|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
Smoker/NonSmoker Compromise
| Open Air Anywhere |
| [ 12 ] 92% |
| |
| Wherever It Is PC To Smoke |
| [ 1 ] 7% |
| |
| On Personal Propery Only (Car/Home) |
| [ 0 ] 0% |
| |
Total Votes : 13 |
|
by TickedOffTerri
on Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:48 am |
|
I found this site last night after an incident yesterday that made me curious what rights smokers have. Because I am one mad mama!!! 
I had to take my husband for an outpatient procedure at Northpoint Surgical Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. Let me first state that I am a 3 pack a day smoker of 44 years. I am a smoker, have tried to quit mostly for economic reasons, but realized being a smoker is a part of who I am. Being a smoker who is fully aware of all the risks does not outweigh the truly miserable person of my being a non-smoker.
Back to yesterday's incident. Yesterday morning, after my husband was checked in for carpal tunnel surgery, I exited the facility to go to my truck for a smoke. Almost immediately, the facility's security guard (who patrols the parking lot on a golf cart) pulls up and tells me I cannot smoke there.
It was just not a good time for somebody with an attitude to get in my face because I had just learned 5 days earlier that my Ma-in-Law of 24 years has end stage liver, lung and ovarian cancer. I just couldn't cope at that moment with this B.S.
I told him that I was more than the required 50 feet from the entrance that was the POSTED notice three weeks earlier when I had taken my husband for a knee scope and his right carpal tunnel repaired. He then told me that NOW there is no smoking allowed anywhere on the facility.
I hadn't seen any new sign, I certainly wasn't advised of their NEW rule when booking the surgery. Because if I had, there is no way on God's little green earth we would ever do business with that facility again.
I just felt at that moment (and still do) that I had to take a stand. I was in my vehicle, close to 100 feet from the entrance, nowhere near any people and I WASN'T HURTING ANYONE. I told the guard this, he got nasty and I dug in. I refused to not smoke in my vehicle. Period. He responded by telling me that I had to leave. I told him I was breaking no laws, I had to be there for my husband and told him if he wanted to, call the police to get a LEGAL decision.
Anyways, the guard got on his walkie-talkie and soon the facility manager-type lady and the police were there. After much heated discussion, I was told that I was being issued a trespass, they asked for my cell number and told me I had to leave and they would call when my husband was ready to go home.
There's a lot more I could add about how very wrong this was, how I didn't get to be with my husband in the recovery room and certainly is no way to treat long-time "customers".
I am going to start researching what exactly the tobacco companies are doing to help their consumers assert their rights. It would be mututally beneficial for them to defend smoker's rights. The state and federal governments both benefit greatly from the taxes they collect from tobacco sales. And in return, we get hassled??? So wrong. |
|
|
TickedOffTerri
Newbie
Joined: Jun 28, 2008
Posts: 1
Location: Florida
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by naptownKrabbi
on Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:36 am |
|
|
|
naptownKrabbi
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 367
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:39 pm |
|
If I was in your shoes, I would've pulled out my gun and shot that mothaFka.
I wouldn't care if they put me behind bars for shooting a guard. The Supreme Court ruled it's legal for me to shoot ANYONE with a compact gun as part of self-defense. And since that guard was obviously harassing you in my eyes (albeit not physically harassing you but harassing you for smoking), that would've been a legit reason for me to shoot him.
Self-defense includes someone harassing me by criticizing me for my smoking and/or for my race. It's not just about harassing me physically. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 647
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by smallbird
on Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:52 pm |
|
LOL Krabbi! Besides that, how can you trust a doctor who was educated in India? I certainly wouldn't!
Yo! Terri, I understand that you didn't know that the rules had changed. And nobody told you, and there was no signage. Get a lawyer and sue the pants off them! Or burka, or whatever they wear.
And if you were in this situation again, close your window and lock your door, call your closest relative to come sit with the person in the clinic, call the news media, and tell the people in charge to arrest you...hold out your hands for the cuffs! |
|
|
smallbird
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jan 03, 2007
Posts: 362
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:37 am |
|
TickedOffTerri wrote: I am going to start researching what exactly the tobacco companies are doing to help their consumers assert their rights. It would be mututally beneficial for them to defend smoker's rights. The state and federal governments both benefit greatly from the taxes they collect from tobacco sales. And in return, we get hassled??? So wrong.
We (the smokers) are just the cash cows who fund the whole stinking mess. Until we organize and fight this thing intelligently (that would be attacking the junk science behind all the bans) we have no pull with either BT or BG. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:41 am |
|
smallbird wrote: LOL Krabbi! Besides that, how can you trust a doctor who was educated in India? I certainly wouldn't! |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Lynda F
on Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:50 pm |
|
Jay wrote: The Supreme Court ruled it's legal for me to shoot ANYONE with a compact gun as part of self-defense. Self-defense includes someone harassing me by criticizing me for my smoking and/or for my race. It's not just about harassing me physically.
Jay,
First, the Supreme Court only ruled that the Constitution guarantees individual rights to own a gun. The Supreme Court also ruled that individuals should and DO have a right to defend themselves..........and here is the key point......IN THEIR OWN HOMES.
The Supreme Court did NOT overturn any other gun rules, requirement or restrictions. Just the total ban on handguns that many cities have already implemented. The Supreme Court agrees that reasonable restrictions and licensing requirement are sensible.
I seriously doubt the Supreme Court would uphold anyone's argument for killing another, that they were just defending themselves against verbal abuse. |
|
|
Lynda F
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 02, 2007
Posts: 501
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:25 pm |
|
That's news to me Lynda, with all due respect. I know Chicago plans to fight the Supreme Court's decision, because self-defense isn't limited to defending yourself in your own crib.
If it was really "illegal" to defend yourself in public, then never mind shootings. The numba of raped women would up by a lot.
If the Supreme Court really ruled self-defense is limited to your own crib when it comes to using a gun, then I don't know why Daley plans to fight the Court's decision.
EDIT......
Afta doing some research on the topic, all I can say is you don't really want to come into a city like Chicago if you think the only people with guns will keep em in their cribs. What the Constitution says and how Americans act are two different thangs. The Constitution says "Freedom of Speech," but antis and some newspapers online don't seem to recognize that freedom when it comes to listening to the smokers' side.
Likewise, the Constitution says I have the right to own a gun in a crib, and use it for self-defense in a crib. That doesn't mean someone is forbidden to take that gun when out in the streets and use it for self-defense when trouble approaches.
I think that's why Daley is gonna try to fight that decision. Cause people will try taking self-defense to the next level, which includes using self-defense while out in the streets alone. I can see senseless murders within the streets going up, with the murderers using the self-defense argument 9as to why they shot and killed the person. Actually, senseless murders of kids have already gone up within this year compared to last year. |
Last edited by Jay on Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 647
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by CigarBoy
on Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:37 pm |
|
Jay wrote: If I was in your shoes, I would've pulled out my gun and shot that mothaFka.
I wouldn't care if they put me behind bars for shooting a guard. The Supreme Court ruled it's legal for me to shoot ANYONE with a compact gun as part of self-defense. And since that guard was obviously harassing you in my eyes (albeit not physically harassing you but harassing you for smoking), that would've been a legit reason for me to shoot him.
Self-defense includes someone harassing me by criticizing me for my smoking and/or for my race. It's not just about harassing me physically.
*******************************************************************
Better not get a gun until you understand the law. Your definition of self defense is meaningless in court. You have a right to defend yourself against bodily harm. It is up to your state to define exactly what that means. IF your state has the Castle defense you have a lot more flexibility in defending yourself. Your state may even require you retreat first before you use lethal force.
Better learn the law. |
|
|
CigarBoy
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Posts: 236
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:44 pm |
|
And some people need to learn that just cause you have a law doesn't mean every single person is gonna follow it (or work around it). I believe it's illegal by me to own a handgun period prior to the Court's decision.
But even before the Court made a decision, it's easy as heck for anyone to buy a handgun off of the streets without my "state" knowing a single clue about it. Especially kids. This Court's decision now basically says it's legal for me to own a handgun. Which means anyone can look into buying a gun legally and actually keep it in their cribs. That doesn't mean the days of buying guns illegally are over around here. Afta all, it's illegal for a teen to buy a gun period.
And you really need to live in my area if you think all handgun owners are only gonna keep em in the cribs and that's it.
What the law says is one thang. But the reality is a different story.
I dunno if it was ever illegal to have a handgun period in otha areas of IL. But I know it was neva legal in Chicago to use a handgun in a crib for self-defense purposes.
This Court's decision is also gonna make it tougha for anti-gun advocates to get all of the gun shops shut down now (as their way of trying to put an end to all of these deaths going on around the Chicago area...it is true if gun shops neva existed, it would be tougha for someone to buy a gun illegally....how is the street supplier gonna get a gun with no gun shops in the Chicago area?).
As far as my town is concerned, this decision won't make the streets safer. It's gonna make them worse. Making it illegal to have a gun shop in the Chicago area would make the streets safer. In order to get guns out of the streets, the first step is to get rid of the gun shops. But the Court decision will now assure that won't ever happen in my lifetime. Gun shops will always be legal thanks to the Court. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 647
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
