Home » Smoke Free » Currently Reading:

Non-Smokers Speak Up For Change!

February 13, 2009 Smoke Free 35 Comments

My recent post requesting a smoking ban for the region & state generated the most comments for a single post for the entire 4+ years I’ve been writing this blog.  While many found smoking to be as equally disgusting as me, others took a more libertarian viewpoint — let customers, business owners and the market — not the government  — decide.  Fine.

I’m no longer going to patronize establishments that permit smoking anywhere. I encourage others to do the same.

The whole non-smoking section is really a joke anyway.  If smoking is allowed indoors with the same ventilation system then the ill-effects of smoking are throughout.

But avoiding smoking places is not good enough.  We non-smokers need to tell the smoking places why we are no longer going to patronize their establishments.  And we need to make sure the non-smoking places we do visit know we are there, in part, because they are 100% non-smoking.  So how do we do this?

First, if you are heading out to dinner call ahead and ask if the establishment is 100% smoke-free.  If the answer is no say something like, “Oh, too bad.  Thank you, but I won’t be eating at your place as long as smoking is permitted.” I know it sounds harsh and perhaps you can suggest different phrasing but they need to understand that allowing smoking costs business.  When you visit a place and they ask “smoking or non-smoking?”  you can respond with, “Oh, I didn’t realize you still allowed smoking.”  Ideally you’d do a 180 and leave.  I did this recently even though I was ready to eat then.  If you don’t want to find another place to eat go with, “I guess we’ll stay this time, please seat us as far away from the smokers as physically possible.”  Remember, most likely the person seating you didn’t make the choice to allow smoking so you don’t want to direct your anger at them.

I’m convinced many restaurant owners only see and count the smokers.  These owners fail to realize they have more non-smoking customers than smoking customers.  Recent reports indicate that less than 20% of U.S. adults smoke (source).  Owners are afraid to ban smoking because they might lose a minority of the population.  They don’t fear losing the non-smokers.  We need to change that.  Instill some fear.

Most places I visit are 100% smoke-free.  But I will stop going to a few places — Chimichanga and City Diner to name a couple — that are not 100% smoke-free.  Since I started writing this post a week ago I’ve found myself in places with smoking allowed at the bar.  It certainly won’t be easy.  Friends might not so understanding when I insist we go elsewhere.  No everyone is comfortable being perceived as confrontational or difficult.  So to help out I’ve created some card templates that can be left behind when you leave.

For those unpleasant places that still allow smoking:

nosmoke1sm

The above language works for contacting restaurants through there websites.  Just copy & paste:

I enjoy your establishment but the presence of cigarette smoke makes the experience less than ideal for me.  I eat out less due to the economy so when I do I want to enjoy it.  Please remove smoking so I can return.

For those awesome places that are smoke-free:

nosmoke2sm

Click each of the above for a PDF document set up with 10 cards per sheet (Avery 5371).  Just print, cut and carry.  Leave them behind at places so they hopefully get the message. It is a tough economy out there and we non-smokers account for 80% of the population.  We don’t need to be subjected to the disgusting addictive habit of the remaining 20% of the population.  We, the complacent non-smokers, have the purchasing power to rid smoking in places.  We just have to speak up.

 

Currently there are "35 comments" on this Article:

  1. JPRossJr says:

    Well said Steve. Thanks for taking this to the next level. Where I live in south St. Louis there are three establishments within walking distance, Hilltop Inn, The Doc Haus and The Haven (currently closed), but I don’t go to any of them because of the smoke. So instead I get in the car and drive. I LOVE the food at Iron Barley, but I don’t go there. A new pizza place opened recently, The Wedge. The food was FANTASTIC but the smoke was so bad I stunk by the time I got out of there. Subsequently I tried carry out, but the five minute exchange of money for food required me to rush home and completely change clothes. Sadly I’m never going back. Thank God for The Royale. I fear south city will be the last area in the region to come around.

     
  2. Tim says:

    Well we just need to be more Japanese about it. Over there a lot of people smoke and they do not apologize. they don’t have to because the places where you are allowed to smoke over are incloses see thru smoking rooms. They vent everything very well.

    So stop yelling at smokers and start complaining to the establishments. Stop telling us to go out in the cold to smoke and start giving us areas that are see thru and inclosed.

    http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1185/1431588552_1700891de5.jpg

    As a smoker I agree go spend your money somewhere else. If you want to live in a town that allows non smokers clean air move to SF, CA. Then you can complain about the cost of living instead of someone else right to smoke.

     
  3. Smoking Research says:

    – For communities in states with a higher ratio of smokers to nonsmokers than the national average, employment losses at bars were significantly larger, and the employment changes at restaurants went from a small positive effect to a small negative effect (in neither case, statistically significant).

    – Restaurants in warm climates fared better than those in cooler climates. The authors suggest that the reason for this might be that restaurants in warmer climates can more easily provide outdoor seating where smoking is not prohibited.

    – Some venues fare better than others. Restaurants typically see no statistically significant change. Bar & Grills are negatively affected a bit more. Bars, bowling alleys and traditional smoking places can be negatively affected even further. Casinos may suffer the worst.

    Research
    http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2008/a/pages/smoking-ban.html
    – Columbia, MO Study: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/red/2008/01/Pakko.pdf
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/regecon/op/CRE8OP-2005-002.pdf
    – There’s more research out there, but its hard to find research without bias (either pro or anti smoking ban): http://www.google.com/search?q=economic+impact+smoking+ban

    ———–
    Columbia, MO Study wrote:

    The results reported in this paper indicate statistically significant losses to bar and restaurant sales tax revenues following the implementation of the Columbia Smoke-Free Ordinance in January 2007. After accounting for trends, seasonality, an overall downturn in retail sales, and an unusually harsh winter, there remains a 3½ to 4 percent loss in dining tax revenues associated with the smoking ban.

    The effects of the smoking ban vary for different types of businesses. Restaurants that serve primarily food only show no significant effect, whereas bars and restaurants with bars show significantly greater losses. For the latter categories, losses are estimated to be in the range of 6½ to 11 percent.

    It is important to note that the point estimates identify only average losses. Many businesses in this category are likely to have been unaffected (e.g., take-out businesses, fast-food franchises, and other restaurants that already had smoke-free policies). Accordingly, some businesses are likely to have incurred losses that are far greater than the average. Anecdotal reports from specific business owners suggesting losses in the range of 30 percent do not seem unreasonable.

    One interesting feature of the Columbia experience is the response of restaurant owners to the patio exemption. According to the Columbia Missourian, owners of at least two bars are building or planning outdoor patio expansions. One owner was quoted as saying, “You have to have a patio to survive.” The expenses associated with these renovations may help offset losses in sales revenue of these establishments, but they also represent profit losses above and beyond the measured declines in revenues.

    Measuring the economic effects of smoking bans can sometimes be difficult. For the case of Columbia, Missouri, this analysis of data on sales
    tax revenues indicates that losses are of a magnitude that is clearly identifiable and statistically significant.

     
  4. Jimmy Z says:

    I was pretty vocal on the previous post advocating the libertarian solution – this is an ideal way to make it happen – good job!
    .
    I do have one quibble with the first card – the first sentence sends a mixed message, while the last one, in my mind, isn’t strong enough. I’d be much more forceful:
    .
    “I enjoyed my visit today except for the fact that I was unable to escape the tobacco smoke. I’m eating out less these days due to the economy, so when I do I want to enjoy it. Unfortunately, until you decide to become 100% smoke-free, I won’t be returning.”

     
  5. Matt H says:

    Even if the local governments do not get involved, it is slowly and will slowly go that direction anyway. Several newer establishments are going smoke free and business isn’t hurt by this. The new bar Amsterdam on Morganford is smoke free and they still get good crowds. Between this one and the Royale, that portion of South City has good options for smoke free establishments and they won’t be the only ones for too long.

     
  6. Will Fruhwirth says:

    I’m a smoker but can sympathize with nonsmokers’ desire to avoid indoor smoking areas. That said, legislation is definitely the wrong way to go about this. I’ve long thought that the smoke-free agenda was far too rabidly and aggressively pushing for legislation, when really the best way to get things done while pissing off the fewest amount of people and avoiding infringing on anyone else’s rights is to vote with your dollars. If you don’t want to be around cigarette smoke, just don’t be around it. Simple.

    [slp — Exactly what I plan. And if a few smoking places go out of business in the process so be it.]

     
  7. As a smoker who was against the banning while living in Chicago, I know how many people feel about it. I and many Chicagoans had similar thoughts and arguments. The thing to keep in mind is that no matter your position or argument people resist change. It’s our nature. But the results are in folks. Ask around Chicago and I guarantee most people, even smokers, would say they support the ban after the fact. After the initial adjustment period it really becomes quite noticeable how much smoking indoors affected your enjoyment of establishments. I never thought I would say it but it’s completely worth it.

    And for those that point to small municipalities who have banned smoking and cite less business, you’re exactly right. The same thing happened around Chicagoland as well. It just doesn’t work like that when you don’t have to go much farther to smoke indoors. It must be widespread or it will never happen. Even leaving the decision to the individual business owner is ridiculous. They are business orientated. What smart business man or woman would allow the competition to have a leg up on them.

    I coincidentally posted on http://www.Archobserver.com today on this exact matter. Like the blog itself, it’s the point of view of an outsider. If that sort of thing interests you.

     
  8. Aragornman says:

    Steve,

    I am not a smoker, nor a libertarian. I do not like going to places that allow smoking and, for the most part, have been taking my business quietly somewhere else for years. However, I seriously question your logic when you say:

    “We non-smokers account for 80% of the population. We don’t need to be subjected to the disgusting addictive habit of the remaining 20% of the population. We, the complacent non-smokers, have the purchasing power to rid smoking in places.”

    Is it the job of the majority to stamp out establishments that are frequented by the minority (a minority whose actions they find morally objectionable and “disgusting”? The same argument could and has been used to boycott businesses that are frequented by gay customers and are sympathic to LGBT causes. It has also been used to try to get rid of adult bookstores, places that discriminate against African Americans, etc, etc. I am not necessarily against the tactic, I just think we should think about what we deam morally objectionable and “disgusting.”

    [slp — valid point. If a few places want to stick around to serve the smoking addict that is fine. But based on the number of places that allow smoking you’d think 80% of the population smoked. ]

     
  9. Great post, Steve! Anyone who wants to get more involved in the smoke-free movement should send an e-mail to [email protected] or sign up on our website http://www.smokefreestl.org as a supporter!

     
  10. Rick says:

    Having lived in relatively smoke-free California for over twenty years, I can certainly understand the frustration over restaurants, bars, and other businesses that allow smoking. When the ban on smoking in bars became California law, many people believed that bars would start going out of business because smoking and drinking often go together quite well. That certainly did not happen; however, the actual customers may have changed to non-smokers. The major key to passing legislation was the health insurance for employees of businesses. While it was deemed the right of individual to kill themselves with tobacco, they did not have the right to inflict it on others, mainly the employees of those businesses. Business owners were being forced to pay higher premiums and had difficulty covering their employees prior to the smoking ban. I wish you luck and don’t give up the fight; it is well worth it!

     
  11. Reginald Pennypacker III says:

    There are certain bars I never go into because they are too smokey. If they (or the government) ban smoking, I will return.

     
  12. The interesting thing I noticed about the smoking ban in Columbia (I just moved from there last summer) was that the only places I knew of that closed and claimed it was from the ban were either very old, poorly run, gross, and I mean gross establishments. One place has since been bought and remodeled and re-opended under new management and is doing just fine. The other place that claimed they closed due to the smoking ban also closed another location in Kansas City at the same time. My fiance and I ate at the second place I mentioned every Sunday. They had a great Sunday Crab Leg special. We also knew several of the employee well. They all left work one night and when they showed up to open the next day the doors were locked and note that just said they were out of business. No warning. The owners had other financial troubles and just sighted the smoking ban as a scape goat.

    Every bar, club, or restaurant we went to in Columbia didn’t seem to have any drop in business. A 4% downturn across all restaurants and bars in the town is not much at all.

    We got very used to going out to bar and not having to have your coat cleaned to get the smell out. We got used to shorter wait times at restaurants because they didn’t have all th wasted seating in the smoking section.

    We almost never go to bars now because we can’t stand the smoke. We are also a lot more selective about what restaurants we eat at because of the smoke as well.

     
  13. 100% Smoke Free! says:

    Smoke-Free St Louis also has cards and stickers. The stickers are meant to go on your charge receipts and say “Everyone has the right to breathe clean air. (around the top) I prefer clean air! (in the middle) Please make your establishment 100% smoke-free.” And the cards (I don’t have any here–because I ran out!) give information about Smoke-Free St Louis and has the same “Everyone has the right to breathe clean air” tagline.

    I’d suggest emailing Diana diana [dot] smokefreestl [at] gmail [dot] com to get those items.

     
  14. Bradley,
    You’re right. Since the smoke-free air law went into effect in Columbia, it has been nationally rated in the top 10% of best cities to open a restaurant in. And 50 new restaurants have opened since the law, restaurant business went up 7% and bar revenues went up 5%. The same claims were cited in Ballwin, that several restaurants closed when really, the few that did shutter were on the way out and had been for years.

    Look at how St. Louis reacted to 40 closing. It was all doom and gloom about that, but we’ve all adjusted fine, it’s not like the infrastructure of the city is collapsing as a result. Anytime the status quo is threatened, people freak out.

     
  15. Jimmy Z says:

    The one point I won’t concede is that workers in bars have some sort of “right” to demand a smoke-free workplace. The bar owner has the right to encourage smoking, or not, and the workers know that they’re going to be working a smoke-filled environment when they’re first hired – their choice/caveat emptor. In the same line of thinking, if you don’t want to work with a-holes, you don’t apply for a job at a hemorrhoid treatment center, and if you’re uncomfortable with public displays of homosexual affection, you don’t apply for a job in a gay bar! Your only real right as an employee is to be paid what you were promised for the hours you work. If you’re not happy with your boss, your coworkers, your hours (or lack thereof), your uniform, career advancement opportunities or if it’s too hot, cold or smoky, guess what, you’re free to leave and work somewhere else, that better meets yours “standards”!

     
  16. Charley says:

    I’m sure you will soon be visited with the wrath of Bill Hannegan and his whacko sidekick, Carol2000. You want a real eye opener to the effect of tobacco on your brain, visit her website, http://www.smokershistory.com

     
  17. Jimmy A says:

    Jimmy Z, then why have environmental rules for factories or other places of business? If an auto worker knows that s/he is going to breathe exhaust from welding, why not “caveat emptor”? If a paint booth operator can bring his own respirator or “work somewhere else” then why not? Just because some people don’t respect the fact that people work in hospitality industries doesn’t mean they shouldn’t enjoy similar protections in their workplaces. Claiming “caveat emptor” about a potentially unsafe environment is not a fair way to handle it.

     
  18. Stephanie says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with what the author suggests. There are more pleasant things to do than to call restaurants and bars in advance to inquire whether or not they allow smoking, but it is absolutely necessary to let them know that they are either gaining or losing customers due to the fact that they are smoke-free or allow smoking, respectively. This has only become an economic issue because the opponents of smoking bans are more vocal than the smoking ban proponents. If we make our voices heard by refusing to patronize establishments that allow smoking, this will turn around.

     
  19. Jimmy Z says:

    In a bar, some/many of the CUSTOMERS want to smoke. In a factory or an office, you typically don’t have any customers on site – smoking is a secondary activity, not a primary one. Smoking has also traditionally been part of the ambiance of bars (but not one that I like). Prohibiting smoking in offices and factories very likely has absolutely no impact on the actions of customers; prohibiting smoking in bars, especially on the local level, can be shown to directly impact the number of customers, and by default, the bottom line. You also have relatively many bars / opportunities to work and relatively few, say, auto plants. Combine that with the reality, as many have noted, of a gradual shift to more non-smoking bars, and you end up with an increasing number of potential opportunities for people who want to work in a non-smoking environment, without government intervention.
    .
    Bottom line, it all gets back to me having a hard time with government telling me what I should or shouldn’t do in my personal life. It also gets back to a probably old-school concept that, when it comes to jobs, the golden rule applies – he who has the gold makes the rules. The other basic issue with smoking is, at present, a) it’s legal for adults to use/consume, and b) it’s heavily taxed, so the government is implicitly advocating its use.
    .
    The small business man (which most bar owners are) is in daily battle to stay profitable. If a bar owner believes he / she can attract more customers / make more money by allowing / prohibiting any legal, albeit a regulated, activity, it’s HIS / HER money that’s on the line, be it smoking, live entertainment, adult entertainment, and/or catering to a specific subset of the population (gay, hip hop, biker, geriatric, cougars, etc., etc.). Unfortunately, the employees, if they want to work there, have to, pardon the pun, suck it up. Their only investment is their time and labor, and if they don’t like something about Bar A, well there’s Bars B thru Z and beyond out there, and one or more of them may be more suitable to their sensibilities. But until you start to invest in the rent, inventory, insurance, payroll, advertising, taxes and maintenance, in ADDITION to your time and labor, I’m sorry, you really don’t get a say in how things are run!

     
  20. Art says:

    I don’t buy that employees in one industry have to “suck up” workplace hazards, while others do not. Air thick with cigarette smoke is no more a necessary condition to the operation of a bar or restaurant than heavy concentrations of paint fumes are in an auto plant.

     
  21. Art, St. Louis bars that allow smoking are already compliant with OSHA air quality standards. Air filtration can make the air of a venue that allows smoking cleaner than the air outdoors, hence the Chicago air filtration exemption to the Chicago smoking ban.

    http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/MunicipalCode7-32_1.html#7_32_080

     
  22. Jeff Mitchell says:

    I am not a smoker, however, I will not be joining your discussion at The Royale. I refuse to spend my dollars at places that restrict smokers. Personally, I don’t like spending time around drunks and alcoholics, however, I am not going to request that they stop serving alcohol.

     
  23. Margie says:

    St. Louis and Missouri are way behind the curve on this. It saddens me to see, once again, the same tired arguments being had ad nauseum in St. Louis that have been had and moved on from in other places. Get your boots out of the muck, people, and march forward, already damn.
    .
    The earth is not flat, the universe was not created in seven days, and smoking in public places is not a god-given right. Then again, in a state where I can carry a gun in my glovebox, but gay marriage is constitutionally banned, perhaps it’s asking too much for people to show common sense about something as simple as smoking.
    .
    Finally — Much of the comment from “libertarians” on blogs is paid spin by the tobacco industry. Just keep that in mind.

     
  24. Travis says:

    I am a non-smoker and tend to avoid smokey places, but to outright ban smoking in all public places goes a bit too far. Something is gonna kill you. I somehow doubt that the air outside is that fresh after all. Smoking is once again just a fashionable scapegoat. It’s similar to telling the SUV driver from St. Charles that the world will be a better place if they just have an Energy Star labeled appliance.

    I really do think that restaurants and bars need to set their own policies on this. If you disagree with their policy, go elsewhere and shut up about it.

     
  25. Josh L says:

    Hey, Margie said it all so I won’t repeat: the tobacco industry and its minions are flooding this list with gasps of resistance to the inevitable. St. Louis may be the last place in America to have a smoking ban, but it *will* happen. In the meantime, Steve has the right idea.

     
  26. Jimmy Z says:

    Life is full of risks and full of choices. We will never live in perfectly safe world. To do so would require prohibiting the use of electricity (potential shock), natural gas (potential explosion), atomic energy (potential radiation), airplanes (potential crashes), speeds in excess of 5 mph (potential injuries), beaches and swimming pools (potential drowning and skin cancer), subsurface coal mining (potential black lung disesase, potential collapse), recreational drugs, both legal and illegal (for obvious reasons), food or sex (potential diseases). Smoking is just another one of life’s many risks and life’s many choices. If you don’t like it, don’t do it and stay away from people who do. I don’t smoke (never have), but I like my meat lover’s pizza and my beer. In many ways, neither one is very good for me, yet I still indulge, because I ENJOY it, even knowing the risks (and it shows). The same goes for riding my bike on city streets or (according to my wife) driving north of Delmar. Should the nanny state intervene and protect me from myself? I don’t think so. Steve has the right answer here – vote with your feet and your wallets and the message will get through. But focus on your life, not on everyone else’s! Remember, too, that life is a fatal disease – none of us are getting out of here alive . . .

     
  27. chelsea says:

    Great iDea! I am definitely going to print them off and start leaving them around! Thanks!!!

     
  28. Non-Smoker says:

    I don’t smoke, but I don’t support a full ban.

    The choice to allow or ban smoking in an establishment should be left to the individual business owner, just as the choice to patronize that establishment should be mine.

    I know smoking is bad for me, that’s why I don’t do it or go to places that allow it…I’m a grown up, I can make choices that are right for me without government intervention.

     
  29. Amber says:

    I have always appreciated your proactive attitude about changing situations when you see something amiss. After reading this post and the recent post in relation to anti-smoking I have to say I will no long be a reader.
    Like you, I am choosing to not visit a place that is blatantly out of line with my own values.
    The difference for me is that you are so hostile towards others that do not do as you do.
    It’s disappointing, really.

    [slp — thank you for sharing your viewpoint. My hostility stems from my frustration about what I see as a clear cut public health issue. I have many friends & relatives that smoke. I wish they did not. But it is legal and so that is their right. But I have an expectation of the government playing a role in public safety — that is why we license architects & engineers and issue building permits and have inspections. Without these private property owners would create places that are a hazard to the general public.
    .
    Thanks for being a reader in the past and following my example of communications.]

     
  30. ray says:

    Look out, Steve. You’re sounding reeeeal conservative here. OK, maybe libertarian. The key is, the establishment needs to decide who its customers are. And develop its smoking policy accordingly. I will probably never buy the argument that my government needs to protect me from … well, whatever. That way simply lies more and more remuneration for bloodsucking trial attorneys (imho), and less and less acceptance of personal responsibility.

    Anyway. I applaud your approach. Just please, don’t be an asshole about it. Arrogance has no place in this particular battle.

     
  31. Jeff says:

    This is a public health issue, nothing less. Most states require the use of seatbelts– not everyone likes it, but we deal with it and few can argue that lives have not been saved as a result. Progressive cities passed legislation for more healthful indoor air years ago. The fact that St. Louis has not moved (at least) parallel along with other cities on this issue is embarrassing.

    It’s almost analogous to the parking lot obsession that took over this city in the last 50 years. At one time, it was thought to stem urban decline, but smart cities wised up long ago BECAUSE THEY KNOW BETTER NOW. Since St. Louis does not take the lead on virtually anything these days, then at least we should follow other cities that actually have a clue.

    P.S. I love this city more than life itself.

     
  32. Jimmy Z says:

    Jeff – Your seatbelt analogy isn’t the same thing. The guvmint has mandated that seatbelts be installed AND requires their use. With tobacco, the guvmint says it’s both “legal” and dangerous – if it’s as dangerous as it probably is, it should be classified as an illegal drug and its use banned, in both public and private. On the one hand, they don’t want to make it illegal because they lose a significant tax source – marijuana is the nearest equivalent – it’s also a recreational, somewhat addictive drug, yet it’s illegal (but probably less dangerous), consumes significant resources in trying to stop it, and generates very little in revenue. On the other hand, tobacco is dangerous and a poor choice, so its use, in public, is becoming more and more limited, both through bans and the imposition of ever-increasing taxes.
    .
    As an ardent non-smoker, I can support a statewide ban, and I could probably support one in the city IF one were adopted for the entire county, as well, but a citywide ban, absent one in the county, no. Personally, I think tobacco needs to be treated like any other dangerous drug – outlaw it, and go after the producers and the distributors. IF we feel a need to push the issue, a good compromise/first step, especially in the city, would be a ban on smoking in establishments that derive 51%+ of their revenues from the sale of prepared foods, leaving bars to decide how to meet the preferences of their patrons. But until the government quits tacitly supporting its consumption, by keeping it legal for adults and taxing it heavily, I find it to be blatantly hypocritical to limit its use, especially in bars!

     
  33. Leigh says:

    I do not agree with the way you are vocalizing about this issue. You sound like a complete jerk. I am a smoker as you are well aware, and am quite respectful of non-smokers. However, I go to places where I am able to smoke beause I choose to patronize those places. I have seen you on several instance show up where they allow smoking and bitch about it. I feel ike it is an attack on me just as much as the establishment. Like, “How can you let THOSE people in here”. I wouldn’t mind going outside to smoke if thre were place that made it a comfortable experience for the smokers. You make us seem like lesser people and I dectect a tinge of hatred. I have smoked since I was young. I do think it is not a great habit now I am older and understand the effects. However, at this time I am choosing not to take on the task of quitting. I know that sparking discention and heated debate are things that you really enjoy…So, I believe it is what it is and you are who you are. You usually come across as strong and educated when it comes to the issues you champion…I fear this time you sound like a big hateful cry baby.

    [slp — Respectful would be holding group functions in non-smoking venues. My choices are either make an issue beforehand so a non-smoking place is selected, not make it an issue and see how it goes or just not participate. With all three options I’m the bad guy. The only way to not be a jerk it to sit among the smoke and take it. Sorry, not going to happen. I won’t be joining in any functions at smoking establishments. I don’t like showing up and bitching anymore than you like hearing me bitch. You are nice and you step away. But when the entire place reeks of smoke that is little consolation.]

     
  34. Mike says:

    Lack of an indoor smoking ban is proof positive that Missourah, and St. Louis in particular, is a backwards cowtown.

     
  35. ed hardy clothing says:

    We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
    of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
    ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
    ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
    ed hardy board shorts , don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
    ed hardy swimwearand more,
    ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
    cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.

    our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



FACEBOOK POSTS

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe