.
>
>"in 2005-2006, NYC issued 601 citations to smokeasies." Those are the
>ones it knows about.
>So much for voluntary compliance.
>
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeasy

Wow! 601 in 2 YEARS in a state with 19 MILLION people!!

At 21% there must be 4 million smokers in the state.

I'd say compliance is pretty damned good.

Re: Pennsylvania

On 12 Jun 2008 05:25:20 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

>In article <333154dkev8rujr3ndcnt5c5qaugkiabla@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT), The BIG N <nizo1@verizon,net > wrote:
>>
>>>A compromise ban. Something for everybody. Sorry fanatic assholes, no
>>>"all or nothing" this time. The Big N's private clubs, and favorite
>>>haunts virtually unaffected, Still got 'em,
>>>still smokin 'em.
>>
>>"in 2005-2006, NYC issued 601 citations to smokeasies." Those are the
>>ones it knows about.
>>So much for voluntary compliance.
>>
>> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeasy
>
>Wow! 601 in 2 YEARS in a state with 19 MILLION people!!

In a city with 6,000 bars, guesstimating.

>At 21% there must be 4 million smokers in the state.
>
>I'd say compliance is pretty damned good.

Ten percent were caught, which means twenty percent permit smoking.

It's higher in blue-collar towns upstate, such as Troy or Catskill.

Re: Pennsylvania


"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message

>>>>"all or nothing" this time. The Big N's private clubs, and favorite
>>>>haunts virtually unaffected, Still got 'em,
>>>>still smokin 'em.
>>>
>>>"in 2005-2006, NYC issued 601 citations to smokeasies." Those are the
>>>ones it knows about.
>>>So much for voluntary compliance.
>>>
>>> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeasy
>>
>>Wow! 601 in 2 YEARS in a state with 19 MILLION people!!
>
> In a city with 6,000 bars, guesstimating.
>
>>At 21% there must be 4 million smokers in the state.
>>
>>I'd say compliance is pretty damned good.
>
> Ten percent were caught, which means twenty percent permit smoking.

First of all, that was over 2 years, so technically, using your guesstimate
that would be 5%.
Next you have to know how they checked compliance. If they just did random
checks and announced they were coming then I would guess compliance could
actually be much worse. However, if they ran routine unannounced checks on
every location, along with their regular health inspector visit, like they
do here then those numbers would be pretty accurate. Its not like you can
hide it, is it? Also did they follow up and confirm compliance after the
citation? In other words those that got caught are probably now complying,
which would make the current comlpiance pretty close to 100%. All except
that place that was so desperate for business they allowed Nizo to hide in
their closet and smoke. At least they kept enough class to not allow him to
eat anywhere near their real guests.

(Cue angry blustering from our village dancing bear...)