no smoking as of 4-15... ways to get around?

[cueandcushion]

Statistics...

All Statistics can be used to argue why something should be legalized or punished.

Children are 1000 more times likely to die from drowning in a pool than from an automatic weapon.

Did you ever notice when a child gets shot in a drive by that it is on the news every night for week? Why is there no news coverage talking to politicians about BANNING SWIMMING. Because it is not popular. The same goes for riding a bike. More children suffer brain injuries from riding a bike than from car accidents. Yet we have seat belt laws. Surprisingly we dont have training wheel laws or speed restriction laws for kids on bikes. Why? It is all based on politics and what is popular at the time. Smoking has been "lucky" enough to be picked recently as the topic needing regulation. In the near future it will be fossil fuels, gas taxes, everything to do with energy. After that we will be argueing about the rights of android servants and if they have feelings. (They DO have feelings you know... )

 

[pete lafond]

Clearly, whatever the topic, how things affect us really depend on us and what is important. One point is that no law should be put on the books that has a negative impact on people or business especially if it is none of their business. I like the fact that bars are no longer smoky, but I also had a choice to go someplace else. Is it right for me to dictate to bars that because I do not like it and others do? I should be the spoiled one wanting my own way to say change it. That would not be fair on my part.

If cigarettes were against the law, then I do expect business to adhere. Because they are not against the law, I say no law belongs here. If businesses were to provide no-smoking period or clean non-smoking areas, then it should suffice.

I think ther are better places for lawmakers to spend their time such as on things like stopping pedophilia by modifying the RICO act to get these guys who live their entire life driven to preying on small children.

 

[chefjeff]

How is voting anything like violence? Were you held at gunpoint to cast a vote in favor of a smoking ban? Did someone start cutting off your fingers one at a time until you voted the way they wanted you to? Your arguments are usually pretty well thought out, even if I do tend to disagree with them, but this post is simply irrational. The non smokers are not using violence to promote their cause.

I have asked others to please indicate where the Constitution guarantees business owners a right to operate their businesses in any way they please. I will extend this challenge to you, as well. Where is this right listed or implied?

Hi Chris, thanks for your kind words. Your questions confused me a little...let me try to clarify...

Is voting a form of intiatory force? When you vote for someone who adovocates and then uses force against any innocent citizen, what else would you call it? Voters know what they're doing; even if they don't know, their stupidity/ignorance doesn't matter to the victims as the damage is done. Innocents hurt intentionally.

What violence? If someone breaks the smoking [read "property"]-control law, what happens. A fine. If the fine isn't paid, what happens? Court date. If he doesn't come to court, what happens? Men with guns show up and make him comply. Violence, intiated by the voter and the [city councilman] against someone valuable who is providing services and jobs(!!!). The victims: the business owners, the cops even, the patrons, end up doing something they didn't want to do (i.e., lost freedom). And the future choices of others not yet involved in the decision have eroded.

Trading one's hard-fought-for freedom for a pool hall with no smoke is a bad deal, imho. No matter how much the voters like it, if they force it on me, they've ripped away my choice, my freedom...and yours, too...everyone's.

The trick: By implementing one small control at a time, they go unnoticed and each seems to be a good thing at the moment. But when integrated with the big picture, they show a steady decline in liberty and an increase in violence.

The Constitution doesn't list the rights of individuals; it list the restrictions/duties of government. You might argue the 4th Amendment keeps the govt control freaks away from a business property, but not sure...I'm not the constitutional expert here...I think our Australian, Colin c., living in China knows more about it than most here.

Jeff Livingston

 

[racefornine]

I bought a room 5 years ago. My room is in upstate NY. Buisness is down atleast 20% since the ban. I wish all the non smokers would come and play some. I have advertised the non smoking environment. I sure hope I am saving someone's life because the government is killing me !!!!!!


Dave Pinkston
Gallery Billiards

 

[cueandcushion]

Give it time

I bought a room 5 years ago. My room is in upstate NY. Buisness is down atleast 20% since the ban. I wish all the non smokers would come and play some. I have advertised the non smoking environment. I sure hope I am saving someone's life because the government is killing me !!!!!!


Dave Pinkston
Gallery Billiards

What are you doing exactly to try and market to the non-smoking crowd. I agree that smoking bans have a temporary effect on a business. I went to a seminar at the BCA last year and talked to several people that own rooms where a smoking ban exists. All of them said it took over a year to recover, and they all also said that it was forced down their throat..and they also said business was better than ever now because of all the people that avoided playing pool because of the smoke were now regulars.
I think you have to give it time. Remember that most of your money comes from people who cant play pool. Most of your money will come from non smokers since they are a vast majority of the public. I would look strongly at your marketing and advertising direction and how they are directed at that particular demographic. Do you advertise with coffee shops or movie theatres? Perhaps find coffee shops and swap coupons. They hand out coupons for you and vice versa. Same with a local restaurant. Some business that is complimentary and not competing with you.

Smoking bans have a bigger effect the more local they are. If it is a statewide ban, you have good business days ahead of you. Good luck in your room.

 

[Chris]

A federal case as reasoning for justifying whether something is an infringement or not is not in itself not complete. Previous cases are only tools we use in court and in fact this would deny our right to challenge for new court resolutions by only looking at the past.

Typically precedents are followed, unless an argument is made how a new case is fundamentally different from a previous decision.

The Judicial Branch interprets the Constitution and law. By the structure of the Constitution, we are pretty much stuck with the effect of their interpretations. The system is working as designed.

The answer is to ban cigarettes or leave things alone. If cigarette smoke is harmful then ban it, don't compromise because the politician is worried about revenue and backlash. The politicians are placing economical hardships on business. This is the unfairness, this is clear hypocrisy. Remember it is not the business that is smoking, it is the people (patrons). The people, as long as it is legal to sell cigarettes, have a right to not only smoke or not smoke but to pick and to choose to go to establishments that allow it. To ban businesses from allowing their place to be a choice and to be denied of profits is flatly wrong. It is their choice. To create laws that steal from the livelihoods of a business owner is wrong especially because non-smokers have a choice to not visit that establishment. Cigar bars are still legal to smoke in, another compromise. Again rights are being infringed upon here.

There are more harmful carcinogens at a gas station while filling your tank. Lets ban fuel. But we can't, the economy... (yes this does not apply to smoking, but it shows how spineless politicians really are)

Here's how I see a few select things in our current times in the US.

Our rights are being infringed by not being able to smoke pot legally. Our rights are not being infringed by not being able to smoke pot in the pool room. Additionally, our rights are being infringed when prospective business owners are not allowed to open an "Amsterdam style" coffee shop in the US.

I can completely understand why a cigar bar would be excepted from a public smoking ban. Being a market participant in the tobacco trade is a major part of their business. Banning smoking at such an establishment could merit a strong judicial challenge to the legislation.

 

[pete lafond]

Here's how I see a few select things in our current times in the US.

Our rights are being infringed by not being able to smoke pot legally. Our rights are not being infringed by not being able to smoke pot in the pool room. Additionally, our rights are being infringed when prospective business owners are not allowed to open an "Amsterdam style" coffee shop in the US.

I can completely understand why a cigar bar would be excepted from a public smoking ban. Being a market participant in the tobacco trade is a major part of their business. Banning smoking at such an establishment could merit a strong judicial challenge to the legislation.

So in NYS they are not allowing any new Cigar Bars to open. This would then be considered an infringement?

 

[Chris]

Hi Chris, thanks for your kind words. Your questions confused me a little...let me try to clarify...

Is voting a form of intiatory force? When you vote for someone who adovocates and then uses force against any innocent citizen, what else would you call it? Voters know what they're doing; even if they don't know, their stupidity/ignorance doesn't matter to the victims as the damage is done. Innocents hurt intentionally.

I agree that ultimately voters should be, and largely are, held accountable for their voting. However, I was trying to remain topical. I will say that I am not likely to make an argument defending US foreign policy.

What violence? If someone breaks the smoking [read "property"]-control law, what happens. A fine. If the fine isn't paid, what happens? Court date. If he doesn't come to court, what happens? Men with guns show up and make him comply. Violence, intiated by the voter and the [city councilman] against someone valuable who is providing services and jobs(!!!). The victims: the business owners, the cops even, the patrons, end up doing something they didn't want to do (i.e., lost freedom). And the future choices of others not yet involved in the decision have eroded.

I think what you are talking about is due process. It is covered in the Constitution and legislation, as well as legal precedent. As far as future choices of others of the future, tacit consent comes into play. It's why we twenty first century folk are legally bound to an eighteenth century document.

Trading one's hard-fought-for freedom for a pool hall with no smoke is a bad deal, imho. No matter how much the voters like it, if they force it on me, they've ripped away my choice, my freedom...and yours, too...everyone's.

The trick: By implementing one small control at a time, they go unnoticed and each seems to be a good thing at the moment. But when integrated with the big picture, they show a steady decline in liberty and an increase in violence.

"Those that would trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Truer words have never been spoken, and we should heed good ol' Ben's advice as much today as during his time. I don't, however, believe a successful case could be argued that smoking indoor in public places is a right not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Let's be sure of one thing. Neither my nor your interpretation of the Constitution is of any significance, Only US Supreme Court (and their state counterparts) and their subordinate lower courts have any real say in how the Constitution is interpreted. Like it or not that is the way the federal government was designed. The most a citizen can do, aside from be appointed or elected judge, is to bring a case of a possible violation to their attention.

It's not a perfect system, but it is the one we have, so those are the rules we have to follow.

The Constitution doesn't list the rights of individuals; it list the restrictions/duties of government. You might argue the 4th Amendment keeps the govt control freaks away from a business property, but not sure...I'm not the constitutional expert here...I think our Australian, Colin c., living in China knows more about it than most here.

Jeff Livingston

If trash is not protected under the fourth amendment, nor urine samples, I doubt that exhaled smoke is protected. All have been discarded by their rightful owners.

 

[Chris]

So in NYS they are not allowing any new Cigar Bars to open. This would then be considered an infringement?

I'm not an attorney, so I couldn't say. I just try to read the Constitution once every few months. I would think, however, an valid argument could be made to challenge that part of the statute, provided they reasonably anticipated making a profit and most of their money from cigars or other tobacco.

 

[chefjeff]

I'm not an attorney, so I couldn't say. I just try to read the Constitution once every few months. I would think, however, an valid argument could be made to challenge that part of the statute, provided they reasonably anticipated making a profit and most of their money from cigars or other tobacco.

May I suggest reading the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers to better understand the original intent of the writers of the Constitution?

For example you said: "...Only US Supreme Court (and their state counterparts) and their subordinate lower courts have any real say in how the Constitution is interpreted. Like it or not that is the way the federal government was designed..." Actually, this isn't how is was designed, but is how it has evolved.

So glad someone cares about THE law,

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Exactly! That take away a little bit at a time, and before you know it, they have taken away a lot!!! Each little step is a little less freedom.

After cigarettes, they will go after cars. I'm sure we all inhale a lot worse stuff sitting in a traffic jam on the freeway than we do in a pool room. Wait until they ban your SUV!

One step at a time!

Steve

Here's an excerpt from an article (and link to the whole thing)that shows your idea to be correct:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory117.html

...There are always groups that receive less sympathy when they go head to head with the state, and the ruling class knows it and thrives off it. During the 1990s, there was more hatred of the militia types and more fear of the rightwing separatists. Nowadays, the scapegoat is Arabs and Muslims. For years, in different ways and to varying extents, it’s also been illegal drug users, non-citizens, foreigners, gun owners, home-schoolers, prostitutes, tobacco smokers, divorced fathers, and independent entrepreneurs among others. It can be one group that endures the jackboot today and a seemingly opposing group that suffers tomorrow.

But the primary concern for a free society is not which kinds of people should have their freedom smashed. The real concern is liberty for all. The capacity of the state to divide peaceful people into groups and set them against one another is its capacity to oppress. When anyone is victimized by the state, all who believe in and love the universal values of freedom, as well as the finer principles on which America was founded, have a moral obligation to oppose it...

Jeff Livingston

 

[catscradle]

Here's an excerpt from an article (and link to the whole thing)that shows your idea to be correct:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory117.html

...There are always groups that receive less sympathy when they go head to head with the state, and the ruling class knows it and thrives off it. During the 1990s, there was more hatred of the militia types and more fear of the rightwing separatists. Nowadays, the scapegoat is Arabs and Muslims. For years, in different ways and to varying extents, it’s also been illegal drug users, non-citizens, foreigners, gun owners, home-schoolers, prostitutes, tobacco smokers, divorced fathers, and independent entrepreneurs among others. It can be one group that endures the jackboot today and a seemingly opposing group that suffers tomorrow.

But the primary concern for a free society is not which kinds of people should have their freedom smashed. The real concern is liberty for all. The capacity of the state to divide peaceful people into groups and set them against one another is its capacity to oppress. When anyone is victimized by the state, all who believe in and love the universal values of freedom, as well as the finer principles on which America was founded, have a moral obligation to oppose it...

Jeff Livingston

Well, that's all good and well, but every law is an infringement of personal liberties, including those against murder and robbery. The only system under which no infringement occurs is anarchy.
The laws against murder are arbitrary, but logical. There is no reason why a smoking ban can't be arbitrary, but logical as well.
Where exactly does one draw the line between infringement and maintaining good social order. The instrument for drawing that line is the constitution which is also an arbitrary guideline, but it is THE guideline. If it can be shown that smoking bans violate a person's constitutional defined rights, then a case can be made against them, otherwise there is no argument.

 

[rackmsuckr]

Thought everyone reading this thread might get a kick out of reading this story:
(Waiver - I know God promised in the Bible never to flood us again )

In the year 2006, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United
States, and said, "Once again, the earth has become wicked and
over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.

Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good
humans."

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying, "You have 6 months to build the Ark
before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard -
but no Ark.

"Noah!" He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?"

"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed a
building permit. I' ve been arguing with the inspector about the need for a
sprinkler system. My neighbors claim that I've violated the neighborhood
zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height
limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.

Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the
future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to
clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I told them that the sea
would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees
in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists
that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me.

They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They
argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane
to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the EPA ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an
environmental impact study on your proposed flood.

I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on
how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew.

Immigration and Naturalization is checking the green-card status of most of
the people who want to work.

The trade unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only
Union workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to
leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish
this Ark."

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched
across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to destroy
the world?"

"No," said the Lord. "The government beat me to it."

 

[Chris]

May I suggest reading the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers to better understand the original intent of the writers of the Constitution?

For example you said: "...Only US Supreme Court (and their state counterparts) and their subordinate lower courts have any real say in how the Constitution is interpreted. Like it or not that is the way the federal government was designed..." Actually, this isn't how is was designed, but is how it has evolved.

So glad someone cares about THE law,

Jeff Livingston

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

I think Marbury v. Madison set legal precedent to supporting that sentiment.

BTW, kudos for recommending The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

 

[wannaplaySOME?]

that was....

Thought everyone reading this thread might get a kick out of reading this story:
(Waiver - I know God promised in the Bible never to flood us again )

In the year 2006, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United
States, and said, "Once again, the earth has become wicked and
over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.

Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good
humans."

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying, "You have 6 months to build the Ark
before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard -
but no Ark.

"Noah!" He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?"

"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed a
building permit. I' ve been arguing with the inspector about the need for a
sprinkler system. My neighbors claim that I've violated the neighborhood
zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height
limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.

Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the
future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to
clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I told them that the sea
would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees
in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists
that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me.

They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They
argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane
to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the EPA ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an
environmental impact study on your proposed flood.

I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on
how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew.

Immigration and Naturalization is checking the green-card status of most of
the people who want to work.

The trade unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only
Union workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to
leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish
this Ark."

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched
across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to destroy
the world?"

"No," said the Lord. "The government beat me to it."

SO CUTE! and definitely appropriate to this thread.

 

[Flex]

I would argue against your claim of the US being the best country in the world. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad place, but I don't believe for a second that it is the best place. And that's coming from a natural born citizen and US veteran.

In the US, we go out of our way to enforce victimless crimes, such as drug use and prostitution.

We imprison more of our population, per capita, than any other nation in the world, with possible unofficial exceptions of N. Korea and mainland China.

We limit access to higher education from much of the population.

We limit access to health care for much of the population.

We manipulate the UN so that anything that is not decidedly pro-US is either voted down or vetoed by the UNSC.

We lack reliable, nation wide public transit, such as a high speed rail system.

We have allowed corporations to obtain more political clout than individual citizens.

Etc, etc, etc.

There's worse places to live, to be sure. But I don't think we can claim to be best.

Perhaps you'd prefer the socialist paradise of Sweden...

 

[chefjeff]

Well, that's all good and well, but every law is an infringement of personal liberties, including those against murder and robbery. The only system under which no infringement occurs is anarchy.
The laws against murder are arbitrary, but logical. There is no reason why a smoking ban can't be arbitrary, but logical as well.
Where exactly does one draw the line between infringement and maintaining good social order. The instrument for drawing that line is the constitution which is also an arbitrary guideline, but it is THE guideline. If it can be shown that smoking bans violate a person's constitutional defined rights, then a case can be made against them, otherwise there is no argument.

Hi catmandu,

I don't understand why you think "every law is an infringement of personal liberties." Objective laws are not. Objective laws are those that protect me from hurting you and vice versa. They are not arbitrary, as there is a real instigator and a real victim with real damage. The 3 objective laws would be laws against 1.) theft, 2.) assault, & 3.) murder. Each of those laws PROTECTS the liberties of individuals, not violates them. Why? Because those laws recognize who STARTED trouble and react only to that.

Laws that violate liberties are those laws against something/one who has NOT started trouble. Those laws, themselves, are trouble-making and are not objective, but subjective, designed for other reasons besides peace and prosperity. That's been my point all along. That is THE point to consider vis-a-vis government's role in a civilized society. The constitution tried to encompass this principle, but started out with flaws, has been shot to hell over the last 250 years, and now is arbitrary. So, to base your argument on the Constitution and today's subjective interpretation of it and stop there is to default on your reasoning, a bad trade, imho.

Again, the Constitution does NOT list individual rights; it list govt's duties and restrictions. Rights, if one believes in such a concept, come from g_d or nature, according to our "founders," anyway.

The line must be drawn objectively, rationally, and morally. Here's what one calls the Constitution of the Universe:

Article I...Don't initiate force against another individual(s).

Article II...The only legitimate use of force is against those who violate Article I.

Article III...No exceptions to Articles I & II

If you think about it, this covers all problems between individuals.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Thought everyone reading this thread might get a kick out of reading this story:
(Waiver - I know God promised in the Bible never to flood us again )

In the year 2006, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United
States, and said, "Once again, the earth has become wicked and
over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.

Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good
humans."

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying, "You have 6 months to build the Ark
before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard -
but no Ark.

"Noah!" He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?"

"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed a
building permit. I' ve been arguing with the inspector about the need for a
sprinkler system. My neighbors claim that I've violated the neighborhood
zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height
limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.

Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the
future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to
clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I told them that the sea
would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees
in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists
that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me.

They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They
argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane
to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the EPA ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an
environmental impact study on your proposed flood.

I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on
how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew.

Immigration and Naturalization is checking the green-card status of most of
the people who want to work.

The trade unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only
Union workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to
leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish
this Ark."

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched
across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to destroy
the world?"

"No," said the Lord. "The government beat me to it."

lol...thanks for that. That story illustrates exactly how "good-sounding" laws directly and immediately hurt the poorest and the weakest of society by preventing them from obtaining wealth via productive activity, while maintaining the monopoly on power of the wealthy.

Who cares about pool players and pool hall owners?...let them play polo.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Flex]

"After cigarettes, they will go after cars. I'm sure we all inhale a lot worse stuff sitting in a traffic jam on the freeway than we do in a pool room. Wait until they ban your SUV!"

That is a silly point. the government DOES impose emissions and milage restrictions on automobiles. And they ARE trying to impse stricter limits. This is a good thng for us and the environment. Thank god you don't have to wait for the car company to change by itself.

Another one of those foolish socialist across-the-pond arguments.

Flex

 

[Chris]

Perhaps you'd prefer the socialist paradise of Sweden...

Perhaps. I always have my eyes open to find someplace new to live, inside or outside US borders.

Unfortunately, it is usually not as simple as merely packing and moving.