Stop The Smoking Ban!

[Smalan Ithee]

Originally Posted by Matt

Nope. The point is that we don't want to inhale secondhand smoke, which is carcinogenic. Thus, we don't care if people smoke as long as they don't do it near us.

We don't hate the smoker; we hate the smoke. If they are "shamed," then it's the same shame we provide to other public nuisances: people who blast music out of a boombox, for example. They're not allowed in restaurants, either. Are you gonna fight for their rights, too?

Also, remember: Smokers ostracize themselves. They are more than welcome to enter civil society and enjoy restaurants and bars if they are considerate of others and put out their cigarette. If they CHOOSE not to, well, too bad for them. Likewise, people who like to blast music out of a boombox are welcome to enter the local French restaurant if they first turn off the boombox. If they CHOOSE not to, they ostracize themselves and no tears will be shed by those inside. Their banishment is well deserved and reasonable.

Wow, could that be more condescending? "They're more than welcome to enter civil society"? "We don't hate the smokers, we hate the smoke"? Sounds an awful lot like the church drivel I heard growing up - "We don't hate the sinner, we hate the sin". Smokers aren't poor heathen souls just waiting for a glorious savior to show them their evil ways with the savior looking down his/her nose and guilting them into quitting their addiction. When comments are made like the ones in your previous post, it just fosters that us vs. them mentality and makes a smoker want to exhale in the face of the holier-than-thou prophet.

And seriously, the boombox comparison is ridiculous. No I'm not going to "fight for their rights". However, in that unrealistic fantasy boom box scenario, I would encourage any bar owner who would like to, for whatever reason, cater to a certain segment of their patrons and allow them to blast a boom box to go all out.

We get it - you don't want secondhand smoke around you. You've made your point. I've noted at least a couple of times that I agree with you to the extent that secondhand smoke is dangerous, though I'm sure we disagree on the levels of exposure it takes to reach dangerous. But continuing to call for the banishment of smokers to the sewers, basements, and alleys of the world with our distorted faces, bad teeth, humped-backs and rolled up newspapers in hand (and yes I'm being sarcastic) is missing the point that I and several others have made here - I'm considerate enough to not blow smoke in your face. I keep my distance from passers-by when I'm outside. Before I901, I was considerate enough to not smoke in confined places, unless that place was a dive, the bartender smoked, and the other patrons did, too (not the kind of place the non-smokers are beating down the door to frequent). But how about allowing for the possibility that 1) For many people, the drink bone is connected to the smoke bone (including many people who call themselves non-smokers), and 2) maybe, just maybe, there could exist a place where one could have a beer and a smoke with others who are doing the same thing, and be served by a smoker who takes the risk of working in such an environment. All adult establishments don't have to be smoking venues, but it sure as hell would be nice if they were able to make that choice and let the patrons choose, too. It seemed to work great for non-smoking places like Seamonster, Watertown, ToSt and Nectar pre-901.

That's all I'm saying. And apparently it will continue to fall on deaf ears/blind eyes, so carry on.

[Melle]

Originally Posted by Matt

The problem is that ventilation systems, as I discussed in post 323, are ineffective.

But it gets worse. Apparently many who oppose reasonable smoking restrictions, such as 901, push ventilation even when they KNOW it's ineffective. I'm not saying anyone on this board is doing so. But here's the breaking news on the ventilation scam:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/332/7535/227

"Newly released internal corporate documents from British American Tobacco (BAT) show that despite internal acknowledgment that ventilation and air filtration were ineffective at removing environmental tobacco smoke, BAT has extensively promoted these technologies to the hospitality industry since the mid-1990s. Documents also show that BAT's strategies to promote these initiatives worldwide were seen internally as viable solutions to circumvent smoking restrictions and to gain global marketing opportunities."

Wow. The word that's coming to mind to describe this turn of events is as follows: Busted.

Btw, this comes from the British Medical Journal, which Melle has described as "one of the world's most prestigious medical journals."

I certainly urge everyone to read the link. The "breaking news" reported there is as follows: In the 1990s, one tobacco company (British American Tobacco or "BAT") tested one air filtration unit (made by "Colt International") and found it inadequate; in spite of this they began touting it as a solution to secondhand smoke, and managed to get it installed in various locales. BAT behaved dishonestly and with great PR and fanfare, as is to be expected.

This tells us less than nothing about ventilation. Ventilation is not the same as air filtration. Quite the contrary: ventilation replenishes an air supply with fresh air, while filtration just re-circulates stale air. (Throughout this thread I've been supporting the former and denouncing the latter.) The link describes vents that "suck tobacco smoke down through a filter and recirculate the partially filtered smoke out into the room again." This (of course) is not ventilation. The article's authors pretend the two are the same, and conclude as if they've killed two birds with one stone, but they really offer no factual info on the subject of ventilation.

(Regarding the British Medical Journal, of course it's one of the leading journals. Of course they print things that oppose my position---they also print things that support my position. This is what happens when there is a controversy. Imagining that one brief article of comment could put a wide-ranging scientific question to rest is very wishful thinking.)

[Gomezticator]

Matt's problem is that he assumes every argument he makes is undeniable fact and totally correct, and he keeps citing them whether or not they've been disproven.

The smoke eaters I previously mentioned actually work, at the absolute least in reasonably sized bar venues, because I patronized bars they were installed in and noticed firsthand, with the bar full of smokers, that they work. Two or three of the things could probably keep a sizeable club well ventilated.

That is all. Carry on.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Smalan Ithee

Wow, could that be more condescending?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Smalan Ithee

Smokers aren't poor heathen souls just waiting for a glorious savior to show them their evil ways with the savior looking down his/her nose and guilting them into quitting their addiction.

As I've mentioned, I don't care if they quit. They can suck on their cancer sticks all they want. Just not near me.

Originally Posted by Smalan Ithee

And seriously, the boombox comparison is ridiculous.

No it's spot on.* It's an activity that is not permitted in restaurants, etc. because it disturbs patrons and employees. It's a gloriously appropriate analogy. But secondhand smoke is even worse: It doesn't just disturb; it also harms.

*Oh, look!! Another "four-word flat denial" from Matt!!!

Originally Posted by Smalan Ithee

We get it - you don't want secondhand smoke around you. You've made your point.

Excellent. I accept your retraction of your statement that "901 fans don't want anyone to smoke anywhere anytime."

[Smalan Ithee]

Originally Posted by Matt

Yes.

As I've mentioned, I don't care if they quit. They can suck on their cancer sticks all they want. Just not near me.

No it's spot on.* It's an activity that is not permitted in restaurants, etc. because it disturbs patrons and employees. It's a gloriously appropriate analogy. But secondhand smoke is even worse: It doesn't just disturb; it also harms.

*Oh, look!! Another "four-word flat denial" from Matt!!!

Excellent. I accept your retraction of your statement that "901 fans don't want anyone to smoke anywhere anytime."

You'll get no retraction from me. The "901 fans don't want anyone to smoke anywhere anytime" was in reference to the deeper desire of the rabid 901 fans that they won't admit to. As in: If I'm smoking on the porch of my home 26 feet away from the sidewalk and you or any other rabid 901 fan walks by, you would say that I'm invading your space, poisoning you, etc. THAT's what I mean by anyone, anytime, so don't go all classic-Matt on me.

And you're not going to suck me into an ongoing pissing match regarding your quotes of a quote of quotes. It's boring and I'm not going to clog the board attempting to prove a point to someone who obviously has no sense of compromise or desire to respectfully debate. You seem to be under the impression that your "four word flat denials" are quite witty and somehow true, or that you're putting the anonymous smackdown on someone, when the rest of us just see it as a bully who can yell louder. Just because you keep yelling, that doesn't mean you're right. I've been patient with people on this board who I respectfully disagree with, and now I can see why so many others on this board lose their patience with you and your alleged debating tactics. At times those tactics are tantamount to a preschooler teasing a classmate. I appreciate your links and your input when it's thoughtful and the few times it's been respectful, but you're not going to bait me into a size contest, all the while taunting and attempting to humiliate.

I wish you well and peace, brother/sister. Keep up the, um, "debate" - maybe there's a sensible resolution with compromise to be found, but obviously not in this crowd.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Smalan Ithee

You'll get no retraction from me. The "901 fans don't want anyone to smoke anywhere anytime" was in reference to the deeper desire of the rabid 901 fans that they won't admit to.

Oh, then you didn't really "get it." So let me repeat: I don't care if they smoke, they just can't do it near me. Which makes your generalization false.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Gomezticator

The smoke eaters I previously mentioned actually work, at the absolute least in reasonably sized bar venues, because I patronized bars they were installed in and noticed firsthand, with the bar full of smokers, that they work.

How do you know they work? What scientific tests did you conduct? None? Hmm, thought so. Thanks, anyway, dude, but I think I'll take the word of the British Medical Journal, which has demonstrated that ventilation doesn't work (and that Big Tobacco has lied about it):
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/332/7535/227

I'd also rather take the word of ventilation equipment manufacturers, who all admit that their equipment is ineffective when it comes to removing secondhand smoke:

Allergy Control Products, Inc.: "Allergy Control Products, Inc. does not claim that air cleaners offered in this catalog will protect people from potential health risks associated with secondhand smoke."

Allergy Buyers Club, Inc: "Improved ventilation and use of air purifiers may reduce, but will not completely eliminate, your exposure to secondhand smoke and the associated health risks."

Brookstone: "No air purifier can protect against the health hazards associated with secondhand tobacco smoke."

Espitech Air Products: "We make no medical or health claims whatsoever and it is not our intention to do so…. [The] goal or objective of [the] air purification systems that we sell, for use in a smoking environment, is to provide relief from the annoyance of the odour produced by tobacco smoke as well as some of the discomforts that the smoke (fumes) and odour causes. Espitech Air Products disclaims all warranties, implied or otherwise, that anyone (non-smoker or smoker) who installs our air purifiers, air cleaners, or air scrubbers as an alternative to seeking a smokefree environment will be protected from the health risks caused by exposure to second hand smoke."

Honeywell: "Honeywell has not in the past and does not make health hazard claims."

IQAir North America: "[Air filtration] doesn't remove the risk of secondhand smoke. It would reduce the amount of smoke in the air over an amount of time. In my opinion, air cleaners are not going to be a solution. Air cleaners can not reduce the initial exposure [to smoke] and that's where the risk is coming from."

Peak Pure Air: "Nowhere [sic] do we claim that our products eliminate all hazardous contaminants… No! … not any product on earth will eliminate health hazards cause by exposure to second hand tobacco smoke. After one has been exposed, the damage is done…. In a perfect world we would not need to worry about secondhand tobacco smoke."

Radio Shack: "We make no claims that this product will protect people from second-hand smoke….The Environizer electronic air purifiers do not eliminate such [health] hazards….The Environizer will not help remove gases that are found in tobacco smoke."

The Sharper Image: "No air cleaner can protect against the harmful effects of secondhand tobacco smoke. Clean air begins with a smoke-free environment."

United Air Specialists, Inc.: "No air filtration or purification system has been designed that can eliminate all indoor irritants and pollution associated with secondhand tobacco smoke. In addition, there are no proven safe levels of secondhand tobacco smoke. Because of this, UAS makes no claim that its filtration systems will reduce or eliminate the health risks caused by exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke."

Wein Products, Inc.: "No air filtration or air purification system has been designed that can eliminate all the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke. A reduction of the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke does not protect against the disease and death caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined secondhand smoke to cause heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illness."

[Smalan Ithee]

Originally Posted by Matt

Oh, then you didn't really "get it." So let me repeat: I don't care if they smoke, they just can't do it near me. Which makes your generalization false.

And I guess you didn't really "get" the rest of my post. Scream as loud as you want. Peace and love backatcha, brother.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Smalan Ithee

And I guess you didn't really "get" the rest of my post. Scream as loud as you want. Peace and love backatcha, brother.

Backers of 901 don't care if people smoke, as long as smokers don't smoke near us. 901 was a win-win for everyone. Smokers can still smoke, and nonsmokers no longer have to inhale secondhand smoke in public places and places of employment. Awesome!

On to the next state!! Pretty soon all 50. Then we work on parks, etc. Woo hoo!!!!!

[Smalan Ithee]

Originally Posted by Matt

Backers of 901 don't care if people smoke, as long as smokers don't smoke near us. 901 was a win-win for everyone. Smokers can still smoke, and nonsmokers no longer have to inhale secondhand smoke in public places and places of employment. Awesome!

On to the next state!! Pretty soon all 50. Then we work on parks, etc. Woo hoo!!!!!

Testify, brother! Are you not only going to New Hampshire? South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico? Going to California and Texas and New York? And going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan? And then going to Washington, D.C.? Whoo-haa!?!?

Peace and love, brother.

[Ballardguy]

C'mon, lets admit it. Supporters and opponents of 901 will never agree, so why waste the time and space? "What about second hand smoke?", you say. "Shouldn't we debate over its safety or danger?" Please. Only lunatics truly believe second hand smoke is not harmful.

Let's get this back on track to what is really important. Smokie sob tales!! There's got to be a smokie MLK out there somewhere (I nominate Smokie the 75 yr old war vet). Stand up for your puffing rights!!

The SuperBowl is only 5 days away, so start typing smokies. Tell us all what bar you plan to watch the game from...outside....in the rain.....looking through the window (25 feet away)....due to your uncontrollable urge to light up. Oh yeah, and can you please stop littering?

[Smalan Ithee]

Originally Posted by Ballardguy

C'mon, lets admit it. Supporters and opponents of 901 will never agree, so why waste the time and space? "What about second hand smoke?", you say. "Shouldn't we debate over its safety or danger?" Please. Only lunatics truly believe second hand smoke is not harmful.

Let's get this back on track to what is really important. Smokie sob tales!! There's got to be a smokie MLK out there somewhere (I nominate Smokie the 75 yr old war vet). Stand up for your puffing rights!!

The SuperBowl is only 5 days away, so start typing smokies. Tell us all what bar you plan to watch the game from...outside....in the rain.....looking through the window (25 feet away)....due to your uncontrollable urge to light up. Oh yeah, and can you please stop littering?

To defend the smokies, we're not all litterbugs. Some of us seek out the closest trashcan after snuffing out. This smokie will be at home watching the game. Sunday is not only Super Bowl Sunday, but Smalan's D-Day to double the dosage and put on the patch, on the road to No-Smokieville (btw when I'm finally a non-smoker, I'll still be against 901). If D-Day doesn't go as planned, I'll be smoking on my porch, so no different than standing outside of a bar, except the beer will be cheaper. Not much of a sob story, I guess.

[Ballardguy]

Originally Posted by Smalan Ithee

To defend the smokies, we're not all litterbugs. Some of us seek out the closest trashcan after snuffing out. This smokie will be at home watching the game. Sunday is not only Super Bowl Sunday, but Smalan's D-Day to double the dosage and put on the patch, on the road to No-Smokieville (btw when I'm finally a non-smoker, I'll still be against 901). If D-Day doesn't go as planned, I'll be smoking on my porch, so no different than standing outside of a bar, except the beer will be cheaper. Not much of a sob story, I guess.

Thanks for the post Smalan, and good catch on the littering issue. I didn't mean to imply that all smokies were litterbugs. My apologies. Good luck on your journey to non-smokieville!

How about the rest of you smokies out there? Let's hear from you!

[Melle]

Originally Posted by Matt

How do you know they work? What scientific tests did you conduct? None? Hmm, thought so. Thanks, anyway, dude, but I think I'll take the word of the British Medical Journal, which has demonstrated that ventilation doesn't work (and that Big Tobacco has lied about it):
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/332/7535/227

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa ... Hold up. Let's get this clear: The British Medical Journal did NOT demonstrate that ventilation doesn't work. The British Medical Journal did not even publish scientific research demonstrating that ventilation doesn't work. What they published, in your link, was an "analysis and comment," which relates an instance of an air purifier not working. As has been previously pointed out, air purification/filtration is not the same thing as ventilation. But this point aside, there are 2 other things wrong with your statement: (1) the comments were not made by the BMJ, but by the authors of the commentary (they were published in the BMJ, which is different), and (2) a commentary does not constitute a demonstration.

I'd also rather take the word of ventilation equipment manufacturers, who all admit that their equipment is ineffective when it comes to removing secondhand smoke:

Allergy Control Products, Inc.: "Allergy Control Products, Inc. does not claim that air cleaners offered in this catalog will protect people from potential health risks associated with secondhand smoke."

Allergy Buyers Club, Inc: "Improved ventilation and use of air purifiers may reduce, but will not completely eliminate, your exposure to secondhand smoke and the associated health risks."

Brookstone: "No air purifier can protect against the health hazards associated with secondhand tobacco smoke."

Espitech Air Products: "We make no medical or health claims whatsoever and it is not our intention to do so…. [The] goal or objective of [the] air purification systems that we sell, for use in a smoking environment, is to provide relief from the annoyance of the odour produced by tobacco smoke as well as some of the discomforts that the smoke (fumes) and odour causes. Espitech Air Products disclaims all warranties, implied or otherwise, that anyone (non-smoker or smoker) who installs our air purifiers, air cleaners, or air scrubbers as an alternative to seeking a smokefree environment will be protected from the health risks caused by exposure to second hand smoke."

Honeywell: "Honeywell has not in the past and does not make health hazard claims."

IQAir North America: "[Air filtration] doesn't remove the risk of secondhand smoke. It would reduce the amount of smoke in the air over an amount of time. In my opinion, air cleaners are not going to be a solution. Air cleaners can not reduce the initial exposure [to smoke] and that's where the risk is coming from."

Peak Pure Air: "Nowhere [sic] do we claim that our products eliminate all hazardous contaminants… No! … not any product on earth will eliminate health hazards cause by exposure to second hand tobacco smoke. After one has been exposed, the damage is done…. In a perfect world we would not need to worry about secondhand tobacco smoke."

Radio Shack: "We make no claims that this product will protect people from second-hand smoke….The Environizer electronic air purifiers do not eliminate such [health] hazards….The Environizer will not help remove gases that are found in tobacco smoke."

The Sharper Image: "No air cleaner can protect against the harmful effects of secondhand tobacco smoke. Clean air begins with a smoke-free environment."

United Air Specialists, Inc.: "No air filtration or purification system has been designed that can eliminate all indoor irritants and pollution associated with secondhand tobacco smoke. In addition, there are no proven safe levels of secondhand tobacco smoke. Because of this, UAS makes no claim that its filtration systems will reduce or eliminate the health risks caused by exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke."

Wein Products, Inc.: "No air filtration or air purification system has been designed that can eliminate all the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke. A reduction of the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke does not protect against the disease and death caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined secondhand smoke to cause heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illness."

I remember this list from last fall. It looks more & more bogus each time I see it.

I'm not saying the quotes aren't real---I'm sure they are---but (again) they pertain to air filters, not ventilators. Only one statement (from Allergy Buyers Club) refers to ventilation at all: the rest refer exclusively to "air cleaners," "air purifiers," and "air filtration or purification systems." Quite simply, these are not statements about ventilation equipment. "Purification and filtration," a bad alternative to ventilation, is a method for making stale air smell fresh. By re-circulating the same air supply instead of replacing it with fresh air, large property owners and chain business save a bundle on heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. But poor ventilation is unhealthy regardless of how the air smells, and regardless of whether anyone's smoking.

[Ballardguy]

As enjoyable as it is to look at Canadian smokies in their glass cages, it probably is not feasible for most corner establishments to implement. Besides being costly, there is a matter of space.

I propose instead the development and implementation of individual "Cones of Smoking". Smokies can be self encased in their own private smoking suits, free to puff away as they please. Self-contained access tubes can be used to deliver refreshing drinks and remove waste. Walking canes can be provided by the establishments, since it may be difficult for smokies to maneuver around while enjoying the cloudy self-initiated second hand smoke environment. It appears that a prototype is already in production: http://www.ecrannoir.fr/dossiers/ete...i/bubble01.jpg

Filters, smilters. No one cares. Let's move on to stories of smokie discrimination!

[Melle]

Originally Posted by Ballardguy

As enjoyable as it is to look at Canadian smokies in their glass cages, it probably is not feasible for most corner establishments to implement. Besides being costly, there is a matter of space.

Well, I think those corner establishments are perfectly capable of making their own financial decisions. If they legally had a choice: either ventilate or prohibit smoking, they'd be able to decide what is & is not "feasible."

I propose instead the development and implementation of individual "Cones of Smoking". Smokies can be self encased in their own private smoking suits, free to puff away as they please. Self-contained access tubes can be used to deliver refreshing drinks and remove waste. Walking canes can be provided by the establishments, since it may be difficult for smokies to maneuver around while enjoying the cloudy self-initiated second hand smoke environment. It appears that a prototype is already in production: http://www.ecrannoir.fr/dossiers/ete...i/bubble01.jpg

Filters, smilters. No one cares. Let's move on to stories of smokie discrimination!

Sorry, Ballardguy, you'll have to remind me ... who exactly died & made you dictator of what people care about?

[Smokie]

Originally Posted by Melle

Sorry, Ballardguy, you'll have to remind me ... who exactly died & made you dictator of what people care about?

Do you really think anyone cares about your filter bs? At least he is trying to get the topic away from your droll, inane rhetoric. (betcha you thought I didn't know such big words! Not bad for an old redneck).

Who died and put you in charge of labeling others?

[breather]

Enough with the pseudo-arguments about ventilation, a smoking section in a bar is like a peeing section in a pool.

Ballard Guy is right, you people are hear to amuse us now that we won and I expect you to be as amusing as you were previously annoying. Yes, that's a tall order but rise to it smokies, if not you, then who? If not now, then when?
Let's hear some tales of persecution followed by a rousing, hacking rendtion of "We Shall Overcome."

I love the thought of smokies in glass cages, the downside is that you can't poke a stick through a glass cage. Think of the extra revenue bars could make selling sticks...

You guys could designate someone expendable (Slomezticator comes to mind) to self-immolate in front of the Blue Moon or something, but with your luck it would be raining too hard.

Maybe a bunch of you staging a hunger strike, although that works best from jail... hell, I'm not going to do your thinking for you, just entertain us!

[Melle]

Originally Posted by Smokie

Do you really think anyone cares about your filter bs?

Yeah. And there's a real simple solution for people who don't.

At least he is trying to get the topic away from your droll, inane rhetoric. (betcha you thought I didn't know such big words! Not bad for an old redneck).

Aw shucks, Smokie, dang-nabbit t' tarnation. I was only funnin' you, I never did really take you fer a redneck. Way I reckon it yer a fake, as fake as the day is long.

"Pinko! Commie! Pervert! Look at me, everybody! I'm a homophobic, McCarthyist nut, who probably keeps an arsenal in my attic, & I'm against 901! Lookie what kinda creeps oppose 901!"

Who died and put you in charge of labeling others?

Ahem. Ballardguy keeps saying "no one cares" when he means that he doesn't care. I'm just giving him a hard time.

[Melle]

Originally Posted by breather

Enough with the pseudo-arguments about ventilation, a smoking section in a bar is like a peeing section in a pool.

Sorry, but I'm sticking to the ventilation arguments. The instant chorus of "quit saying that right now!"---from certain people---is a clear sign of having hit a bulls-eye.

[Shady_B_206]

Is there going to be a party when this thread hits 1000?

[Ballardguy]

Originally Posted by Shady_B_206

Is there going to be a party when this thread hits 1000?

Absolutely! Thunderbird Tavern in Ballard. But....uhmmm...no smoking allowed.

[Shady_B_206]

Originally Posted by Ballardguy

Absolutely! Thunderbird Tavern in Ballard. But....uhmmm...no smoking allowed.

lol 38 to go

[Ballardguy]

Originally Posted by Melle

Sorry, but I'm sticking to the ventilation arguments. The instant chorus of "quit saying that right now!"---from certain people---is a clear sign of having hit a bulls-eye.

There's an argument on this? I thought it was the desparate cries of a disgruntled smoker....clinging to any shred of hope he can find...

Plllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssss ssssseeeeeeeeeeeeee let me smoke in the bars! I think you should run with the smoker suit idea.

[Juneappal]

Originally Posted by Melle

"Pinko! Commie! Pervert! Look at me, everybody! I'm a homophobic, McCarthyist nut, who probably keeps an arsenal in my attic, & I'm against 901! Lookie what kinda creeps oppose 901!"

Don't forget "I am a veteran too, but I don't know what 'thanks for your service' means."