Cigar Forums banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,431 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It looks like the Politically Correct regulations on smoking hit again!

This article was in the August 15, 2004 New York Post:

A police captain in Chinatown has been reprimanded for smoking a cigar in his station house office, The Post has learned.

The Health Department sent Captain William Matusiak of the Fifth Precinct at 19 Elizabeth St. a letter late Friday reminding him that it's illegal to light up at work.

The warning came after Matusiak was featured in a New York Times story last week in which a reporter described him puffing a cigar at his desk.

In the letter, health officials warned Matusiak not to light up again.

"If a second complaint is received with similar allegations, an inspector from the Bureau of Food Safety and Community Sanitation will be dispatched to conduct an unannounced inspection," wrote DOH Assistant Commissioner Elliott Marcus. "The results of this and any subsequent inspections will be forwarded to the commanding officer responsible for your district."

No fine was issued because under the Smoke-Free Air Act, city agencies are exempt from any penalties.

The New York Times story also described the precinct's Spring Fling Party at Capitale, a trendy club located on the Bowery, where officers were puffing away in defiance of the smoking ban.

"Despite the year-old smoking ban, most hands at the party sprouted lit cigarettes like thin, pale fingers," the story said.

But health officials said they weren't going to take any action since they hadn't received a formal complaint against the club.

NYPD officials did not return repeated calls and e-mails seeking comment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
Land of the free, yes? NO!

A couple of years ago when my brother was in Spain they had just stopped allowing smoking on the busses. On the other hand, when he was in the supermarket, he saw a man smoking a cigar and dropping ash on the floor. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
You'd think the supreme court would step in and defend smoker's rights. I understand not being able to smoke in confined areas where others have no choice about breathing in the smoke. Places like offices, airplanes, buses, etc. Unfortunately, the current supreme court is busy fixing elections and helping V.P. Cheney cover up the fact that Ken Lay and a couple other of his cronies wrote the country's energy policy. Forget about peoples' rights, the supreme court has more important things to do; like playing partisan politics. The right wing is destroying this country.
 

·
Still Smitty's biotch!
Joined
·
3,335 Posts
CigarTom said:
You'd think the supreme court would step in and defend smoker's rights. I understand not being able to smoke in confined areas where others have no choice about breathing in the smoke. Places like offices, airplanes, buses, etc. Unfortunately, the current supreme court is busy fixing elections and helping V.P. Cheney cover up the fact that Ken Lay and a couple other of his cronies wrote the country's energy policy. Forget about peoples' rights, the supreme court has more important things to do; like playing partisan politics. The right wing is destroying this country.
1) please conduct your political soapboxing elsewhere
2) look up the length of Supreme Court justices' term once elected; the short answer is supreme court Justices can tell a President, VP, etc to F*$# off and still be on the bench for the next president.
3) study "checks and balances" in any civics book
4) please try to understand that the vast right wing conspiracy has yet to gain control of the Judicial branch
5) Mars was a barren planet before George W. Bush was elected

Come up with a good case that proves smoking bans are unconstitutional and the case might get heard in the Supreme court. Unless its a constitutional matter it belongs in State courts.

Back to your regularly scheduled cigar discussion.
Matt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,431 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
CgarWyzrd said:
At least he has something to light his next cigar with. :w
Funny!!!! :r
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
CigarTom said:
You'd think the supreme court would step in and defend smoker's rights. I understand not being able to smoke in confined areas where others have no choice about breathing in the smoke. Places like offices, airplanes, buses, etc. Unfortunately, the current supreme court is busy fixing elections and helping V.P. Cheney cover up the fact that Ken Lay and a couple other of his cronies wrote the country's energy policy. Forget about peoples' rights, the supreme court has more important things to do; like playing partisan politics. The right wing is destroying this country.
You think republicans are the reason for the smoking ban? You must be totally crazy.
 

·
-
Joined
·
11,412 Posts
who put the last couple justices in office?

i don't remember, just curious.

let me look it up:

ginsburg:
Judicial Offices
Nominated by President Carter to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; took oath of office June 30, 1980. Nominated by President Clinton as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; took oath of office August 10, 1993.

souter:
Judicial Offices
Associate Justice, New Hampshire Superior Court, 1978-1983; Associate Justice, New Hampshire Supreme Court, 1983-1990; Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1990; Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, 1990

thomas:
Judicial Offices
Nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: took oath of office, March 12, 1990.
Nominated by President Bush as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court: took oath of office October 23, 1991.

breyer:
Judicial Offices
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, December 10, 1980 (nominated by President Carter); Chief Judge, 1990-1994; Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, August 3, 1994 (nominated by President Clinton); Member, Judicial Conference of the United States, 1990-1994; Member, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1985-1989.

scalia:
Judicial Offices
Nominated by President Reagan to U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; took oath of office August 17, 1982
Nominated by President Reagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court; took oath of office September 26, 1986.

stevens:
Nominated by President Nixon to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, succeeding Elmer J. Schnackenberg, confirmed by the United States Senate on October 14, 1970; and took oath of office on November 2, 1970.
Nominated by President Ford as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court on December 1, 1975; confirmed by the United States Senate on December 17, 1975; and took oath of office on December 19, 1975.

rehnquist:
Nominated Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Nixon on October 21, 1971; sworn in on January 7, 1972.
Nominated Chief Justice of the United States by President Reagan on June 17, 1986; sworn in on September 26, 1986.

o'connor:
Nominated by President Reagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court on July 7, 1981; confirmed by the United States Senate on September 22, 1981; and took oath of office on September 25, 1981.

kennedy:
Nominated by President Ford to U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; took oath of office May 30, 1975.
Nominated by President Reagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court; took oath of office February 18, 1988.

i don't have time to do any more research on this... seems like it's pretty close to split to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
txmatt said:
3) study "checks and balances" in any civics book
4) please try to understand that the vast right wing conspiracy has yet to gain control of the Judicial branch
When the supreme court takes it upon themselves to decide an election "checks and balances" have been disregarded. Seems to me the supremes were the ones who forgot their civics lessons. And when the votes follow in lock step with the generally-accepted labels as to who is liberal and who is conservative, it certainly seems apparent that their decision was biased. That "vast right wing conspiracy" label is yours, not mine.

The supreme court should have said, "it's not our job to select the president." To allow the Republicans in Florida to tinker with the election process, then give them the election so as not to disrupt things, was a crappy decision in my eyes. "Checks and balances" was thrown out the window based on partisanship and excuse of expediency.

And it's not too comforting to read about the piss poor effort Florida has made in the last four years to correct the problems. Now they're saying the electronic voting machines they're gonna use are unreliable. Looks like they might be preparing to attempt to fix another election!

No one got in trouble for the last election debacle in Florida. They got away with it once, why not again? Catherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and a few others should have paid the consequences. It's rather hypocritical for the Bush administration to criticize Iraq for fixed elections when Bush and his cronies did the same thing in this country. What a disgrace.
 

·
HOT for HILLARY!!
Joined
·
3,591 Posts
kindly research election law and facts, not rumors, and make your decision regarding florida based on that. you will find that neither Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, nor Abraham Lincoln from the grave fixed the election. It was a messy situation, due to the incompetence of voters. PERHAPS IF THE PUBLIC EDUCATED THEMSELVES, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.

If you want to harp on a fixed election, try the 2000 election for sexiest man alive. Brad Pitt used the friends he made in the oil industry (he made them while buying lage volumes of fuel for his private jet) to buy votes that were destined for me. Damn the vast hollywood conspiracy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
CigarTom said:
When the supreme court takes it upon themselves to decide an election "checks and balances" have been disregarded. Seems to me the supremes were the ones who forgot their civics lessons. And when the votes follow in lock step with the generally-accepted labels as to who is liberal and who is conservative, it certainly seems apparent that their decision was biased. That "vast right wing conspiracy" label is yours, not mine.

The supreme court should have said, "it's not our job to select the president." To allow the Republicans in Florida to tinker with the election process, then give them the election so as not to disrupt things, was a crappy decision in my eyes. "Checks and balances" was thrown out the window based on partisanship and excuse of expediency.

And it's not too comforting to read about the piss poor effort Florida has made in the last four years to correct the problems. Now they're saying the electronic voting machines they're gonna use are unreliable. Looks like they might be preparing to attempt to fix another election!

No one got in trouble for the last election debacle in Florida. They got away with it once, why not again? Catherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and a few others should have paid the consequences. It's rather hypocritical for the Bush administration to criticize Iraq for fixed elections when Bush and his cronies did the same thing in this country. What a disgrace.
Really, you have simply got to move on. You're still hateful over a four year old issue that has long since gone to bed. The world has changed since then, people have lived there lives in the present and future, not the past. This kinda thing will eat you up and I mean that in a kindly, friendly way.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top