The Gargoyle Leader‘s Editorial board supports a smoking ban, of course they do, they wouldn’t want there subscriptions to slide anymore;

As a matter of fact, Rounds should make a big deal of the signing. Have a ceremony. Use one of those special pens. Gather a crowd.

I still think he will not sign it. No special pens just a big fat ugly F’U citizens of South Dakota Stamp.

It’s been a long, hard fight to protect the health of all of the state’s workers.

Wow! The AL actually gets it right – this has always been about workers not business owners, another reason why Rounds will take a gigantic crap on it.

11 Thoughts on “Should there be a ceremony if he vetoes it?

  1. Angry Guy on March 6, 2009 at 7:29 am said:

    I like the part in today’s AL article about the cigar exemptions where the owner of the Top Hat says, “We’re not a high-end bar.”

  2. l3wis on March 6, 2009 at 7:34 am said:

    I also have a problem with the reduced fine in this legislation. How can you expect people to follow a law when the fine is so silly and useless?

    I guarantee this was done to protect small town bars that will not follow the ban and will have sympathetic police that will not enforce it.

  3. l3wis on March 6, 2009 at 7:38 am said:

    AG- The Hat is my ‘high end bar’

    There is no place in town I can look (gawk) at twenty-something punk rock girls covered with cleavage tattoos and nose rings.

    I love it!

  4. Ghost of Dude on March 6, 2009 at 7:50 am said:

    A lot of bars in Holland get around this by having a colection jar at the bar. You put in a few Euros, and smoke whatever’s in your pipe.
    If the cops come in and fine the bar, the collection jar pays the fine.

  5. l3wis on March 6, 2009 at 8:06 am said:

    Yeah, they were doing that before the ban at a Steakhouse here in SD.

  6. Ghost of Dude on March 6, 2009 at 8:32 am said:

    What would really make everyone’s day is if after he signs the veto, he smiles, looks at the camera, and says “smoke if you got ’em!”
    If you need petition volunteers for the initiated measure, you shouldn’t have much trouble.

  7. Ghost of Dude on March 6, 2009 at 10:57 am said:

    It’s one of the best.

  8. Plaintiff Guy on March 8, 2009 at 4:47 pm said:

    I don’t smoke but I’ll miss the smoke breaks. For me, smoking is not offensive unless it’s obvious. Similarly, I don’t condemn homosexuality unless it’s blatant exhibition. Same as for heterosexuals who pet in public. Get a room. Smokers are fine but they must observe certain times and places.

  9. Costner on March 10, 2009 at 6:46 am said:

    Well I’ll agree with you there – I don’t have a problem with smokers themselves. I just have a problem with them thinking everyone around them, including the wait staff, hostess, and bus boy all want to inhale their cancer causing smoke. I don’t have a problem with someone using chewing tobacco or snuff because although it might be disgusting, it doesn’t harm anyone else.

    I also have a problem with the litter caused by cigarettes that “uglify” (yes I’m inventing a new word for this) the entrance to every building in the state, so I guess technically I do have a problem with the smokers who feel the world is their ashtray. Funny how every smoker I ever meet claims they NEVER toss their butts on the sidewalk or street and that they always dispose of them properly. Yea sure thing.

    All of that being said, a person has to be a special kind of stupid to start smoking in an era where we know the effects of it. For the soldiers of WWII that were issued cigarettes and for those who started smoking before it was known to cause cancer I might have some sympathy, but for anyone who has started smoking in the last 15-20 years I just have to shake my head and wonder how dumb they really are.

    Honestly – do smokers know how stupid they look with those things hanging from their lips? Does anyone out there really think it is still ‘cool’ to smoke?

    I guess if they want to let the whole world know they have an addiction and are too weak to control it then by all means, but keep it away from those who dislike the idea of contracting cancer.

    We outlawed asbestos because it might cause cancer and yet the product still worked as designed just as it always had. I wonder what might happen if I walked into a bar wearing an asbestos jacket that forms a cloud of dust every time I move. I’m guessing not only would people head the other direction, but I would like get a visit from the police within 15 minutes.

    Yet smoking is actually just as dangerous as asbestos and is perfectly legal. I fail to see the logic.

  10. l3wis on March 10, 2009 at 6:55 am said:

    That’s how my grandpa got started smoking, WWII, it was part of his rations.

Post Navigation