rothenbj 
Member since Jul 31, 2010

Recent Comments

Re: “Smoking ban, Iraq art, Shirley Sherrod

Brandi, Brandi, Brandi aren't we just the self righteous one. If that cafe owner wanted to keep his property clear of such litter, he was certainly within his rights as a property owner/renter to prohibit smoking and littering on his property. The garden that you mentioned is the same situation, they could prohibit smoking in that garden. I've watch inconsiderate people throw all form of trash away outside proper trash cans. I'm not going to go through your entire comment because the same reasons you feel you are right in banning smoking can be made for a lot of products- perfume, peanuts, diesel fuel, et al. Most products are not SAFE. They can result in health risks to someone they come in contact with. What I wanted to address was your statement, "There is NO legitimate argument for the benefits of smoking." You might want to ask the proprietor of a business that would prefer to allow smoking. They may want to cater to smoking clients and that should be his decision. Not yours and not the government. Take the bar business. If some of the bars remained smoking, the non-smoking bars would have access to 80% of the customers that don't smoke while the 20% that do would also have somewhere that they could go and be comfortable. Everyone's should be happy, but the busy bodies can't stay out of other people's business. I don't smoke anymore and I don't particularly like a smoky bar. I do like going to smoking bars that have proper ventilation because the people you meet are much more interesting. Usually an accumulation of smokers and ex-smokers from my experience. Then to add insult to injury, Savannah wants to ban E Cigarettes too. This topic has already been addressed in a previous comment so I won't reiterate. The worlds big enough to handle all our needs if we just don't remain so myopic.

Posted by Jim Rothenberger on 08/03/2010 at 4:22 PM

Re: “Butt out

Sec. 1001. Definitions The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Article, shall be construed as defined in this Section:...... C. "E-cigarette" means any electronic device composed of a mouthpiece, heating element, battery, and electronic circuits that provides a vapor of liquid nicotine and/or other substances mixed with propylene glycol to the user as he or she simulates smoking. The term shall include such devices whether they are manufactured as e-cigarettes, e-cigars, or e-pipes, or under any other product name. The first three comments question the validity of SHS smoke and justifiably so. Can it be a contributing factor in health issues, yes, but so can a lot of other products, especially perfumes which I happen to have a problem with but don't make an issue of. However, including E-cigs with or without nicotine is travesty of justice. Savannah, in their infinite wisdom, is attempting to pass a law based on the appearance of smoking. I'm sure they'll now need to change any gun laws making it illegal to carry water pistols and toy guns on the street. The FDA proved that E-cigarettes were as safe as the nicotine products that they approved for smoking cessation, however, refuses to admit it. I can't help but believe that Big Pharma's lobbying arm, the "health" associations such as the ALA, ACS, and Healthy Savannah are behind these lame regulations. Wake Up America, they're coming after all your freedoms and personal choice.

Posted by Jim Rothenberger on 07/31/2010 at 10:07 AM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Connect Savannah First Look Newsletter (Wednesday) - A weekly run down of local stories and events.

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

Copyright © 2017, Connect Savannah. All Rights Reserved.
Website powered by Foundation