McKinney Tavern reacts early to smoking ban

FXR, says:

The practice of "managing diseases", the strategy adopted recently in public health partnerships, has now been accepted internationally in place of a legitimate search for medical cures, which could allay all fears. It is entirely curious at a time when those cures are finally coming within our grasp, they will be delayed once again. Disease Management as a strategy, can not avoid the underlying reality; you have to micro-manage the personal lives of individuals and promote segregation, hatred and bigotry within communities in order to make it effective. Ignorance of human rights and personal freedom can never be overlooked or simply ignored in hopes they will just go away.

The vote enabling a smoking ban, could more correctly be described as a vote on the public acceptance of bigotry. The same people who propose such laws ignore the fact they wear deodorants and perfumes rich in much higher concentrations of toxins than a cigarette could ever contain. The fresh air they covet is ripe with their choice of what they willingly inhale.

Someone who calls them self a smoker, are living the created lie which was necessary in separating them from the rest of the community, with widely brushed perspectives. You are a person with free will, who uses a product on the shelf along side deodorants deodorizers and perfumes all of which we all accept in life as a civil respect, and understanding of the choices others may make.

Second hand smoke [EBS] as a significant health risk, is no more real than the monster under your bed. A creation to sell fear; promoting irresponsibility, by coercive process. A reality which will reflect on all of us, in what other “protections” we will accept as moral and justified.

They hung doctors at Nuremberg, yet surprisingly, not a single propagandist was ever tried or convicted. Waldheim went on to lead the UN where those propagandists he influenced continue to spread his hateful messages today. Hitler devised the term second hand smoke, which licensed bigotry as a national expectation. The Journalists have brought that message home with an enthusiastic roar.

In 1975 Sir George Goober, British delegate to the World Health organization presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing social attitudes.

"..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST.." Tobacco Control at the British Medical Journal an article [linked] by the editor; Chapman who indicates the hatred of the "spoiled identity" has grown beyond all control.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/con...

"The litmus test of a society is still, as Jefferson said, that the rights of the majority stop at the doorstep of the minority." ~ Beryl Wajsman; the last angry man.

snowbird, says:

There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade Thunder Bay, Ont.

chriss, says:

I don't understand why these people are paying to be told to stand outside. If my regualar bar, one at which I'd spent plenty of money over the years, decided, without even a law to force it, to deny me the pleasure of smoking inside, I'd be out their door within a minute. and I wouldn't be back. They can only get away with these smoking bans because smokers keep patronizing places that treat them like lepers. Wake up.

chriss, says:

Pavel: I'm not against public urination; I practice it frequently. The laws against it are not really health laws, but laws designed to punish the riff-raff. Anti-smoking laws are the same thing. If a majority (or even a significant minority) of bar patrons wanted smoke-free bars, they would already exist without intrusion from the government. Scott: the poor dead horse will rest in peace when I am legally able to light up in my local bar again.

chriss, says:

Well, at one point, Prohibition (another law meant to criminalize the working class) was the freight train that couldn't be stopped.

chriss, says:

Let's hope they are, but everyone over the age of ten knows that laws do not necessarily reflect the will of the people--they reflect the will of whoever has the most money to buy politicians.

Prohibition's very similar in that it didn't happen overnight and took years of preparatory demonization of alcohol by people who thought they were making the world a better place. "Nice" people didn't drink, although lots did secretly. Here in NY we have smokeasies, where they let you light up after 11 pm. all very hush-hush. Just like the bad old days. Smoking is a social activity and smokers should have the right to assemble and associate in public places. Not all public places, mind you , but some.
BTW, the alcohol prohibitionists are still with us and you better believe they're happy about smoking bans--they mean lots of people stop going to bars and bars close. And alcohol could very well be next in line, after trans fats. So heads up. They come for me in the morning; they come for you in the afternoon.

chriss, says:

If they do, the checks are all lost in the mail. Does the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or Bloomberg "Philanthropies" pay you??

Not paranoid, just realistic.

chriss, says:

PS: since we here in NY have "enjoyed" the prophylactic protection of a smoking ban for last 5 years, I thought I'd offer some of our experience. Another predection: Once forced outside, smokers will congregate around entrances and where there's shelter. Antismokers will then cry that they are exposed to a "cloud" of nasty smoke for all of 3 seconds as they enter or exit.

chriss, says:

Pavel: Well, I wouldn't mind a system where smoking was banned in most indoor public areas with allowance for some designated smoking areas. No one should have to stand outside. Bars might be a special case, since you've got places where the vast majority of the customers smoke, so why should they be relegated to a back room? But there would have to be nonsmoking area as well. That way everybody would get something.

Scott: "Yankee",huh? Well, since you're the one who started playing the regional chauvinism game, I have no qualms about playing the arrogant NYer and asking "Does anything of significance happen in North Texas, or does it just produce redneck cementheads?" BTW, if you're so all-fired "Texas", what're you doing using words like "shtick"??? Bet you're really some Yuppie transplant.

chriss, says:

PS: Pavel, lots of people will stop going to bars, because the "atmosphere" won't be the same. It'll be like an ice cream parlor that happens to serve alcohol.

chriss, says:

It depends on the day and the issue at hand. Lately this one obsesses me just a bit. One of our great corrupt politicians, Daniel Moynihan, once said. "All politics is local". I figure if I can't seek the solace of my local bar for a beer and a smoke something is very much wrong. As for your inability to see that denying your fellow bar patrons comfort has ramifications for you, remember the old labor saying "An injury to one is an injury to all."
Rick: don't you see, that's exactly the trouble--that so many people are willing to just burrow in and hope they'll leave us with some crumbs. And people like Scott who won't see it till it hits him.

chriss, says:

So why not have a separate room for you? Or special smoke-free nights? Or let bars decide whether they'll be smoking or nonsmoking and if there's any kind of demographic supporting you, you won't have to be "discomforted"?. BTW, glad to see you're honest enough not to use the bogus "health" argument that is used to shove these things through legislatures. This isn't starting a snowball effect; it's been going on for a while--haven't you been paying attention? Our good friends in gummint can now spy on you without a warrant and even "detain" you and hold you indefintely without trial. Or send you to another country to be tortured. It's been going on since the "War on Drugs" and has escaleted ever since. Get with the program. You control people by controllng their pleasures. Adn micromanaging their personal lives. Scare tactics: you mean, like "secondhand smoke is deadlier than plutonium"?

DC, says:

It will be rather pleasant when all of these come in to effect. Perhaps Chriss should work on chewing tobacco to get through the couple hours without nicotine that he may have to suffer through.

austinrebel, says:

There are smoke-easies all over Austin. The ban is very openly flouted. Many bars lost so much money over the ban they just gave up enforcing it. When the ban goes into effect in your area, I urge you to tip your servers heavily. Many of them are going to go through a period of lower income.

chriss, says:

DC: Actually, I smoke very little and can go for quite a while without. But I insist on smoking when I drink.

Scott: Violence is unnecessary (though I wouldn't cry too hard if somebody assassinated Mike Bloomberg). All it needs is for lazy smokers to get off their butts and make noise and boycott. My original post was about those smokers who were clueless enough to let their bar force them outside without a ban even in effect.

Pavel: No one needs to glare. One of the really evil things about this whole sick movement is that it's created a whole new criterion for hating people. I certainly don't begrudge you a smoke-free area as long as you don't begrudge me a smoking one. BTW, I guess none of you I-hate-the-smell people ever go to campfires or bonfires. The fug from them is mighty and persistent.

Rebel: Damn glad to hear that if I'm ever in Austin again I'll be able to enjoy myself. Ironic, isn't it, that the employees are the ones the bans are officially supposed to help and they're the ones that get hurt the most? Here in NY, we had a couple protests by bar workers against the ban. To no avail, of course.

DC, says:

How about being a sport and giving the chaw a try?

chriss, says:

Well, I'll think about it. Did you know some smoking bans apply to chaw?!!?!?

DC, says:

Well, why don't you give it a shot and report back?

chriss, says:

If you insist. What brand do you recommend for beginners?

DC, says:

Hmm, maybe some Skoal pouches in a nice fruity flavor like apple or peach...

chriss, says:

Pavel: I enjoy glaring myself.

DC: Apple, it would be. It'll have to wait till I go to Atlantic City this weekend, since I don't support NYC's war on tobacco users by paying their exorbitant taxes on tobacco products.

jtmbls, says:

heeheehee! Hoohaa! I haven't laughed so hard all week! I think I officially have a crush on Scott now. Please keep this thread going...It is hilarious!!

jtmbls, says:

Are you trying to sell me a new Kia?

jtmbls, says:

'Have a job? have $99? We can sell you a car!' Don't you listen to the radio?

Have no fear, I am all female. From birth even! It's your lucky day! :-)

Isn't annoying Orren one of the many perks of being a regular visitor here at Pegasus?

jtmbls, says:

Wow - Aim high!!

chriss, says:

Pavel, I drank as a "minor" and given your previous comments would be disappointed if you didn't too. "Minors" are old enough to risk life, limb and sanity in Iraq, but not to drink beer. Now what's wrong with that picture? Scott, if you think there's "too much freedom" here, you could always trade up for somehwere there isn't. FYI, Nazi Germany was one of the first modern countries to impose a smoking ban, so you see the historical comapny you keep. Rakkel: you remind me of William S. Burroughs' description of the US as a country "where no one is allowed to mind his own business" and "a nation of finks". You must be so pure and wonderful not to have any addictions or vices.
I trust none of you "pink lung" people drive--cars spew lots more crap into the air than cigarettes and they're killing the whole planet.

jtmbls, says:

Nazi Germany??? That cannot be factually accurate! I have a very distinct picture in my head of Hitler with a cigarette...or a cigar...I'm going to have to call bs on this and do a little research.

jtmbls, says:

Well, this was the best I could do. From historyplace.com "At age nine, he got into schoolboy mischief. He was caught smoking a cigarette by one of the priests, but was forgiven and not punished." Other sources claim that he smoked throughout his youth but never into adulthood.

There was indeed a massive anti-tobacco campaign in Germany from 1933 to 1945 (so just hang in there and you should be able to smoke at the Tavern again in about 12 years). Nicotine was a big no-no but the Fuhrer was apparently a big proponent of amphetamines. So put down your Marlboros and pick up a crack pipe!

Forgive me for doubting you Yank!

jtmbls, says:

...and I fell right into it! Now there go all my romantic notions of Hitler and his cigar...thanks chriss!

chriss, says:

Pavel: Let's hope you do!! We could use more of that spirit in our ever-more-timorous country. It sux that NY, which considers itself so avant garde didn't think of it first. Of course, the Antis will be jumping right in to stop it cause that's what they're all about...

chriss, says:

So are there any poor unwilling nonsmokers in attendence at these "performances"??? The stated purpose of these bans is to protect the poor helpless nonsmoker who is forced into a bar. Of course that's all BS. What happened in Chicago was instructive: one of the Big Evil Tobacco companies set up a smoker's bar (it was legal because it made most of its income from selling tobacco products). So there was one bar for smokers and hundreds (thousands?) for nonsmokers. The Anti politician who introduced the ban went ape$hit!!!! Maybe there should be a Truth in Politcs law and if a law turns out to be not about what it says it's about, it must be scrapped. And lawmakers should have better things to do than try to stop people from enjoyng themselves. Unfortunately we've become such a nation of geldings that we won't vote these clowns out of office.

DC, says:

What happened to the chaw report?

chriss, says:

Patience, patience. Tomorrow I promise!

chriss, says:

OK, DC, the only flavor my corner deli had available was Skoal Mint(Long Cut). I thought it was a little weird and not all that enjoyable. But, to be fair, that's what I thought of my first cigarette, my first beer and my first sexual experience, so maybe I'll develop a taste, seeing as how I've got a whole tin left, no one I could give it to and I hate to waste anything. It kind of reminded me of pipe smoking, the way the taste stayed in my passages for an hour or so. But still not as dramatic or satisfying as a cig.

DC, says:

I think you were overreaching going for a long cut as your first try. I suggest going for the apple or peach pouches to start out.

chriss, says:

I'll keep that in mind.

EdWeirdness, says:

So if perfume and deodorant are worse, why do you allways smell like a "slim Jim" after a night in the bars?

What about "fraternal" bars (i.e. Elks, Sons of Herman, Mystic Knights of the Sea Lodge,etc,,,)?

Since these locations operate under the auspices of a "fraternal" organization, might they not exempt themselves? Couldn't smokers designate or create a club catering to their own preferences? Maybe clubs could alternate the nights that they are open to the non-smoking public, opting for a "private smokers party" once a week? Get enough clubs in the same area working together, both smokers and non-smokers could be accomodated. Although, if they could do that, one might surmise that the sundry "private clubs" that have been beaten down by "no-smoking" would also have been capable of just saying no.

I can see how this "reasonable accomodation" might outrage some of the "no-smoking" Nancy's by doing an end run around their despotic demands, but that would make such an endeavor even more worthwhile! If its the issue of lingering smoke, get over it. Some of the bars in Dallas have so much caked on tar and nicotine that nothing less than demolition and hazardous waste disposal would suffice.

Only a moron would insist that the bar and his peers change. If you can't stand the smoke, stay out of the bar,,,,you nancy!

EdWeirdness, says:

Tell the Volpe Brothers to "build up"! Yeah, I can see it now; a rooftop deck, perhaps several stories high. All those winded smokers slogging, wheezing up and down the stairs, all those butts periodically glowing semaphores in the dark.

Or, just board up the windows. Or, move out of Dallas and deny Dallas that which they so desperately covet, tax revenues. You'll lose clientel either way, but isn't it more satisfying to do it under your own terms?

Its amazingly stupid. People move to or frequent an area of town because its "cool". But the minute they discover real estate on their property, they set about eliminating every aspect that made the community cool in the first place. If its about overall health costs to tax payers, arguably shutting down illegal immigration would provide far more generous returns to tax payers. Its probably just the fact that there are some in the community who feel duty bound to force their lifestyle choices on their fellow citizens. Get a rope,,,,,,,

EdWeirdness, says:

I'm confused. Is Pavel advocating pissing on non-smokers or not? I don't smoke, don't care if others do, but I want to dress appropriately (galoshes).

chriss, says:

Ed: That strategy is great, but as these bans "progress" each one becomes more repressive and the Antis cover more "loopholes." Many recent bans forbid smoking even in private clubs and even when it's owner-run. Smoke bans aren't about protecting nonsmokers; they're about punishing smokers.

Pavel: Cute dog. So we can just go up and piss on anyone whose behavior we don't approve of?

chriss, says:

PS: Amen to the "move out and deny revenue" strategy. Along those lines, I implore all of you not to visit New York. And please let the state and city tourist boards know why.

If you do visit, contact me and I'll hook you up with a few places to go.

xdavidwattsx, says:

<i>PS: Amen to the "move out and deny revenue" strategy.</i>

Except that it's been shown not to work. Smoking bans have zilch impact on revenue. The Boston and NYC bar scene is alive and well after the smoking ban and is full of as many visitors as ever. Just like people didn't stop eating out in Dallas after their smoking ban was enacted.

I think you need to come to terms with the reality that smoking bans in public places are coming everywhere and not many people have a real problem with that.

chriss, says:

They do a clever trick to hide revenue loss after a ban is enacted. Here in NY they counted bars and restaurants all together (no figures released on just bars) and they started counting places that hadn't been counted before, such as fast food places and Starbucks. So--hocus pocus, presto changeo--no revenue loss. For a comprehensive account of smoking ban damage go to davehitt.com. Not surpisingly, it's rural areas that suffer the most and in urban places, it's neighborhood working class joints that get hit hardest. Foofy upscale places (patronized by foofy upscale people) and places with a steady influx of tourists are doing OK. As are bars that are really just part of restuarants and not watering holes in their own right. Is Amarillo an upscale community with lots of visitors? The smoking ban in Ireland has caused the death of some 600 pubs, mostly rural, and in Britain, an average of 62 close every month. Maybe these offenses to sociability will become a universal official reality everywhere, but don't forget, 90 years ago Prohibition was the freight train that couldn't be stopped. Yet it was. People will always find a way and yes, it's no surprise that the "sheeple" don't make much fuss. I saw bans come in in both New York and New Jersey and beforehand I would go to bars filled with people smoking and wonder, "Are they just gonna let them do this?" Sho'nuff.
I was a few years out of college when they raised the drinking age to 21. Nobody did much--or at least nobody did as much as they could. It sort of destroyed official campus social life, but as anyone who knows can tell you, the social life is now underground and much wilder.
But if the ban really is a rousing success, then after a year why not make it voluntary? Any bar owner would be nuts to slay the golden goose that is serving the new "Stepford" bar patron.

DC, says:

blah blah blah where the hell's the chaw review all ready

chriss, says:

The chaw review was several comments back. "Sheeple" is automatically ironic. If you don't think we're sheeple you haven' been paying attention. By "can't take seriously" you must mean "can't address the issues raised."

jtmbls, says:

As someone who is currently paying $70 (upward of $150 if not for my insurance) a month to kick this incredibly destructive habit, I am having a hard time feeling as though my rights are being trampled on. In fact, it is a welcomed intrusion. Obviously I need all the "shame on you"s I can get right now.

Blame the government if you like, but this is nothing more than a society regulating itself. I believe social shunning is a common and oft necessary tribal tool. //Did I really just channel Dwight Schrute?//

I am wondering what the average life span of a pub in Britain is to begin with. Didn't we just have 62 bars in Deep Ellum shut down? I don't think it had much to do with smoking either. For me the deal killer was all the "Yo baby wassup. You too good to speak?" I had to go through just to get to my car at the end of the night. Point being, it's probably not the best gauge as they are forever closing down and reemerging as a whole new concept.

chriss, says:

Jtmbls: so you're one of those repugnant people who wants to quit but doesn't have the willpower, so they welcome Big Mother to help them along. 2 words and they ain't "happy birthday." Here in the Northeast we have a little bit of a history with societies regulated by social shunning. Maybe soon we can see the stocks, pillory and ducking stool reinstituted. How about a big scarlet "S" on your chest? Or, since your state is so fond of capital punishment, some nice burnings at the stake?? You most certainly did just channel Dwight. Hey, if the pocket protector fits... Maybe you have a masochistic personality and need to be shamed and punished, but I went to Catholic school and they gave me a lifetime's worth there, so I'm over it. BTW, were you driving after drinking???? Maybe there should be a Shame Brigade waiting in the parking lot to help "society regulate itself".

chriss, says:

No surprise that the corporate media cheerleads. It's their job to aid in the manufacture of consent (read your Chomsky!) and to paint a happy face on things people might not be happy about. How was the poll conducted??? Who did they ask and under what circumstances? How was the question phrased? You can show anything you want with polls. But I digress: If everyone in Ireland loves the ban so much, why not make it voluntary?? Since it enjoys such popular support, few if any publicans will go back to allowing dirty, nasty, evil smoke in their new Stepford pubs!! That business about Ireland losing lots of money due to its people drinking should raise a flag. Prohibition stories always feature that kind of your-good-time costs-us-money bushwa.

Pavel--you're right, the Poles and Russians put the Irish to shame. Ja tozhe Russkij i u menija vopros: Kakoj pizda Russkij nye lubit kurit'?

chriss, says:

If 80% demand smoke-free they'll get it. You're assuming all nonsmokers are antismokers, when the reality is that most nonsmoking bar patrons aren't bothered. It's just a small minority, otherewise there'd already be nonsmoking bars. How many are there by you, serving the HUGE demand for them???? Seems to me some savvy entrpreneur would've tapped into that demand by now, yes? The medical community and its publications have never been under greater corporate control. HMOs, remember?? Who conducted the research, and more importantly, who funded it??? Johnson &amp; Johnson??? "Happy ending": apparently not for the people who owned, worked at and socialized in those 600 pubs. Not for the Irish govt., either. They tried sponsoring free nightime buses to pubs in rural areas to help keep them afloat. But they wouldn't do the one thing that would: let people smoke. 4 years into the ban Ireland "enjoys" the highest rate of violent crime in Europe. Kind of like what Prohibition did for us. News from Ireland is available at sadireland.com--in the forums. British news at forestonline.org and the lowdown on the medical community at Dr. Michael Siegel's blog "The Rest of the Story".

Pavel: Moj ded i moja babka byli iz Rossii.

DC, says:

Massive fail so far on the chaw reports.

Oh well, in the end, the bans are coming.

chriss, says:

Pavel: how many officials run promising to ban smoking? Even a$$hole-in-chief Bloomberg didn't. And neither he nor any of his toadies who voted for it (under very heavy arm-twisting) brag about it in their re-election propaganda. You don't seriously believe politicians reflect the will of the people do you??? How the hell can you call yourself Russian and neither smoke nor be cynical about government??? Durak!!! To paraphrase Mickey Rourke in "Barfly", I don't exactly hate America, I just seem to feel a whole lot better when it's not around. Actually, on the smoking issue, the US is much better than some countries because it's by state. In Ireland, Italy, and others it was basically the decision of one individual. BTW, avoid Clinton and Huckabee for that reason--they'd like to see a national ban. 2. I refuse to patronaize a bar where I can't smoke. To me a bar without smoking is not a bar, it's more like an ice cream parlor for adults who are being treated like children. 3.You're definitely right about the insurance companies. They suck the mighty banana and were at this crap long before government. But they don't pay; people pay them for when they're sick and they try to keep as much of it as they can. Ask anyone who's had a claim denied what greedy bastards they are. 4. I'm not saying the ban causes the violent crime (although there is now a huge black market in cigs, since part of the jihad was raising the prices, and thus, more criminal activity) but Ireland was supposed to become this wonderfully clean, moral and oh-so-bourgeois place. It didn't. It much nastier now that you can't even enjoy a "pint and a fag" in peace.

No one spoke Russian at home. I took a year in school and mine isn't too good either. Spasibo.

DC: why the gloom and doom? All it would take is organization on the part of those who oppose the ban. The banners are just a tiny minority with lots of money and control of the media!!! Throughout history, no tyranny has ever afflicted the entire planet. This one won't either.

xdavidwattsx, says:

"You're assuming all nonsmokers are antismokers, when the reality is that most nonsmoking bar patrons aren't bothered. It's just a small minority, otherwise there'd already be nonsmoking bars"

I call total BS on that one.

jtmbls, says:

Wow chriss, it's been a long time since I have been called repugnant. In fact, I think this is definitely a first. And a masochist even...But, I guess if the Catholic school girl uniform still fits after all these years...(At least better than the pocket protector.) Does anyone else sense a 911 conspiracy theory coming next?

Teresa - Thank you for the encouragement. Much appreciated "cheerleading from corporate media".

chriss - Please tell me where I can send you a carton of Marlboros and a prescription for Xanax. Everything really is going to be ok.

Where is Scott Doyle when we need him?

Orren - Aren't there any exceptions at all to the inclusiveness rule?

jtmbls, says:

I was attempting to put a link here to the informative and extremely entertaining video Scott shared with us on etiquette but couldn't quite figure out how. Repugnant, masochistic AND technically challenged! Geez, why did I get out of bed today?

DC, says:

I was really hoping for a more extensive discussion about the various merits of da chaw. Oh well.

jtmbls, says:

Thanks Orren!

Ewww...Now if that is not incentive to quit, I don't know what is.

chriss, says:

Ooooh, feel the love!!!! You're all big on football in Texas, so you know what an honor it is to be double-(triple-?quadruple-?)teamed. Thanks for the compliment!! I see even the "refs" are joining in the melee now. David Watts: No BS. If there were a demand for nonsmoking bars, savvy entrepreneurs would've opened them long ago. Prove me wrong if you can. Even here, where there were a very few, they didn't stay open long. Though I'm sure there are lots of born-again antismokers who've seen "the light" now thanks to the p.r. campaign.
Jtmbls: I'm a Catholic school BOY, so the look you want to evoke is a white shirt with a clip-on tie. And a stained hanky in my pocket. The 9/11 theories are already extensively covered. FYI, most of us here in the city directly affected don't believe the "official" version is quite complete. I don't do prescription meds (unless they're REAL good), but you can send the butts to : Chris Sorochin 505 Henry St., Brooklyn, NY 11231 Too bad you don't like the idea of inclusiveness, but since so many staff have joined the pig pile, I'm sure someone can come up with a way of voting me off the island. DC: Sorry, but I really think the virtues of chaw would be better discussed with your fellow conoisseurs. But it was interesting to try it. If you don't like the thread, why read it???? But Mr. Orren is correct in that giving me the last word would (probably)shut me up. If that turns out to be the case, thanks to all of you for a very enlightening and entertaining experience!!!

DC, says:

I was more impressed you were actually willing to put that disgusting stuff in your mouth just because some anonymous poster on a message board in Dallas told you to.

DC, says:

Hard to say how he feels about this. I only got him to try Skoal Mint Long Cut. I was really hoping to lead him through at least 3-5 different flavors or brands.

Oh yeah, I've never tried the stuff and won't start now but I'm he went for it on at least one!

chriss, says:

DC: Unlike you, I'm open-minded, so I do try new things. I did think your ongoing insistence was fishy, though. Other people use chaw and enjoy it, so I wasn't too worried about following your "anonymous" advice, especially since you asked politely. Teresa: I prefer Camels, though if you an get your hands on Majors (made in Ireland), it would be awesome. I'll bet if we followed you through a normal day, we'd find a large number of carcinogenic things that you are probably unaware of because there's no well-funded campaign of hysteria against them as of yet.

jtmbls, says:

Yay! It's officially a dead horse!! Do we get a prize???

chriss - I love the idea of inclusiveness so don’t let a little dog pile scare you away. It’s all in good fun. In fact, I would love for you to stay and start a few more threads. I would bet there is a whole litany of subjects you feel passionately about. I may just follow you around to watch the fireworks. As far as the uniform comment, I was referring to my own. While you seem a little resentful, I have chosen to embrace the Catholic school girl in me. But now I am way off topic.

chriss, says:

You're actually asking me to rant?!?!!?! You gotta go easier on the Xanax, hon.