Cute but your logic doesn't hold water.

There are substantial laws against driving in a manner that puts someone else at risk.  If you have an accident you have an "event" that could result in compensation.

If you get cancer from second hand smoke you have no way to collect damages.  And besides, you will probably die anyhow.

Doesn't it piss you off that you have to pay high insurance rates and taxes to pay for someone else acting in a dumb manner?  For God sakes everyone knows how dangerous it is to smoke.

I would be willing to leave smokers alone providing:

1.  I never have to smell their smoke.

2.  I never have to pay for any medical care for the dumbasses who smoke.

3.  My tax money is not used to subsidize the industry.

Since we will never have all three then I support the will of the people to restrict smoking as much as possible.  Besides, if I get cancer from other people smoking then I have been denied my rights to live in peace and shoot my AR-15s.

Isn't that real freedom instead of this fake libertarian view of "By God I have the right to smoke and I don't give a shit if it kills you, my kids or cost you money"?  

It holds alot of water flash, Human personal behavior is rampant with activities that endanger others, you cant legislate it all away without taking away peoples rights, many of which are Constitutionaly guaranteed.

Remember what I said in my previous post.  As long as you meet my three conditions, which strongly affects MY Constitutional rights, you can do anything you want.

Under no circumstances should anyone vote for a law that limits a freedom, by outlawing something usually considered a "consensual crime."

Consensual crime - any prohibited action in which the perpetrator and victim are the same person.  This is an action harmful to an individual taken BY THAT INDIVIDUAL, and is obviously by his consent.

I smoked 2 packs of Luckies per day for eight years.  I quit when they hit $2 per pack, becaus I started thinking of how much ammo I could buy or load for $120 per month.  My old smokes money went into hobbies.

Now, I can't honestly say I DON'T smoke - I sometimes do.  (Like when moving house.)  I also keep a fairly wekk-stocked Humidor around for relaxation, own a couple pipes, and probably buy a box of "cheap" cigars (with the wood tips, so I don't bite thru them while working) every year.  It's still far less than the (adjusted) $3,000 or thereabouts I'd be spending on smokes - at current prices.

I like being able to smoke in a bar.  If I just finished a well-cooked meal in an outdoor setting, I'd like to fire up a Churchill to round out the experience.  I don't want some pompous ass telling me I can't do it.  If I want to, I will.  If I don't want to, I won't.  I'm not going to tell you if you can or can't while I'm about it.

Here's another funny one - My favourite smoke shop (Willow Glen Cigars, for Bay Area denizens - stop in and say HI!) has been in the same place as long as I can remember.  As it is a tobacconist, it is (was) perfectly natural to smoke in there - just not in the walk-in.  There was a big-screen, and quite a few comfortable chairs - as well as small climate-controlled lockers for storage for "smoke parties."

In the last eighteen months or so, two exercise places have moved in to either side of them.  Both cater to pregnant Yuppie women - one for Yoga, one for Pilates (whatever the Hell that is - the only Pilate I can think of offhand wa Pontius Pilate.)

Now, we can't smoke in there anymore.  It's been perfectly alright for twenty years or more, they were there a good long while, but these Yuppie Yentas come in and take it all away.  I don't think it's any of their damn business - they knew there was a smoke shop next door anyhow!

Is smoking bad for me?  Probably.  Do I care?  Not really.  I've ramped it down to almost nothing, and I don't want to be bothered by it.

Besides, if smoking is outlawed entirely, imagine what the Vegetarians will start trying to do...  I don't want to be bothered by them with the force of law on their side, I get enough shit from them as it is.  I try to leave them alone - why can't THEY leave ME alone?

FFZ

Smoking bans are a property rights issue. It doesn't matter how harmful smoking is, first or second-hand. It doesn't matter how much you hate smoke or how many people share your hate. The property owner has an absolute right to decide whether smoking will be allowed on his property, and if so, where. It is nobody else's business. If you don't like his policy, you can convince him to change it or stay away from his property.

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, [i]anything[/i] -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission." -- L. Neil Smith [url]http://lneilsmith.com/atlanta.html[/url]

Hmm.. I swear that I read somewhere that LEAD causes all kind of problems, so every time you SHOOT or CLEAN a gun YOU expose others to LEAD. It gets on your clothes and shoes and is transported ALL OVER THE PLACE
So by YOUR logic, banning guns is okay, because of the health issues.
Part of what gave us the capital to defete the British was the tobacco trade, so YOU can thank tobacco for YOUR freedoms.

And yes I'm a smoker and a shooter, but neither will expose me to worse chemicals than working for Uncle Sam did.

FFZ

At least you get the opportunity to confront someone who doesn't like you to smoke.

I don't get the opportunity to keep the stupid government from using my hard earned money to subsidize the tobacco industry.

I don't get much say so in my medical insurance rates.

I get very little say so in secondhand smoke.

I don't get very much say so in the stupid government using my hard earned money to pay for tobacco related illness for illegal aliens and those on welfare.

You are the one that is protected.  I am the one that is having my rights taken away.

Your "property rights" should end when it effects MY health and MY pocketbook. Again, read my previous post.  If you meet my three criteria you can do anything you want.

Unfortunately, the concept of private property has been bred out of most Americans.

Good strong property rights are what allow people with radically different opinions to peacefully co-exist. On my property, I make the rules. If you don't like my rules, don't step over the boundary line.

If you don't like that smoking is allowed in a particular bar or restaurant, don't eat there and don't work there. Let the owner know why you don't eat there and tell your friends who agree to tell him too. You might surprise yourself and convince him to change his policy without pointing a government gun at his head and forcing him to do your bidding.

That smoking affects your pocketbook is the fault of socialist laws, not smokers.

I don't smoke, but I own a pipe that has never had tobacco in it so that I can engage in "[url=http://lneilsmith.com/niccers.html]political smoking[/url]".

Gun owners, smokers, and drug users are the new "niggers" of America. We need a new civil rights movement.

[edited to fix the quote]

Ok, one more time:

Second hand smoke is [size=6]NOT[/size=6] a health hazard. Those with a political agenda have twisted the facts to convince sheeple who want to believe.

Please don't include a constitutional guaranteed freedom such as gun ownership with the commie issue of drug usage.  And yes, tobacco is an addictive drug.

I agree with you that many of the people who espouse the legalization of currently controlled substances are democrats/socialists/communists. I find supporting them distasteful. Some of them have realized that they are on the same side as gun owners in the war on freedom. They probably find supporting us distasteful as well. We need to support each other's freedoms.

Using drugs, e.g. heroin, coffee, nicotine, alcohol, and sugar, is also guaranteed by the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution are drugs mentioned, hence their use is protected by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

There is no such thing as an addictive drug. There are people with addictive tendencies. There are experiences that encourage those tendencies.

Except for what shows up in the next one. The states get first whack at any powers not in the Constitution, THEN the people get what's left over...

So Wisconsin (or any other state) has every right to ban drugs (including alcohol and tobacco). Strike one for a 'Right to get stoned'.

And the Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce (yes I know, they abuse it to death), so they can ban the interstate trade in/movement of drugs. Most illegal drugs are grown/manufactured in another state or country from where they're sold. Strike two!

Finally, the Feds have the right to fund or deny funding for whatever they want. So, for example, they could cut off crime-control funding or health care assistance to any state that legalized drugs. Nice? No. Legal? Yes. Strike three, Stoner's out...

Sorry, I have no sympathy for illegal drug users, and little for tobacco (that little coming from the fact that tobacco is, for now, legal, and is (in WI, at least) the stopgap for not cutting spending (We can just hike the cig tax)).

We already have a law like this in the PRK, and it sucks.  I only smoke a cigar once or twice a month, and usually with my buddies that smoke.  I am not bother by second hand smoke, but the smell of walking ash trays turns my stomach.  Even so, the law still really bothers me.  

There are a lot of government buildings around here.  Most of these have a no smoking zone 15ft from the door, so smokers have to stand out in the hot sun or rain if they want to light up.  I think they did it to piss off smokers, more than to "protect" people entering the building.

Even before the law, there were a lot of restaurants that were non-smoking.  It was their choice and a business decision.  When I am at the local watering hole, all the smokers have to go outside in the cold.  Some of my buddies smoke, so I stand out in the cold with them.

I always wanted to open a diner that serves nasty tasting chili, and has ugly waitresses that are rude and chain smoke.  Nobody would be force to eat there or work there.  If people don't like it, they can go someplace else.  The guberment should not have anything to say about it.

Instead of a law, it would be better if people just wrote letters to the businesses they like to frequent.  "Dear business owner, I would like to patronize your establishment, but the cigarette smoke is keeping me away.  Thanks for taking the time to consider my letter."  or "Dear business owner, I love the fact that you have a smoke free establishment.  It is one of the reasons I go there.  Keep up the good work."

Fascinating that you place such a strong emphasis on making this point.
Could you [size=6]PLEASE[/size=6] direct me towards some results from a rigorous scientific study that support this claim?  Where has this information been hidden?  Who has hidden it?  In which peer-reviewed journal were they published?  I'll find them as soon as I hear from you, and I'll IM you just in case you don't re-check this thread.  I'm afraid that without this, I am tempted to believe that you are among the "sheeple" who are slaves to the tobacco industry's deadly marketing.  C'mon, I said [size=6]PLEASE[/size=6]!!!  

Cigarettes in particular, and tobacco products in general, are lifespan and financial taxes on the weak and the gullible.  The hopeless and mindless play the Lotto: as one bumper sticker says:  "Lotto:  A Tax on Those Who Failed Math".  Maybe another could say, "Tobacco:  Let's take out the trash!!!"  NO!  Forget that.  Few more self-destructive life choices.  Put the smokers in hospitals or treatment programs or with Nicotine Anonymous now.

In my city, cigarette smoking is forbidden in the vast majority of indoor public areas.  As a resident nonsmoker, this is a fantastic bonus.  Oh, the potential for a long anti-tobacco soliloquy (tirade)!  I'll exercise some restraint, and won't post way too many references and educational materials and posters.  

[Today has been far too long to allow me to reach that compassionate balance between the extremely venomous emotion I feel when the subject of tobacco addiction arises and the need to be sensitive to the chronic illness with which the addicts suffer every day.  I guess that I'll revise this when I'm refreshed.  Have really put a lid on myself this morning.  Mainly wanted to pick MrP's library for the reference to the studies to which he must refer.]

If you are a tobacco addict, then you get both my pity, and a suggestion that you seek a treatment or everyday habit revision that will allow you to live an alternative lifestyle immediately.    

Is smoke from a cigarette a carcinogen or not?  

If Smoking is harmful  (Which I dont doubt) then Outlaw it! But dont allow the sales of Tobacco with the Extreme taxes charged and then complain about smokers. You anti's would NOT like the Huge Tax Increase that would come if Tobacco were illegal.

I only made a strong emphasis on my point because I said it previously in this thread.



Read page 2. Liberty posts a good start. Do your own research. Start with Google.

I am not a "slave" to the tobacco industry. But I am a "slave" to the firearms industry. [:)]
Unfortunately I don't have Imbrolgio's knack for sarcasm.



Firearms are forbidden in indoor public areas in lots of places in the country (my state included). Does the info about ARs and firearms in general reflect the truth about guns? "Studies" such as Kellerman are junk science that are believed by the sheeple of the country. That doesn't make it true.



I Don't smoke. Never have never will. I don't like the smell of smoke and don't like people smoking around me.

I for one am not going to give up any of my liberity or that of, my children, grand children, great grand children down the line for my own personal comfort.

Make no mistake... It's about [size=4]LIBERITY![/size=4]

Unfortunately, today I will not have a lot of time today to address any responses. I will hope to get more time this weekend though.

Other note:
Sometimes I feel like I'm reading the DU. With all this socialist dogma about the cost of smokers' health costs affecting us all. The more effective way to reduce health costs (and not force a segment of our populations ot give up liberities) is to (1) midigate the lawsuits against doctors, nurses, and hospitals (2) reduce the red tape that drug companies have to go through to bring new drugs to market. It costs an average of $300 million dollars to bring a new drug to market. 8 out of 10 new drugs will never show a profit because of it. If we could reduce the costs of bringing new drugs to market to say $100 million. The "evil drug industry" could make their "evil obscene profits" and still charge less for their drugs.

[rant] It is so hipocritical that demorats complain about the costs of perscription drugs when they put the process in place that makes them so expensive.[/rant]

PE,
Please note, I do believe the smoking is a dangerous activity and can contribute to the death of the user. However, second hand smoke is not a health hazard to those around the smoker. The difference is the concentration.

No time to proff read, so if you want to blast my typing and mistkaes og aheed.

Perhaps you should go back and read the link I posted. The chance of getting cancer from second hand smoke is almost nil.




Get the point???

You've missed the point completely.  If you want to go home and stuff a red-hot poker up your ass until it comes out your mouth, go right ahead.  Come near me with the poker though, and you're going to have problems.
This is not about your right to fuck yourself up, its about my right not to get fucked up by you.

Tis you that have missed the point completely. Second hand smoke may not smell good. It make make you uncomfortable. But it is not going to "fuck you up".

There are obviously two schools of thought operating here.  Those who think that second hand smoke IS harmful, and those that don't.
I'm not quoting any evil government reports, and I'm not quoting any internet (if its on the internet, it must be true right?) sites.  I just remember visiting my grandparents when I was a kid, and my brother and I always being sick when we got home.  That's really all the proof I need.  Did this exposure shorten my life?  I have no idea, I'm not a doctor, but I know that I got sick, and that's an absolute and something that I AM knowledgeable about.
It seems that the tinfoil-hat brigade (I'm getting a better idea who you all are every day) is convinced that anything considered to be a mainstream-excepted idea is just wrong.  To a large degree I agree with you, but you have to be careful not to get carried away.
I worry with some of you that you are not finding time to leave the house, as some average 10 posts a day.  This means that you have to take the time to read all the posts before yours, do some internet "research" to pose your rebuttal, and then post.  Perhaps I may suggest leaving the keyboard, putting on some sunglasses (as your eyes must surely rival Golem's by now), and stepping out into the light of the real world.  I know it can be a scary place, but hopefully you live in a place where you can carry concealed and have at least some sort of "security blanket" to protect yourself.

I dont debate whether Smoke is bad or good, the point is that IT IS LEGAL TO BUY AND USE TOBACCO! Until and If it is against the law to use tobacco the use of it is one more human behavior trait that some people like and do and some people hate, if you give this some thought you can come up with many other human traits(that are legal) that are dangerous as well as annoying to people who dont do them.

This is why it is illegal to drink and drive.  Its not illegal to drink, its not illegal to drive, its just illegal to drink AND drive, since doing so poses a risk to others.
Similarly, its not illegal to smoke, its not illegal to eat in restaurants, but it may soon be illegal to smoke AND eat in a restaurant, since doing so poses a risk to others.

All your Golem's are belong to us.

Seems to me you're threatening yourself with cancer by driving with your window open and without a gas mask. All that engine exhaust is murder.

Wait a minute! [thinking]

LET'S BAN CARS! Think of all the accidents that would be avoided, the reduction in cancer and asthma-causing exhaust, and the reduced strain on our natural resources!

[/sarcasm]

If only we filtered cigar and cigarette smoke as much as we filter car exhaust.  

MrP, you neglected to answer my question.  

Smoking is dumb.
Smoking bans are dumber.

See the way i see it is you and your wife should stay home.  Especially if a little smoke sends her to the doctor.  Put that woman in a bubble or something.  Maybe youre car is getting beaned with butts cause your on the guys ass.  What i say is if a cigarette butt hurts your car you should leave that at home too.  

So it's alright for you to cause medical problems for another human being?  Is it ok for me to cause a few people some medical issues then?  Say, for instance, shooting a anti.  that would be ok?

I agree with everything you just said.  I cant believe you paid $22 for a carton.  $40 is about the cheapest around here.  $35 on the res and $50 at the grocery store.  I paid $6.10 once for a pack for the mother in law, she had to have carlton menthol 120's and nothing else.  100's didnt work.

PE,

I did answer your question. From my previous response:


Radiation is not harmful in low doses, but is deadly in high concentrations.

Sorry, missed it.  
I'll disagree with you, and with your analogy.  Long term exposure to radiation can be deadly.  even in "low" doses.  

As for smoke, being in an enclosed room with someone who's smoking is going to cause both of you to get a significant dosage of 2nd hand smoke.  Cigarettes are also only "filtered" on one end anyway, so whatever benefit that's supposed to be giving you is moot.  Not everyone has the option of leaving, before you try for that play, either.  Children in particular.  Secondhand smoke isn't a harmless, odorless, after effect.  I know a few people who can't be in a smoky room or around smokers with out getting serious coughing and watery eyes.  One person's grandmother smokes, and for about a week after visiting her, his allergies kick into overdrive and he's a wreck.  Oh, this isn't some scientific study, it's my observation of the effects.  So you can ignore it if you will.  

In California, once the smoking ban indoors went into effect, the real smell of many bars started to come out.....and it wasn't pleasant.  It was kind of funny and sad at the same time.  

If you are willing to potentially risk long the term health of those around you, by all means smoke around them.  I have no problem with smokers smoking, only with their exhaust.  

If this is truly how you feel, then the real issue here is that you're [red]insensitive[/red], not that you want to smoke.  Telling someone to put their wife in a bubble?  Especially a fellow shooter and gun owner.  I'm certainly not Mr. touchy-feely (maybe that's why my coworkers call me abrasive?), but this is going a little far.
Also, if you're really the type that throws your butts out the window, then as a human being first, and a motorcyclist second, I reiterate, you're [red]insensitive[/red]. (please see Carl Hiaasen's book "Sick Puppy" [url]http://www.carlhiaasen.com/books/sick.html[/url] for an example of littering fucks getting what they deserve).  This entire world is rapidly becoming a disgusting shithole because of people like you just tossing whatever you don't want out your car window.  This is indicative of the shitty attitude that many (not all) smokers have: "I'm going to do what I want, and I don't give a shit how it impacts you.  My second hand smoke is making you ill?  Fuck you.  My cigarette butts are making your town/city/state look like a dump?  Fuck you too."  I'm finally starting to see a pattern here.
I was wrong before, there are two takes on the side of voting "no" on this amendment, those that have philosophical or political problems with the issue (which I can respect), and people who smoke and just want to be able to do it no matter what the cost (health, litter, insurance $$) to the rest of society.  If you belong to the second group then I withdraw my earlier invitation to get out of the house.  Stay in.  Put a whole pack in your mouth at once.  Throw the butts on the floor.  The rest of us will take bets on whether you die first of cancer, a house fire, or simply drowning in your own filth.  I've got $10 on the house fire, who wants to bet against me?

[red]edited to be less of an asshole[/red]

This thread was chugging along in a pretty civil manner.. until now. Using personal attacks lowers ones own credibility.

Note the if:then statements.  If its not true, then there's nothing to get offended by.  Just like calling a straight man a "fag" shouldn't offend him.  Its only derogaroty or insulting if it's true.

What about a sign that states "Smoking is Allowed" while acknowledging it is a health risk.  Isn't that pretty much the warning that's on the pack.  Sign could also say "Smoking Not Allowed"

This is also the way the 30.06 rule seems to work in Texas where they can disallow your right to carry on their property by posting the proper warning.

A "real" right like property rights should trump some imagined ones like a "safe" work environment.  How safe?  Absolutely fool-proof safe.  Ain't gonna happen.

All you fast food freaks......you're next....to be regulated.

So, it's ok to call 2k2 an asshole if he is an asshole? What he said may be insensitive, but asshole is a personal attack.

This is incorrect.  It's not insulting if it's true, it's meant to demean a straight man's virility and orientation.  Most straight guys I know view being called a "fag" an insult, and most of the gay guys I know call each other fag quite a bit.  

This has nothing to do with freedom. Noone is takeing away peoples right to smoke. This is taking away their right to kill others with that crap. I dont hear you crying because your not aloud to kill with your gun. Same thing. You can have your gun, just dont kill anyone with it. They can have their stinking smoke, just don't kill anyone with it.

We had that law here in Columbus OH. a few years ago. It didnt last a year or so and was overturned. I loved it. I could go places like bowling alley and enjoy myself. I'd vote a great big YES.

By the way, if I get cancer and am going to die because of second hand smoke from all those inconsiderate asses out in public......look out because I am going to be pissed![shotgun]

I don't care much for smoking, but last time that I checked tobacco products were legal.  In fact your and my tax dollars support tobacco farmers.  Maybe that should be the government's first step to truly reducing tobacco use (unlikely since they are addicted to tobacco tax dollars).  Why not ban tobacco since alcohol prohibtion went so well in the 1920s and the prohibition on several drugs has managed to greatly reduce their use?  True advocates of freedom will vote against such "referndums".  If you don't like to smell smoke in an establishment and their no-smoking area doesn't provide suitable protection for you, then don't patronize it and be sure that you let the management know it.  Better yet, put your money where your opinion is and open your own smoke free establishment.  It should prosper if so many folks are truly upset by having to inhale carcinogenic smoke (and not just getting their righteous anger up).  Funny, during the couple years that I lived in Europe, they couldn't understand why Americans were so worked up over smoking (kills you slowly) when we let so many folks own guns and had so many deaths due to firearms.  I'm a lifelong non-smoker, but will defend the rights of those who choose to indulge in that particular "vice".

Sheeple. It's not about freedom. It's about LIBERTY.

Your premise is not valid.

If you go back and read page 2, you will find some info about the junk science you have been sold over the years. That's a good start. But I suggest you do your own research.

Second hand smoke will not cause you to get cancer. In fact, first hand smoke will not cause you to get cancer. It will significantly increase your risk of getting cancer, but it will not cause you to get cancer. Second hand smoke will not increase your chance of getting cancer.

When someon around you is smoking, they are not killing you. The may be making you uncomfortable, but they are not contributing to the end of your life.

This isn't an issue a smoking issue. It's an issue of how much government intervention you want in everyday life. The same arguements that anti-gunners use against us, are used against smokers. Or hadn't you noticed? Guns are now also considered to be a "health" hazard to some.

I don't smoke. And when my friends who do smoke come to my house, they are polite enough to smoke outside. And when I go out to eat, I sit in the non smoking section.

But I would NEVER support legislation to ban peoples right to smoke in public areas.

Sorry, I am against more government intervention. And for individual rights. And that includes the issue of smoking.

 

There - you said it yourself.

Nobody MAKES non-smokers go into smoke filled establishments.

You want smoke free?  Then open a smoke-free restaurant/bar/bowling alley/whatever yourself.

btw - I don't smoke

Let's put this spin on it...

OK, I want to ban the use of automobiles as it may pose a possible health risk.  Every day, there are pedestrians struck and often killed by automobiles - they weren't driving, they were just in the area (second-hand smoke tie-in.)  By banning the use of automobiles and removing the hazzard they present, we can save numerous lives each year.  Please vote to ban the use of automobiles in Florida on November 5th!

Now, I used automobiles instead of firearms to avoid the "right vs. privilege" argument that would otherwise get trotted out.  Smoking is a "privilege" (I actually consider it a "right" - if it weren't supposed to be smoked, it wouldn't exist.  Besides, cancer among Indian tribes was unheard of until tobacco became adulterated.)  The arguments are similar - we are banning an "optional" activity due to the danger posed to the uninvolved.  

Now, if you ASK me NICELY to put my smoke out, I'll likely do it!  If you get shitty with me without even giving me a chance, you WILL get it back IN SPADES!  Like most people, smokers will respond well to a good attitude.  Like most people, we just want a chance.

Unlike most people, we are truly getting backed into a corner (faster than gun owners!) and getting damn tired of it.  I don't HAVE to smoke - I dropped the cigarette habit years ago.  I do ENJOY smoking my pipe or an occasional cigar, and I don't want to put up with someone being a jackass about while I'm doing it.

While I'm at it...

Ever notice how the groups that DON'T want you to do something (eat meat, smoke, drive, whatever) are considerably more militant about it than the people who do?  My diet is primarily carnivorous - it has to be.  I literally cannot take in enough protein on a vegetarian diet to maintain my metabolism.  Period.  So, if I'm working my way thru a pile of hamburgers, I don't want some aberrant vegan bitching at me about it.  Expect to hear a debate on mental aberrations and physiology if this does happen, because the weight of evidence is on my side.

If someone with an electric wind-up toy is on the road bitching about my Jeep, expect to hear me start in on WHY I need something that runs on gasoline and has good power (Hey, I get 20+ mpg still, can pull 15K in a pinch, and I don't want to wait 8-12 hours for a recharge after only going 200 miles when I have a 2500 mile trip in front of me!  Why do I drive cross-country?  I like to take some of my hardware with me, OK?)

Also expect to hear from me when some environMENTAList goes on about how bad hunting is while he's working on a steak or some chicken.  Hey - I like variety, and I'm cutting out the middleman, OK?  You send in less to Greenpeace than half of what I spend on tags, and more of my money goes to wildlife conservation than yours does.  I hunt because I care.

Jeez, people - leave us alone!

FFZ