|
|
| Re: More insane laws (243623) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
|
| (244138) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Sep 6 03:50:23 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Deaks on Wed Sep 5 13:07:13 2007. LOL |
|
|
| (244140) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Sep 6 04:01:18 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Sep 5 13:51:54 2007. I see, you don't care if people think your posts are bullshit? |
|
|
| (244143) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Sep 6 04:08:56 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Sep 5 16:23:44 2007. Really? I prefer Penn Station front. |
|
|
| (244144) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Sep 6 05:04:33 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Sep 5 17:31:11 2007. True, I'd call that an allergic reaction, or sensitivity, whatever. I'd like to respond to the urban myth that MSG is some harmful additive.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (244147) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Sep 6 05:22:07 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Sep 5 16:41:01 2007. LOL, truly untouched, without loopholes, virgin.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (244280) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Thu Sep 6 16:09:13 2007, in response to More insane laws, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Sep 4 14:23:33 2007. The City Council is the most inane waste of taxpayer money. Everything that they propose is stupid. |
|
|
| (244282) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Thu Sep 6 16:15:21 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by PATHman on Thu Sep 6 16:09:13 2007. Why then don't we see people putting them through a critical lens asking for their disbanding? |
|
|
| (244453) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Fri Sep 7 12:59:24 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Sep 5 01:59:01 2007. It was both parties that were the sellout.Exactly. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or lying. |
|
|
| (244859) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:18:40 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Sep 5 16:22:42 2007. Of course it isn't. Why on earth should it be?I have no idea how driver's ed is handled these days in public schools. At my private high school, driver's ed was an optional after-school activity for an extra charge. That approach makes sense to me. |
|
|
| (244860) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:24:38 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by AlM on Wed Sep 5 09:07:32 2007. How would you propose enforcing that law?And how would you account for the greater likelihood that an unbelted driver loses control of the vehicle and thereby causes damage or injury to others? (Or do you think the higher insurance premiums would compensate?) |
|
|
| (244861) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:35:32 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by AlM on Wed Sep 5 16:13:05 2007. What's the right place for smoking?Many people find the smell of cigarette smoke unpleasant (or worse). Some posters seem to grant the smoker the inalienable right to smoke while denying the nonsmoker the right to breathe clean air. These two rights are often in conflict. Which one has priority? I don't smoke. To me, the fewer settings in which it is considered acceptable to pollute the public air supply, the better. And unlike many other sources of pollution (e.g., automobiles and power plants), cigarettes don't even provide a useful function. |
|
|
| (244862) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Sep 9 09:40:12 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:24:38 2007. How would you propose enforcing that law?And how would you account for the greater likelihood that an unbelted driver loses control of the vehicle and thereby causes damage or injury to others? (Or do you think the higher insurance premiums would compensate?) I don't. I can't. I don't. I was stating the very lowest level of argument as to why seat belt laws are not nanny laws, because they are for my good rather than the good of the person who might not waer the belt. |
|
|
| (244864) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Sep 9 09:43:04 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:35:32 2007. What's the right place for smoking?I'm OK with outdoors (even though that can bother me at times too, but I don't think it HARMS me). I'm also OK with private property open to others by invitation only (such as private residences). Again, I have been bothered by smoke seeping through the walls but I don't believe I've been ahrmed. |
|
|
| (244871) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 10:33:31 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by AlM on Sun Sep 9 09:43:04 2007. So you think that it should be acceptable to pose a nuisance as long as it doesn't cause permanent damage?Is this a matter of restrictions on smoking chipping away at the right to smoke, or is it a matter of permissions to smoke chipping away at the right to breathe clean air? |
|
|
| (244873) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Sep 9 10:40:39 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 10:33:31 2007. I guess I don't feel it is possible to legislate away every nuisance without also excessively impinging on personal freedom. There needs to be a balance, and I'm quite satisfied with how that balance is enacted in the City of New York. I am not so satisfied about enforcement of existing ordinances (more on noise than smoking) but that's another issue. |
|
|
| (244880) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 10:53:44 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by AlM on Sun Sep 9 10:40:39 2007. I can't argue with any of that.I'm just pointing out that smoking restrictions don't impinge on net freedoms - they merely trade one freedom for another. The proper balance can be up for debate. Incidentally, noise is a nuisance; unless it's very loud, it generally doesn't cause permanent damage. Yet we have noise ordinances. |
|
|
| (244886) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 11:12:06 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:35:32 2007. What's the right place for smoking?Many people find the smell of cigarette smoke unpleasant (or worse). Some posters seem to grant the smoker the inalienable right to smoke while denying the nonsmoker the right to breathe clean air. These two rights are often in conflict. Which one has priority? Whichever one the owner of the premises chooses. If you value the other one, you don't make use of his premises. Or maybe I'm just too libertarian on this... |
|
|
| (244888) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 11:16:05 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 11:12:06 2007. Who owns the sidewalk? Who owns the park? Who owns the public library? |
|
|
| (244889) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 11:16:35 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 11:12:06 2007. That's how I feel about it. The owner of an establishment (lets take a bar for example) should have the right to decide if he wants a smoking establishment, or a non-smoking establishment. If workers are a concern for smoking establishments, then hire smoking workers - there's plenty of them! That gives people the freedom to decide which they want to go to. If you don't want the smoke, don't go! If you want to smoke, chose accordingly.And I don't smoke by the way. |
|
|
| (244890) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 11:17:52 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 11:16:05 2007. Who owns the sidewalk? Who owns the park? Who owns the public library?The sidewalk and park are open to the air, so smoke will diffuse. Smoking is a fire hazard in a public library. |
|
|
| (244891) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 11:30:27 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 11:17:52 2007. The smoke exhaled by a smoker walking past me on the sidewalk or in the park will not diffuse before it reaches my lungs.Smoking is no more a fire hazard in a public library than it is in a private house. |
|
|
| (244893) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 11:58:40 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:18:40 2007. That's the way my private school handled drivers ed too. It was either done before or after regular school, and at an extra charge.But of course, there's no requirement for "driver's ed" to get a license (at least in NY, I don't know about other states). All you have to do is pass the learner's permit test, and the physical drivers test....it doesn't matter how you learned the info to pass the driver's test...nor how you learned to physically drive the car...as long as you pass. Of course, for insurance, driver's ed helps with the cost...as most insurance companies recognize that for a discount...at least for 3 years (then you have to take the optional 5 hour course to keep that discount every 3 years or so). |
|
|
| (244895) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Sep 9 12:17:10 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 11:16:35 2007. Then all bars would allow smoking just like they used to. I don't smoke and I LOVE the fact that I can go into a restaurant or bar and not have to breathe that smelly air and come out with my clothes smelling like cigarettes. It doesn't bother me at all that people that have a taste for a carcinogen are not allowed to expose me to their foul air. I think that the laws banning smoking indoors are GREAT!! |
|
|
| (244896) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 12:26:23 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 11:30:27 2007. Smoking is no more a fire hazard in a public library than it is in a private house.But that's where the problem lies. Little by little, they erode more and more. I personally see every reason to not allow smoking in a public Library, but there are municipalities that want to make it illegal in people's OWN homes. And that is a HUGE problem. It gets to that point little by little, and then finally it arrives. Each time they take away people's freedoms, it leads to a higher level of freedoms being taken away further down the line. It's insane that it is even a thought that they should try to outlaw people smoking IN THEIR OWN HOMES....or in their OWN PRIVATE car as New jersey wanted to do. That is ridiculous, and the government has NO right to tell me what I can do in my own home, or in my car (of course not talking about things that can harm others like drunk driving obviously). And again, I don't smoke, but I see this as a problem. |
|
|
| (244898) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 12:30:17 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Easy on Sun Sep 9 12:17:10 2007. They wouldn't, there's more than enough demand for non-smoking facilities. And there was NOTHING wrong with enclosed smoking areas in restaurants. Suffolk county had restaurants spend a fortune to make sealed seperate smoking areas, then only to have NY State ban it completely. I can perfectly understand that people don't want to walk through smoking areas, and they shouldn't have to. But there is enough of a demand for smoking bars or restaurant areas too. And owners should be able to apply for permits, or whatever to have an establishment that allows that. If you don't want the smoke....don't patronize it!And again, I too like the idea that my clothes doesn't smell when I leave a bar, etc like smoke....however, I can also see that there is enough of a demand that there should be some places people can go to if they do smoke (I don't smoke by the way). |
|
|
| (244899) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 12:45:47 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 12:26:23 2007. What about the freedoms of people who enjoy smoking while reading? Why am I not free to smoke while reading a book in the library? (Answer: Because, if I had the freedom to smoke in the library, then others would not have the freedom to breathe smoke-free air in the library.)Smoking while driving is a distraction. Personally, I don't have a problem with legislation that limits sources of distraction while operating two tons of steel at potentially high speeds. (Ideally, the legislation would be against the distraction in general rather than specific sources of distraction, but that's difficult to enforce.) If the legislation also applies to passengers, then I find it harder to agree. (But, then again, I don't live in such a municipality. If the people who live there want such a law, more power to them.) |
|
|
| (244902) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 12:57:18 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 12:45:47 2007. What about the freedoms of people who enjoy smoking while reading? Why am I not free to smoke while reading a book in the library? (Answer: Because, if I had the freedom to smoke in the library, then others would not have the freedom to breathe smoke-free air in the library.)Right, I don't understand what you are getting at. It's a public indoor facility. Smoking while driving is a distraction. So is the radio. Let's ban radios from cars now too. Please post all the stats you have on the percentages of accidents due to people smoking in their car because of this supposed "distraction". (I also don't believe that was the angle the law was being brought up for, but I don't know enough about it). If the legislation also applies to passengers, then I find it harder to agree. (But, then again, I don't live in such a municipality. If the people who live there want such a law, more power to them.) It would be for anyone in the car. And no, no power to them. It's the person's car, and they have every right to smoke in it if they chose, just as they have complete right to ban others from smoking in their vehicle, or allow smoking in their vehicle. |
|
|
| (244903) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 13:13:15 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 12:57:18 2007. What I'm getting at is that the right to smoke and the right to breathe clean air are in direct conflict - wherever one is granted, the other is denied. That applies in any setting open to the public. A law that denies the right to smoke in any given setting (library, park, restaurant, whatever) also affirms the right to breathe clean air in that setting.Listening to the radio does not require that one hand be off the wheel for extended periods. Also, radios don't burn at one end (requiring immediate response - highly distracting! - should that end come into contact with something or someone). Why do you deny a municipality the right to impose the laws it sees fit to impose? You don't live there; why is it any of your business? |
|
|
| (244907) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Sep 9 13:46:03 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:18:40 2007. I disagree. Nearly everyone eventually gets a driver's license and many people are woefully ignorant about some of the basic rules (like DO NOT use a reversible turn lane except when you are ready to turn).The only people inconvenienced by a mandatory driver's ed course would be New Yorkers who don't wish to learn to drive (people who are blind or otherwise ineligible to drive would of course be exempt). |
|
|
| (244908) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Sep 9 13:47:29 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:24:38 2007. And how would you account for the greater likelihood that an unbelted driver loses control of the vehicle and thereby causes damage or injury to others?Really? How? |
|
|
| (244909) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Sep 9 13:49:39 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 11:30:27 2007. The smoke exhaled by a smoker walking past me on the sidewalk or in the park will not diffuse before it reaches my lungs.Well, exhaling right in people's faces is rude and spreads disease. At least you can see the exhalation if it contains smoke. Smoking is no more a fire hazard in a public library than it is in a private house. Most people's (i.e. not academics/geeks) houses are not full of old, dry books. |
|
|
| (244910) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Sep 9 13:51:53 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:35:32 2007. Because it is your choice whether or not to patronize a private business. You can choose not to patronize one which does not provide a non-smoking section separated from the smoking section so there is no contamination of the non-smokers air. |
|
|
| (244912) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Sep 9 14:00:20 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 12:30:17 2007. Maybe, but there was always a demand for smoke-free bars and restaurants, yet there never were any. They only changed because of the laws.If smoking were simply a matter of preference I could agree with you, but it's not. Smoking is a health issue and that's why it should be and is regulated. |
|
|
| (244913) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Sep 9 14:01:12 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 12:45:47 2007. But, then again, I don't live in such a municipality. If the people who live there want such a law, more power to them.I disagree with that reasoning. Just because a majority is in favor of something doesn't mean that the rights of the minority should be infringed upon. |
|
|
| (244956) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 9 18:59:24 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Sep 9 14:01:12 2007. Now stop dat. All politix iz local. |
|
|
| (245029) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 22:54:29 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 13:13:15 2007. Listening to the radio does not require that one hand be off the wheel for extended periods. Also, radios don't burn at one end (requiring immediate response - highly distracting! - should that end come into contact with something or someone).Smoking a cigarette in the car is no more distracting than fooling with the radio, CD player. And many people drive with only one hand even if not eating, smoking, drinking (regular beverages), etc in the car. Why do you deny a municipality the right to impose the laws it sees fit to impose? Because they DON'T have tohe right to take away people's freedoms. And yes it DOES concern me, as it begins with a few of these muncipalities, and it spreads like cancer (excuse the pun). It was consdiered 'outrageous" or unthinkable when California first iniciated some of the first anti-smoking laws that are now common place throughout. A city in California is one of the first to attempt to ban smoking on all streets. It begins like that. |
|
|
| (245030) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 22:55:14 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Sep 9 14:01:12 2007. Exactly. |
|
|
| (245033) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 22:57:47 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Easy on Sun Sep 9 14:00:20 2007. Yes, smoking IS a health issue, but people with FREEDOM can choose accordingly. People DO know that it's harmful to smoke, and they chose to anyway, that is their choice, it's not like it's a secret that it's bad for you. |
|
|
| (245035) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 22:59:57 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Sep 9 13:51:53 2007. Correct, and NYC (originally), and Suffolk County were headed in the correct direction when they enacted the law that made (for example) restaurants have totally enclosed and seperate smoking areas before NY State eneacted the total ban. With the old law, non-smoking areas had to be completely seperate from the contained smoking area, and people who didn't want to go into the smoking areas didn't have to. |
|
|
| (245044) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Sun Sep 9 23:27:23 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Sep 5 09:38:45 2007. Yeah.....I think I'm supposed to go to Chicago & get run over by a train or something like that.It was about a month ago, but he was killing a bunch of us off. Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (245047) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Sep 9 23:39:05 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 22:57:47 2007. The smoke also affects employees. IIRC employee complaints had a lot to do with the ban. Smokers have the freedom to stay home and smoke as much as they want. |
|
|
| (245054) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Sep 10 00:37:07 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 09:35:32 2007. Sometimes smoking bans have unintended consequences:A proposed smoking ban on cruise ships has cost one company $3 million in cancellations so far... Story Here I know that if I was a smoker and was told that I had to go for a week without the thing I was addicted to then I would cancel the cruise too. With respect to banning smoking on public sidewalks - what do you do with the people who use the sidewalks because they can't smoke in their offices? Do they have to refrain from smoking until they go home? Given that smoking is addictive what if they can't go without a cigarette for more than an hour or two. We have several smokers in my office who leave the premises almost every hour for that cigarette they can't do without. If they don't get that cigarette break they are extremely irritable and nervous so the company overlooks the extended breaks. It isn't always fair to those of us who don't smoke but they do make up for it by taking shorter lunch breaks or working late. If they could not smoke in the street then I guess they would sneak a cigarette on the roof or in the restrooms like we used to do in High School... If smoking is banned at home, in the car and at work then isn't that de-facto prohibition? |
|
|
| (245056) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Sep 10 00:44:06 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Scrabbleship on Thu Sep 6 16:15:21 2007. wait don't tell me... the answer is a... dictatorship, am i right? |
|
|
| (245057) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Sep 10 00:49:55 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by PATHman on Thu Sep 6 16:09:13 2007. Bring back the Board of Aldermen... |
|
|
| (245058) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Sep 10 00:49:55 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 22:59:57 2007. However, only one business did so not expecting the total ban to be passed by the state. |
|
|
| (245060) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Mon Sep 10 01:10:30 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Sep 9 12:45:47 2007. I smoke and drive all the time & I will not give that right up as long as I chose to smoke.I won't use my cell phone in my car....even with a hands free device unless it's really necessary. The freedom to smoke in my car is one reason I may chose to drive rather than use public transit, when that choice is available to me. Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (245062) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Mon Sep 10 01:16:55 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 9 11:16:35 2007. Chris you make excellent points!I remember the radio commercials when they were gearing up to put this nonesense into effect. There was some whinney little waitress going on about how she wants to be a singer & the smoke was muffing iup her vice & all that. All I could think was "Who the fuck told this bimbo to take a job in a place that allows smoking?" All comon sense seems lost. Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (245063) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Mon Sep 10 01:19:33 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by Easy on Sun Sep 9 23:39:05 2007. Stupid employees should not take work in those establishments.Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (245064) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Mon Sep 10 01:22:38 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by BMTLines on Mon Sep 10 00:37:07 2007. Exactly...I'll drive to California rather than fly.That's how addictive that crap is. Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (245066) | |
Re: More insane laws |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Sep 10 01:35:36 2007, in response to Re: More insane laws, posted by jimmymc25 on Mon Sep 10 01:19:33 2007. I don't agree. Not too long ago smoking was allowed in all public buildings. Using your logic people like me that didn't smoke should have found a new place to work. Where? Maybe outside. Smokers don't care. Smokers always used to claim that they had "rights" and that if we non-smokers didn't like their smoke we should go somehwere else. Now the shoe is on the other foot and I'm pretty cool with it like it is. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||