BurnsVille Minnesota.City council issues fines and penalty to convience store that will cost the business 600,000,00 and a 10.000.00 fine and loss of tobacco licence for one year. Sound Harsh?Does the penalty fit the crime?
The city of mob rule spent a 50,000,00 grant from the Minn health Department for "tobacco" control by hiring a community Service officer to incite teen's to break the law by purchasing tobacco while under age. As the CSO lurked in the shadows the teen entered the store My guess is when the people are lined up paying for their gas and other purchases. The "ringer"was able to purchase five times in two years so the victimless crime will most likley destroy this business
This miscarrige of justice happens when elected council members use administrative law to issue fines far above state statutes and the business is left defenseless and at the mercy of a mob of anti smokers that are now a quasi judicial arm of government.
The fine for repeated liquor sales to minors is loss of licence for 60 days and a 2,000,00 fine however tobacco has NO cap on the fines that can be administered by these gangsters, sort of like the super bowl ads about eight ads said beer is good and two said tobacco is bad I will shut up by quoting a Chicago citizen " the only thing more dangerous than a criminal with a gun is a criminal with a badge" Coming to your state soon stingers and ringers disguised as policemen and representing the law Edited by Archie Anderson 02-12-02

Gee. I thought the Constitution prohibited CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, as well as EXCESSIVE FINES AND BAIL. Silly me!

Well, as someone once told me just before my jaw dropped for some inexplicable reason:

"The Constitution? That's a thing of the past!"

If a person sells tobacco or alcohol to people under legal age they should be horse whipped. Let kids grow up before getting them hooked on drugs. It takes no longer to ask for ID than it does to ask "is that savings or credit". No one has too little time for that.

quote:

Originally posted by I know it all:
If a person sells tobacco or alcohol to people under legal age they should be horse whipped. Let kids grow up before getting them hooked on drugs. It takes no longer to ask for ID than it does to ask "is that savings or credit". No one has too little time for that.

The owner's being punished, not the clerk who sold the stuff.

The owner is responsible for staff training and staffing levels. If the owner isn't training his staff adequately or staff levels are to low to do the job right he is to blame. If a sales clerk knows he will be sacked if he fails to ask for ID and sells to under-age customers I am willing to bet 99% of them wouldn't do it.

Minimum age to buy cigarettes should be 21 years old.

quote:

Minimum age to buy cigarettes should be 21 years old.

Know it all appears to reason that 19 and 20 year olds are old enough to go into the military and be killed or wounded in combat; but, smoking is too dangerous for them to be able to buy cigarettes.

Know it all's Dementia is getting worse. We MUST continue to pray for him!!!

quote:

Originally posted by I know it all:
The owner is responsible for staff training and staffing levels. If the owner isn't training his staff adequately or staff levels are to low to do the job right he is to blame. If a sales clerk knows he will be sacked if he fails to ask for ID and sells to under-age customers I am willing to bet 99% of them wouldn't do it.

Minimum age to buy cigarettes should be 21 years old.

You said the seller should be horse whipped. I was pointing out that the seller isn't being horse whipped; the owner is.

You're an adult at age 18 here. You can go in the military at age 17 with your parent's permission. The age to smoke and drink should be 18.

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:

quote:

Minimum age to buy cigarettes should be 21 years old.

Know it all appears to reason that 19 and 20 year olds are old enough to go into the military and be killed or wounded in combat; but, smoking is too dangerous for them to be able to buy cigarettes.

Know it all's Dementia is getting worse. We MUST continue to pray for him!!!

Tobacco smoking was compulsory for students of elite boy schools of British Empire. Semai people of Maylasia start smoking at age 2, as a way of weaning children from nursing. They continue smoking all their lives and live into ripe old age without getting any of the so-called "smoking related" diseases (British doctors studied them in 1970s, examined & x-rayed 12,000 of them and, among other "surprising" findings, there was not a single lung cancer).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nightlight,

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:

quote:

Minimum age to buy cigarettes should be 21 years old.

Know it all appears to reason that 19 and 20 year olds are old enough to go into the military and be killed or wounded in combat; but, smoking is too dangerous for them to be able to buy cigarettes.

Know it all's Dementia is getting worse. We MUST continue to pray for him!!!

Where did I say that in my post?

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:

quote:

Originally posted by I know it all:
The owner is responsible for staff training and staffing levels. If the owner isn't training his staff adequately or staff levels are to low to do the job right he is to blame. If a sales clerk knows he will be sacked if he fails to ask for ID and sells to under-age customers I am willing to bet 99% of them wouldn't do it.

Minimum age to buy cigarettes should be 21 years old.

You said the seller should be horse whipped. I was pointing out that the seller isn't being horse whipped; the owner is.

You're an adult at age 18 here. You can go in the military at age 17 with your parent's permission. The age to smoke and drink should be 18.

But you are not old enough to make smart choices, evidence, most smokers start smoking before age 21. Ask around you will see for yourself it's true.

Isn't the seller the owner of the store? The sales clerk is only employed to conduct the transaction but as he or she has no finacial interest in the product they are not the seller. Maybe the seller and the clerk can be horse whipped? Maybe that will stop it? And there should be more under cover operations to catch the dirtbags out.

quote:

Originally posted by nightlight:

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:

quote:

Minimum age to buy cigarettes should be 21 years old.

Know it all appears to reason that 19 and 20 year olds are old enough to go into the military and be killed or wounded in combat; but, smoking is too dangerous for them to be able to buy cigarettes.

Know it all's Dementia is getting worse. We MUST continue to pray for him!!!

Tobacco smoking was compulsory for students of elite boy schools of British Empire. Semai people of Maylasia start smoking at age 2, as a way of weaning children from nursing. They continue smoking all their lives and live into ripe old age without getting any of the so-called "smoking related" diseases (British doctors studied them in 1970s, examined & x-rayed 12,000 of them and, among other "surprising" findings, there was not a single lung cancer).

No one believes you Nightlight, even the smoking advocates are embarased by your ravings.
Who else looks here
http://members.iinet.com.au/%7Eray/TSSOASb.html
for facts? Must be a special research institute??

Does everyone else here but nightlight get their tobacco products from the supermarket? Ones made by multinational tobacco companies? This from nightlight himself; - The additive and pesticide laden supermarket cigarettes, made of tobacco
scraps and wood pulp, rolled into sheets, then dyed & artificially
flavored to resemble tobacco leaf, shedding non-biodegradable filter
fibers into your lungs, have the same effects on your health as the
similar quality supermarket reconstituted/junk foods and sodas. You can
handle them for a while, but it catches up with you. And they're
certainly not enjoyable, unless you never knew any better.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.stop-smoking/msg/fc4d8693b53c2df1
You all need to go to malaysia and get the pure leaf I think or what nightlight has been saying doesn't apply to you. Nightlight how often do you go to Malaysia? I've been twice, it's a beautiful nation, very green and lush. The peope are small and friendly. When I went into China Town, an area of shops in the heart of Kuala Lumpur you get pounced on by people selling bootleg copies of DVDs and cheap copies of Rolex watches. The clothes shopping is good there and all the street vendors speak english in a fashion. The tallest building in KL is the Petronas Towers. (2nd tallest in the world) I was advised by my taxi driver that the Menara Telekom Tower was much better for tourists as you can go to the top of the Menara Telekom Tower but only to the bridge of the Patronas Towers as the upper floors are private. The view was amazing from Menara Telekom, you could see the contrasts of old and new buildings and the empty shells from the finacial colapse of the 70s. How did you find it?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: I know it all,

Dear Know it all,
I feel so sorry for you, your Dementia is getting worse and worse. There are a great number of smokers that do not get their smokes from the local supermarket. I make my own for about 1/4 of the cost of buying them over the counter,as do many others.

I,for one, am not embarassed by 'Nightlight', I find his posts remarkably coherent and on topic. Your vacations to Malaysia are incoherent babble. But;we understand, it's the Dementia talking.

Friends, we MUST continue to pray for 'Know it all'!!!

Nightlight I myself find you posting to be very informitive please don't let the likes of "IKIA" to discurage you and your research,, this "IKIA" person isn't being what or who it proclaiming to be..

please keep up the good work you are doing Nightlight

quote:

Originally posted by I know it all:
Who else looks here
http://members.iinet.com.au/%7Eray/TSSOASb.html
for facts? Must be a special research institute??

What specific scientific fact are you challenging as being false from the article "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking" I referred to? The two authors, both academics, provide proper citations for the facts stated and every fact they claim checks out. Did you discover any falsification of facts in the article?

From the quality and quantity of "reasoning" and "refutation" you offered so far, one little toe of either author, professor J.R. Johnstone or professor P.D. Finch, has more functioning neurons and more credibility than your entire "brain". The same goes for a single little toe of either Dr. W. T. Whitby or attorney L. A. Colby, two other authors I cited.



As for the famous British mathematician Sir Ronald A. Fisher, also cited in my posts (regarding his devastating early critique of the "scientific" excrement from the father of antismoking voodoo "science" Richard Doll, who was recently exposed by an in-depth investigative report as a complete scientific fraud of the most despicable kind, the master of blame-the-victim "scientific" method), a single tip of the R.A. Fisher's little toenail would more than suffice.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nightlight,

There you go with the personal attacks again. You don't win a debate by attacking your opponent with comments about the brain function of the opponent.

gkayser30 where did I say men were old enough to go to war and be killed at 19 or 20? That is another topic all together. If you really need to know I think men of 45 should be sent to war, they have had kids and are in their prime of life. Thinking men rather than fighting men. And as smoking preserves the highest levels of personal fitness maybe the application forms should be in cigarette packets?
I applaud you all for making your own cigarettes from pure Malaysian tobacco. Where do you buy that anyway? After all it's the Malaysian stuff with the magic life extending properties.

Hey Nightlight good to see you have a picture in your post, how can I argue with that?
Who does Dr. William T. Whitby work for? He is consultant to industry, smokers' rights group. Isn't exactly an unbiased report is it?
His friend Curtis Judge couldn't help him with publishing. He made the excuse he knew nothing of publishing in the USA but we know why really. http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/tds/details.jsp?docum...LOR03543050&number=9

And Lauren A. Colby is a lawyer, he will say what he is paid to say and is entitled to a personal opinion. He is a legal pratitioner not a scientist.

Then Sir Ronald A. Fisher, It has been suggested that the fact that Fisher was employed as consultant by the tobacco firms in this controversy casts doubt on the value of his arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher

Going well so far.

quote:

Originally posted by Jemeyes:
Nightlight I myself find you posting to be very informitive please don't let the likes of "IKIA" to discurage you and your research,, this "IKIA" person isn't being what or who it proclaiming to be..

please keep up the good work you are doing Nightlight

I am exactly who I say I am. I am a 45 year old male from Adelaide Australia. I am married with 1 child. I am the son of a now retired truck driver and logistics manager who worked for over 30 years for one of the largest newspaper groups in the world. He and my mother are both alive and well at 77 and 80 years old, they have 8 children, 10 grand children and 4 great grand children. I work for the state government as an enforcement officer and my wife is a nurse. I smoked a pack of 20 to 25 cigarettes a day from age 14 to age 22. some of the pay from a part time job from 14 to 18, I spent on cigarettes. I started my aprenticeship at 16 as a diesel mechanic. I was a mechanic until 6.5 years ago.
The only political alignments I have is I am a union member and a social club member.
That's who I am.

Why did I have to do that? You all could be sitting in the same office at a tobacco company.
I should have said my dad gave up smoking after he watched a close friend and smoker die of cancer.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: I know it all,

I started my aprenticeship at 16 as a diesel mechanic. I was a mechanic until 6.5 years ago.

Why are you on this board? You were a diesel mechanic?
There is 'science' out there that you should be more concerned with.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=75
http://www.catf.us/publications/view/83
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=26619&newsdate=17-Aug-2004

And, if you were a mechanic- you worked on brakes- and during a time where asbestos was prevelantly used.
http://www.asbestosnetwork.com/news/nw_120106_asbestosbrakes.htm
http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib072606.html

You need to find another message board- one that will help you in your quest to stop diesel fuel and brake system composition as potential factors of your health now or in the future.

IKIA says, "There you go with the personal attacks", yet claims to be a "State Government Enforcment Officer", and also claims that an as yet not proven guilty store clerk and owner are "Dirtbags" and that more sting operations are needed to get the rest of the "Dirtbags" out there.
Yeah, real quality in a State Government Enforcment role there, I thought the constitution of this country, including all states of the union agreed to a simple basic principle, innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law.
This type of person should be horsewhipped, have any firearms removed immediately, and be drummed out of service. The job description is to enforce the laws, not punish the offenders, Dirtbag.

quote:

Originally posted by I know it all:
There you go with the personal attacks again. You don't win a debate by attacking your opponent with comments about the brain function of the opponent.

You are welcome to read the post few more times until you comprehend what it says. Hint: it refers to the complete vapidity of your "attacks" on the cited material. Your entire "counter-argument", this and few previous times, is about the names of a particular server or a subdirectory holding a particluar file, not the substance of the article or book contained in the file. You challenge no scientific fact cited in those articles. What is the fact you object to or challenge as false in any of the articles or books I cited? Your "counter-argument" would be a joke or parody if there were any humor in it. But it isn't even a joke. It is a waste of bandwidth and time of the readers here. I can't even imagine how would one have to change it to make it any dumber than it already is.

Whether you are as vapid and dimwitted in real life as you come across from your 'intellectual" output in this forum, I don't know and I don't care to find out. I can only comment about the virtual brain of a virtual persona posting under the above screen name.

That virtual persona is a complete moron, as explained in specific cases earlier. The degree of personal offense that the "real you" takes from that evaluation (which wasn't challenged with any substance either, but only with emotions) of the virtual persona, depends on how close you judge the "real you" to be to that virtual persona. The relation between the two of you, though, is something you need to deal with on your own or maybe with the help your psychiatrist or nurse. In any case, it is none of my business or anything I would care to learn more about.