Anti-Smoking Zealots Don’t Just Want Smoking Bans – They Want Smoking Banned
Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife
Like many big city newspapers, the San Jose Mercury News has laid off a number of staffers in recent years. I assumed, therefore, that this headline was simply a cutback-induced editorial error when I came across it the other day:
Despite recent smoking bans, Santa Cruz County rates a ‘D’ in tobacco control
SANTA CRUZ — Despite a smoking ban on Pacific Avenue that took effect in October, the city of Santa Cruz got a “D” in 2009 from the American Lung Association for overall efforts to control tobacco.
Santa Cruz, a ‘D’ in tobacco control? In this bastion of “tolerance,” smoking has been banned throughout all indoor public spaces, outdoor dining areas, parks, beaches, and downtown thoroughfares. My (exorbitantly overpriced) apartment building has imposed a smoking ban that even covers private residences. I don’t smoke, but my girlfriend does, and she is forced to shiver in the bitter – for California – cold when she wants to light up. That smell wafting into your apartment is not cigarette smoke: it’s illiberalism and intolerance.
What more could the American Lung Association possibly want? Short of publicly executing smokers, Santa Cruz has done everything it can to degrade and inconvenience them.
At the very least, in granting a D to Santa Cruz County, the American Lung Association’s real agenda has been, so to speak, smoked out. It’s not about imposing public smoking bans, or protecting you from the “dangers” of second hand smoke. No, it’s clear that ALA really wants to ban smoking altogether. It wants to “protect” you from that most dangerous person of all: yourself.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
And, yeah, those liberal-fascists who forced us to wear seat belts, and made our cars so expensive by requiring, requiring mind you, air bags, and those authoritarian laws against putting tapeworms into diet medicine. Now they’re at it again trying to get our society to curtail an activity that causes 440,000 deaths a year.
The thing is, this is a computer generated number. There is NO proof that any death can be attributed to smoking or second hand smoke. This is just more of the propoganda put forth by the anti-smoker lobbyists. Who is really in denial?
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah, I don’t get this at all. I used to think it was a peculiarly American hangup, presumably having little to do with the actual health effects of smoking, and owing to some deeper desire to control our immediate surroundings in a country where insecurity is a driving force in our economy. But now the zealotry is spreading to other, Keynesian-style countries; of all the things we have to worry about, why in the world should smoking even be in the top fifty?
Anti smokers lie!
California Proposition 86 $2 a pack tax on cigarettes
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, CALIFORNIA DIVISION INC. $673,000.00 8/26/2005
contributiuons $2,884.35 8/8/2005
$16.79 8/8/2005 – 8/30/2005
$342.93 8/8/2005
$257.09 8/8/2005
$2.57 8/8/2005
$588.65 8/8/2005
$2,403.02 8/8/2005 – 8/30/2005
$203.32 8/8/2005 – 8/30/2005
$272.80 8/8/2005 – 8/30/2005
$1,115.21 8/8/2005 – 8/30/2005
$23.77 8/8/2005
Grass roots lobbying donations. $681,110.50 FY 1 Sep 04 – 31 Aug 05
THIS WHAT THEY CLAIMED ON THEIR TAX RETURN 4,738.00 FY 1 Sep 04 – 31 Aug 05 Tax return line 36 (b) page 80
Difference $ 676,372.50
Sep 05 – 31 Aug 06 returns. But in their complying they said that the California Consolidated Division had spent $144.00 in grass roots lobbying expenditures. However looking at the SOS of donations we find the following:
California Proposition 86 $2 a pack tax on cigarettes
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $4,927.44 9/1/2005 – 9/30/2005 2/24/2006 1134309 – C58
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $722.06 9/1/2005 – 9/30/2005 2/24/2006 1134309 – C59
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $699.19 9/1/2005 – 9/30/2005 2/24/2006 1134309 – C60
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $21.64 9/1/2005 – 9/30/2005 2/24/2006 1134309 – C61
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $2,029.79 9/1/2005 – 9/30/2005 2/24/2006 1134309 – C62
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $76.66 9/1/2005 – 9/30/2005 2/24/2006 1134309 – C63
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $11,395.81 10/1/2005 – 10/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C64
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $164.70 10/1/2005 – 10/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C65
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $482.80 10/1/2005 – 10/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C66
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $903.24 10/1/2005 – 10/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C67
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $366.10 10/1/2005 – 10/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C68
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $6,436.91 11/1/2005 – 11/30/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C69
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $187.18 11/1/2005 – 11/30/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C70
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $138.62 11/1/2005 – 11/30/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C71
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $1,666.06 11/1/2005 – 11/30/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C72
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $79.36 11/1/2005 – 11/30/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C73
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $5.00 11/1/2005 – 11/30/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C74
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $203.00 11/1/2005 – 11/30/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C75
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $7,519.29 12/1/2005 – 12/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C76
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $98.58 12/1/2005 – 12/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C77
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $175.48 12/1/2005 – 12/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C78
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $816.29 12/1/2005 – 12/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C79
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $20.45 12/1/2005 – 12/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C80
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $161.63 12/1/2005 – 12/31/2005 5/1/2006 1146768 – C81
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $150,000.00 3/6/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – A9
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $23.81 2/1/2006 – 2/28/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C102
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $13.13 2/1/2006 – 2/28/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C103
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $180.40 2/1/2006 – 2/28/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C104
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $17,186.96 3/1/2006 – 3/31/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C162
Page (8)
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $228.27 3/1/2006 – 3/31/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C163
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $4,924.21 3/1/2006 – 3/31/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C166
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $474.10 3/1/2006 – 3/31/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C167
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $1,442.08 3/1/2006 – 3/31/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C202
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $120.23 3/1/2006 – 3/31/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C238
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $14,204.60 2/1/2006 – 2/28/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C239
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $721.71 2/1/2006 – 2/28/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C240
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $72.85 2/1/2006 – 2/28/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C241
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $830.24 2/1/2006 – 2/28/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C242
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $10,941.80 1/1/2006 – 1/31/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C82
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $133.76 1/1/2006 – 1/31/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C83
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $4.29 1/1/2006 – 1/31/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C84
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $14.00 1/1/2006 – 1/31/2006 9/22/2006 1168096 – C85
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $12,422.40 4/1/2006 – 4/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C195
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $174.81 4/1/2006 – 4/30/2000 9/22/2006 1192010 – C196
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $107.44 4/1/2006 – 4/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C197
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $240.77 4/1/2006 – 4/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C198
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $1,260.03 4/1/2006 – 4/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C199
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $264.15 4/1/2006 – 4/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C200
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $123.85 4/1/2006 – 4/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C201
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $7,353.82 5/1/2006 – 5/31/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C230
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $104.86 5/1/2006 – 5/31/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C231
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $221.25 5/1/2006 – 5/31/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C232
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $1,166.65 5/1/2006 – 5/31/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C233
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $690.72 5/1/2006 – 5/31/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C234
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $15.54 5/1/2006 – 5/31/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C235
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $31.62 5/1/2006 – 5/31/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C236
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $196.11 5/1/2006 – 5/31/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C237
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $7,101.02 6/1/2006 – 6/30/2000 9/22/2006 1192010 – C251
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $60.89 6/1/2006 – 6/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C252
Page (9)
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $21.07 6/1/2006 – 6/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C253
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $1,248.74 6/1/2006 – 6/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C254
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $72.33 6/1/2006 – 6/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C255
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $132.12 6/1/2006 – 6/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C256
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $534.97 6/1/2006 – 6/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C257
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $23.63 6/1/2006 – 6/30/2006 9/22/2006 1192010 – C258
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $9,380.80 7/1/2006 – 7/31/2006 10/26/2006 1204763 – C266
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $104.45 7/1/2006 – 7/31/2006 10/26/2006 1204763 – C267
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $778.75 7/1/2006 – 7/30/2006 10/26/2006 1204763 – C268
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $900.59 8/28/2006 10/26/2006 1204763 – C270
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. NON-MONETARY OAKLAND CA 94612 $7,141.50 8/31/2006 10/26/2006 1204763 – C302
ACS, CA. Div. Inc. $200,000.00
Bottom of Form
8/23/2006
Bottom of Form
$492,688.6
$144.00 990 FY 05-06
Difference $492,544.60
That is data from the American Cancer Society’s Comsolidated tax returns and California Secretary of State Campaign data bank.
How much is California wasting?
Anti tobacco ripping off unemployment benefits in Ohio! $190,000,000.00 worth!
Benefits aren’t there when they are most needed http://www.dispatch.com/live /content/editorials/stories/20 10/01/16/Hossfeld_SAT_ART_01-1 6-10_A9_AHGA91D.html?sid=101 written by GERALD HOSSFELD
Grove City
Perhaps Mr. Whydes letter http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/01/16/Whyde__SAT_ART_01-16-10_A9_FNGAIS2.html?type=rss&cat=&sid= explains why the benefits are not there!
Perhaps Mr. Whydes letter http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/01/16/Whyde__SAT_ART_01-16-10_A9_FNGAIS2.html?type=rss&cat=&sid= explains why the benefits are not there!
I respond to the Sunday Forum column “Foundation’s money would serve Ohio best by fighting tobacco,” http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/01/10/healton.ART_ART_01-10-10_G5_M5G8C6J.html?sid=101 by Cheryl Healton, president and chief executive officer of Legacy, the national public-health foundation devoted to keeping young people from smoking and helping all smokers quit.
According to Internal Revenue Service tax returns, Healton receives $763,358 a year in wages and compensation, so I could see her interest in this matter. Mind you, that is almost twice what the president of the United States gets paid.
She did not mention that it is her organization that is fighting to get its hands on and control of $190 million that our state government, in a bipartisan decision, decided to use for the unemployed people of Ohio. She throws a pitch that Ohio would see the $190 million flow back to Ohio. I seriously question that.
Once the money is in Legacy’s hands, it will decide what kind of money goes back to Ohio while disbursing the money for other causes, such as the American Cancer Society. Susan Jagers, employee/lobbyist of the American Cancer Society, made the motion to give Legacy the $190 million.
If you’re unemployed or know of someone who is unemployed in Ohio, please think about this. I would rather see a smoker than to see an unemployed Ohio family living under a bridge with no home. I would rather see unemployed people being trained for possible new jobs that might give them the chance to save their homes.
I would rather see $100,000 being used in a homeless shelter or food-bank kitchen than used to get people to quit smoking, as the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation has done.
Do you really want $190 million to be in the hands of an organization such as the American Legacy Foundation which, in 2002, lent nearly $1 million to Healton so she could buy a $975,000 home in Washington’s exclusive North Cleveland Park neighborhood?
Do Ohioans want $190 million in these hands?
I have asked Ohio’s senators to sue those responsible for this fiasco for the legal expenses incurred by Ohio and for damages that have been inflicted upon the unemployed because of Ohio’s inability to utilize this money. Perhaps Mr. Whydes letter http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/01/16/Whyde__SAT_ART_01-16-10_A9_FNGAIS2.html?type=rss&cat=&sid= explains why the benefits are not there!
This letter, from a non-smoker refers to all anti-smoking legislation.
*An open letter that was emailed to all (103) Ontario, Canada political MPP’s in early May, 2008. No replies! This non-response reflects government without a sense of responsibility or a foundation for their actions!
Betrayal, Anti-Smoking Message is Like Fascism that Preys Upon Our Children
We must not look within ourselves. We may discover what we are becoming!
Moral judgement is the mirror, mirror, on the wall image, always lurking in our mind, like an alter-conscience, prepared to reveal the frightening truth, in our soul, such as the undeserved vengefulness, at any cost, wielded against smokers. Even betrayal, of the next generation, becomes palatable within self-betrayal.
This remorseless mental/emotional preying upon, our precious children, recklessly poisons their mind and spirit, under the government’s pernicious slogan “health and safety.”
By supporting anti-smoking, we endorse and promote Fascism, an historically proven scurvy upon humanity!
The inevitable shame, of our past actions, can still be averted, by rescinding this government agenda!
The most”dangerous smoke” comes not from cigarettes, instead from the government smoke screen to obscure from view, that the real issue is Capitalism and science versus Fascism and politicized environmentalism, not ‘health and safety.’
Science and politicized environmentalism are colliding worlds, science being the height of pursuing truth, politicized environmentalism the depth of distorting truth. Anti-smoking is part of politicized environmentalism and the attempted foundation of Fascism!
Do we therefore side with Capitalism, science, Second World War troops and our allies– honour; or do we side with Fascism, politicized environmentalism, our enemies of the Second World War– disgrace? Thus far we blindly follow our enemies and disgrace!
From the mouth of Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, “It doesn’t matter what is true; it only matters what people believe is true…..You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth and a myth-generating machine.” We deserve truth, not half-truths and propaganda!
For any high ranking government official that lack this critical knowledge, they are in their office under false pretenses. They are unprepared to govern. Their present course of anti-smoking legislations is the proof of that statement.
In the words of Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, “I was acutely conscious of the pressure to ‘adapt’ and to absorb the values of the ‘tribe’—family, community and culture. It seemed to me that what was asked was the surrender of my judgement and also my conviction that my life and what I made of it was of the highest possible value. I saw my contemporaries surrendering and losing their fire. Why was growing up equated with giving up?”
Philosopher/Novelist Ayn Rand wrote, “If some demagogue were to offer us, as a guiding creed, the following tenets: that statistics should be substituted for truth, vote-counting for principles, numbers for rights, and public polls for morality–that pragmatic, range-of-the-moment expediency should be the criterion of a country’s interests, and that the number of its adherents should be the criterion of an idea’s truth or falsehood–that any desire of any nature whatsoever should be accepted as a valid claim, provided it is held by a sufficient number of people–that a majority may do anything it pleases to a minority–in short, gang rule and mob rule–if a demagogue were to offer it, he would not get very far. Yet all of it is contained in–and camouflaged by–the notion of ‘Government by Consensus.”
‘Rule by Consensus,’ (Rule by health care pressure group) is todays’ anti-ideology in government. Appeasement of these power-lusting, health care pressure groups is of higher priority than our children and all other tax payers, voters, and citizens. The permeating emotion from ‘Rule by Consensus’ is demoralizing, debilitating fear instead of an optimistic view of the future.
Note this recent example, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn’t entertain a ban (smoking in cars with children) because it amounts to “too much intrusion into people’s private lives.” The logical interpretation of this statement is that the entire anti-smoking movement eliminates smoker’s individual rights, and has always been an intrusion into a smoker’s family dynamic. Now, the Ontario government is prepared, in predictable flip-flop fashion, to enact such a ban.
In ignobility, many people have misaligned themself with politicized environmentalism, despite the fact that 1930’s, 1940’s, Germany used “politicized ecology and public health” to base its rationalizations. Are we predisposed to mistakenly mirror the historic footsteps of self-loathing mass destruction? No! Everyone has an individual mind and conscience, above party politics. Be true to them, follow your courage (truth) and dethrone your fear (fallacy). Rescind this government’s shameful anti-smoking agenda.
References:
Paul Watson – Environmental Overkill, (Whatever happened to common sense) – book
Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem – book
Ayn Rand – Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal – book
Government Will Make Smokers, Children, Families, Sick
Government’s that foster anti-smoking policies lead the real health epidemic, government interference. They are not using science as their competent guide into the future. Instead they use the deep festering envy of politicized environmentalists (those unable to compete on a level playing field) to revisit remnants of the dark ages. The profound statement of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand echoes the truth that smothers us, “Today, we live in the age of envy.”
I am a life-long non-smoker, who has lost the four most precious people in my life. Cancer was the effect, a consequence, but not the cause. Yet, I will not help to propagandize health into dictatorial policy through anti-smoking. I do not wish to repeat the 1930’s, 1940’s. Do you?
Exactly how can our government “create a healthier society for all” when they betray the smoker’s sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer-employee relationships, upheave their family life, and undermind their efficacy by alienating them from their own human nature?
This destructive mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker’s to long-term emotional and mental disorders, thus leading to serious physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.
A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government’s suffocating negative influence while aggressively restricting young people from making their own decisions. Government aggression will severely jeopardize each young person’s struggle to form a necessary sense of self-confidence. This fragile process is usually a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.
In reality, our government lacks the knowledge of the trigger mechanism that sets off most cancers or most other major diseases to then become a critical danger for human beings. It is not smoking, nor second-hand smoke. Then why does government pathetically use smoker’s as their scapegoat, perhaps they require an example in order to intimidate other industries?
Chicken Littleism is no longer a silly joke. It is now a snarling threat. Stamp out politicized environmentalism, not smokers.
The organizations behind this demonization are the same that are now demonizing the overweight. You know, the moms who stay home to care for their kids, the people who’s very livlihoods depend on sitting at a computer. They would have them drop everything and run to their local gym or lose their health insurance. Same with smokers who used to be a majority who’s numbers have dwindled due to the drug company’s stake at their own brand of nicotine being forced on a huge segment of society or face losing their health insurance, which big pharma is working on also. It’s never been about health, just pharma profits!
This nannying from ANY anti this or that group must stop! The global warming debacle is nothing but an excuse for the government to legitimize the extreme taxation it would bring. The second hand smoke issue is nothing more than a way to control a huge segment of the population, perhaps as much as 1/2 of it or more. The obesity issue is nothing more than a way for big pharma’s controlled FDA to further limit our choices and thus our very lives! When will people open their eyes and see all of this for what it is? We have become a nation of sheeple “for our own good”!
Pharma giant Johnson & Johnson’s main shareholder and smoking ban shill, the RWJohnson Foundation, depends on it’s livlihood from J&J making and marketing cessation products. They have hoodwinked many people and gov’t officials that without smoking bans forcing 1/3 of the entire population of the U.S. and the rest of the world into submission, that smoking and second hand smoke will kill. They have spent over one Billion dollars to influence legislation to take away freedom and private property rights in the grand marketing scam of the century, and their created obesity crisis, along with global warming. The U.S. Surgeon General managed to avoid testifying under oath to a congressional committee along with the commissioner from the FDA. I say that is a conflict of interest to say the least, especially with FDA regulation of tobacco. The “harm” from second hand smoke is nothing but a way to a means!
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/12/osha-standards-and-air-quality-testing.html
What people don’t understand is that Anti smokers will keep coming back to push for more control. They won’t stop. Their jobs depend on it. After they get more concessions they move on to new targets only to return later for more concessions in a never ending push for a complete Tobacco ban. Health has nothing to do with it. It’s the way these slugs make a living.
Of course health concerns have nothing to do with the desire to regulate the use of a product which produces fumes that kill people (usually slowly, and at great cost to our health care system).
Smoking denial is like no other kind….
In response to another comment. See in context »Once again, NO proof of any death attributed to smoking, just propoganda. Did you know that if you are a 25 year old man who gets killed in a car accident and smoked that your death is attributed to smoking? Why would anyone believe the made up stats with realities of this kind?
In response to another comment. See in context »Give me a break. Shouldn’t this thread by on Fox.com or someplace like that?
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow. I can picture someone visiting T/S for the first time:
“Hm. Anti-anti-smoking pieces, pro-corporate posts, put-downs of religion, celebrity worship, disdain for middle-class (and below) culture, a pop-cultural point of view stuck in 1969. Must be a liberal website.”
And they would be correct.
[...] largest city. Dangers thought (mistakenly) to be inherent in second-hand cigarette smoke lead to draconian and illiberal anti-smoking measures. And the infinitesimally miniscule risk of being killed in an act of airline terrorism [...]
Smoking in the US has dropped from 54% to less than 20.4%. Cancer/ Asthma and every other disease said to be smoking related has risen by more than smoking has dropped.
The 1992 EPA Report was vacated by Anti- Tobacco Federal Judge Osteen and was backed up by independent Scientists working with him and two Congressional Committees. The ACS had to remove an Ad in the NY Times because they could not prove their 53,000 deaths due to SHS/ETS. Over 250 studies find no connection of SHS to Cancer or Heart Disease. Even the ACS and WHO, in their largest studies, found the same conclusion.
Less smoking = more Cancer? Looks like we are better off smoking.
This push for Smoking Bans and higher Taxes is The Marketing Plan by Big-Pharma to sell Smoking Cessation NRT’S.
Tobacco is used to make Cancer and Heart Disease fighting drugs.
So who is lying about Tobacco?
Think Virus/Infection, Diesel and you will find the real culprit along with Big-Pharma.
They want to raise a tobacco tax, to increase revenue and force people to stop smoking, until they can’t afford cigarettes. It seems counter productive to me. The states have ever increasing health care cost but fewer people smoking. The states have also made dedicated programs for anti-tobacco instead of streaming into the General Fund as all tobacco tax revenue used to, until the anti’s went to work on legislators. They need to pull all tobacco revenue back into the General Fund and let the health charities fund the anti tobacco message. If that happened, we would see anti tobacco fold up and blow away.
[...] the ban on smoking in state parks and on beaches is simply another march towards the inevitable ban on smoking altogether. It’s about government-mandated behavior modification. As for reducing litter and fire risks? [...]