Ah yes, corporations are the source of all evil. The Hollywood mentality of a young moron. Ever seen a movie that showed a "corporation" in a positive light? I don't think so. Idiots like the guy above really believe that evil springs from corporations, except of course, Ben & Jerry's.

Why is it wrong for corporate America to advertise cigarettes with a cartoon character like Joe Camel and yet it is perfectly acceptable for Anheiser-Busch to advertise alcohol with frogs and lizards. Is it because most lawyers drink a lot of alcohol that no one has sued these people for a billion or so dollars?

xxx, probably so. In the meantime, the U.S. government throws people in prison for smoking, or growing, marijuana while it assists the major tobacco companies in exporting their deadly products to developing countries overseas. <BR><BR>There's more than a tinge of racism behind the prohibition of marijuana (which was an obsession of former narcotics chief Harry Ansligner) since its use was associated with Mexican migrant workers and black musicians. <BR><BR>I really would be curious what percent of smokers who, of course, would be in favor of legal tobacco smoking, in turn are hypocritically opposed to legal marijuana smoking. <BR><BR>Interestingly, I read an article recently that said Great Britain has begun liberalizing their laws/attitudes toward marijuana smoking and the article mentioned it's not uncommon to see young people smoking spliffs on the sidewalk near the Brixton police station. <BR>

Capo<BR><BR>I didn't realize you were the regional president of NORML. But I do understand why some of your notes are so stupid.

That's the best you can do, Babs? Geeze, you people really need to go to Insult College so you can become a bit more creative. <BR><BR>Thanks for your substantive and intelligent contribution. We all learned a lot from it.

XXX,<BR><BR>Imagine....a pharmaceutical corporation earning profits! Amazing, what will they think of next?<BR><BR>You dimwit, of course they make profits, that is what they are in business for, that and returing value to their shareholders!<BR><BR>BTW, they also develop, test and market the drugs you and I need to survive and enjoy this great life. No profits, no research, no research no new drugs, no new drugs!<BR><BR>Get it?<BR><BR>US

I WAS allergic to it in the 50's and 60's and spent many miserable car rides trapped in a vehiclle with closed windows. at least now I can open my mouth and admit that it bothers me without being condemned except of course by some militant smokers and just plain obnoxious inconsiderate people.

Poor, poor Lillian. As we say in England, “bad form,” old dear. You luv are one, sick puppy. Someone disagrees with you and you wish them dead. Shame on you. I feel so sorry for your family dear and you’re parents must be deeply ashamed of you. Is this the militant leftist in you speaking. Perhaps you should go hug a tree and feel better. That was perhaps the saddest posting I’ve ever read on this site. Consider apologising you mean, unhappy thing.

Gudgawd, the point I woul dmake is that someone pouring martinis down their neckis harmingonly themselves and then only maybe. Passive drinking hasyet to be inentedunless you class violence to people brought on by alcohol.<BR><BR>Smoking affects so many other people. I cant stand it to be honest; clothes smell after being in a bar or restaurant where someone has been smoking, it also puts me off my food. My 2 cents anyway.

When it comes to drugs, you cannot argue against big businness. For if drugs were legalized, there production and sale could easily become the largest legal business around. Therefore, logically, "corporations" would be FOR the legalization of drugs if they thought they could get away with it.<BR><BR>Some Founding Fathers did grow hemp and crops other than just tobacco (see notes from Thomas Jefferson and his beliefs on partaking of substances -- moderation). There was MJ, cocaine, opium and lot of other crap in products up until around the 1900's when it was realized how addictive this stuff was. And, MJ is probably physically addictive and certainly mentally addictive -- look at the number of idiots that say they can stop anytime they want, they just don't want to (yeah, right).<BR>As for smoking, I prefer the (now) old addage: the residue of your pleasure is smoke, however, I prefer beer. How would you like the residue of my pleasure all over you during a nice dinner? Perhaps we'll meet someday in the same smoke-filled pub -- drinks on me.<BR><BR>

Tony Hughes,<BR><BR>All that passive alcohol in the form of martinis, when combined with an automobile may create a lot more danger than passive, 2nd hand smoke.<BR><BR>Just a thought.<BR><BR>US

Yup, you've got me there. I agree.

Well, of course there are obnoxious and unreasonable smokers, and there are obnoxious and unreasonable anti-smokers. <BR><BR>The point is not whether you like to smoke or hate smoking. The point is whether you're tolerant and considerate or whether you're so self-obsessed that you make life hell for those who don't agree with you. <BR><BR>This applies equally to smokers who are inconsiderate in a closed space, and anti-smokers who wish to show off their moral superiority and save others from thier "evil ways."<BR><BR>Oh, and Capo, yes, I think there are better uses for our scarce law-enforcement resources than chasing down citizens who grow or smoke a common garden plant.

Capo<BR><BR>Never let it be said that you ever let the fact that you don't know jack about a subject stand in the way of you offering an opinion on it. <BR><BR>A lengthy opinion too. Is there anyone who has posted more BS on these boards than you? I don't think so. <BR><BR>What a prima donna you are.

I couldn't care less about someone else's smoking if they are not anywhere near ME. My objection hasn't a thing to do with moral superiority. their smoking in private has no more impact on my than their biting their nails. But I have every right to care if they make my life miserable by smoking in places where I have a practical need to be--whether it's an airport, a plane, a train station, a restaurant where I have a lunch meeting, etc. I have alrady given up going to enough places where I don't NEED to be because of the presence of smoke, e.g., have stopped being a volunteer before elections because of smoke, and do not go to many restaurants because of smoke, which s still allowed in my home state.

<BR><BR>Lillian:<BR><BR>Good god, what a sluttish twit you are. I am ashamed FOR you. <BR>

Does anyone else here fear for Lillian's family? B-r-r-r-r-r. What a scary thing to say!

Capo,<BR>Claiming to be allergic to cigarette smoke IS, in fact, a fiction.<BR>Lisa,<BR>You are NOT allergic to smoke. Ask your doctor.<BR>BTW, there has never been a case of anyone ever dying, getting cancer, getting emphysima, or any other disease from secondhand smoke.<BR>Thanks for listening.

The question I have is why when all the non smokers go to a restaurant and the line is real long for non smoking, they are able to sit in smoking, rather than wait for a non smoking table.<BR>Just an observation from a non smoker.

GudGawd,<BR>Since the pub owner allows smoking in his establishment then the "toad" was clearly in the wrong. <BR><BR>I promote the operating of non-smoking facilities. I oppose any government enforcing laws prohibiting business owners from allowing smoking in their facilities.<BR><BR>If I wish to smoke, I will go to a facility that permits smoking and keep my mouth shut.<BR><BR>If I wish to avoid smoke I will go to a facility that does not permit smoking and keep my mouth shut.<BR><BR>If I am a pub owner in Gloucester and permit smoking in my pub I will expect my customers to accept an environment with smoke in the air. If the market indicates that I am losing customers due to smoke, I may choose to open a non-smoking facility. I which case, I would expect smokers to take their business elsewhere.<BR><BR>I don't understand people who go to the desert and bitch about the sand.<BR><BR>j.