Smoking ban
I am beginning to think there is something very wrong about the smoking ban. I am not speaking about all the arguments for and opposed, it is a much more an insidious thing. It is now a proven, by Colorado Department of Revenue statistics, that the ban has caused large losses in the bar and tavern business and, now there are plans afoot in the legislature to increase taxes on alcohol because of budget needs. I am thinking that to be adding additional injury to the already done,fatal to some, injury caused by the ban in the first place.
Therefor the question arises, is the real intent of all this to destory a lawful sector of the hospitality industry, mom and pop, neighborhood bars and taverns, in direct violation of equal protection under the law, which is a constitutional right. It would sure seem so when the taxations actions of the government are repeatedly direct at one small segment of a free market enterprise system already encumbered with egregious losses. This, if taken to it’s logical extent, smacks a little to much of the prohibition movement which Carry Nation, in her religious zealousness, started and which ultimately resulted in social chaos, the financial and power advatage of organized crime and a devestating loss of tax revenue which increased taxes on the public.
This is not a stretch in reasoning, all such detrimental actions begin with small usurptions of the freedom of choice we all take for granted. It is becoming increasingly clearer through documented proof that hugh pharmaceutical companies and the huge foundations that have a vested interest in them and which have granted hundred of millions of dollars in promoting smoking bans to insure their mercantile interests in nonsmoke delivery devices, put the lie to the idea that the primary reason behind bans health. It is plain and simply, money and power. All you have to do is ask these questions: do you really believe mega rich pharmaceutical companies care about your health? If so, explain why have they been charged so many times with putting drugs on the market that have injured, even killed thousands of people over the years? Do you really think they care more about your wellbeing than they do their profits? The smoking ban was never about health. OSHA’S seven year study, ignored by tobacco control in favor of their payed for studies, has proven the claims of harm from second hand smoke are a myth. No my friends it is not about health, it’s about the oldest of all motivations, money and power.
This letter has not been edited.
What business I want to patronize and which employer I choose to work for, should be my choice, not dictated to me by the government. Also, I should be permitted to sell whatever legal product I choose. As Mr. Campbell states, this is not about health, It's about money and power and the ability of the majority to use their personal wishes to preempt the rights of the minority.
In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority. - James Madison
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 26, 2007 02:32 PMWhy don't smokers understand one simple point? They have no right to force carcinogens into the lungs of others. End of story.
Posted by Romulus on September 26, 2007 02:59 PMNobody has EVER forced carcinogens into your lungs or the lungs of anybody else. End of the real story.
Posted by Larry on September 26, 2007 03:06 PMAgain,Allen has pointed out the malign intent of those who stand to profit by abusing those whose behavior makes them a minority.I'm sorry to say that we smokers have erred in trying to dialogue with the antis.We'd have been much better advised to have followed the example provided by gay activism.That group engages in the most hazardous behavior imaginable and receives societal approval,mostly because they mounted a campaign of unbelievable offensiveness in the furtherance of their cause.If the reader needs another example that ruthlessness works best,please consider that the anti-abortion movement did not begin to gain legitimacy until several abortion clinics were bombed.Still another example is the post 9/11 outcry from the Left favoring concessions to radical Islam.
Posted by Jimminy on September 26, 2007 03:35 PMDamn leftists,
They wanted to continue the war in Afghanistan against Osama and Al Qaida but the forsight of Bush dictated we will not bow down to these radical Islamists in Iraq!!!
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 26, 2007 04:27 PMSo Karl, are you another one that scans comments to see if there is even the smallest reference to 9/11 then make that the issue when the suject of the original message had nothing to do with that at all?
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 26, 2007 05:01 PMAllen,
why do you think these huge pharmaceutical companies are killing us when, if they do what they intended to do correctly, we would all live longer, thus increasing their profits via return business for the drugs that are keeping us alive (or supposedly are anyway).
In your letter you claim they are only looking out for their bottom line yet they keep getting slammed with lawsuits because people who use their drugs die from side effects or bad product.
Additionally, why do we have FDA trials and testing for these companies' drugs before they are allowed to release them to the population for treatment of what ails them?
I would think they would be trying to put a safe product out there to keep us alive longer and therfore we would need more of their product and effectively creating longer term profits, rather than settling all of the class action lawsuits due to bad products.
Seems like bad business practice for these corporations but at the same time a somewhat similar analogy if this is truly the case.
I guess I may have missed your point somehwere along the line.
If it is about money and power, who is getting the money? I know where the power lies, the politicians that are nannying us to death.
Watch 360 tonight on CNN. It will expose the fact that pharmaceutical companies are producing drugs and putting them on the market Without FDA testing, never mind approval. And when was the last time you heard of big drug companies paying out more than they take in for settlements on claims? Their profits margins are higher than any other product in the world of mercantile companies, the true worth of them has never really been exposed to any one or any agency of the government. Such is their power, even in the halls of congress, that they are, for all intents and purposes, a government unto themselves.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 26, 2007 06:03 PMThe program, Anderson Cooper 360 airs at 8:00 PM MST tonight on CNN. I urge you to watch it. Highly interesting and informative and, you will see what I mean by them only being concerned with their bottom line.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 26, 2007 06:16 PMhas not anyone noticed that smoking is banned in public buildings in colorado, that is except for the offices of our state legislators who do smoke? I guess that our state legislators just like our federal congressmen are above the laws they inflict upon others.
Who are the real traitors/terrorists in this country? Coutld it be our elected officials?
06:36:
I personally know what you say is true. I have been in some legislator's offices and I have been told by those who smoke it's ok to light up. You would be totally surprised which ones I am talking about. They are some of the same ones who ignored our testimony at the hearing on the smoking ban.
They kept getting up and walking out of the hearing room, only to return 5 mniutes latter, so it could not have been to take care of some important issue. It was not out of disrespect for those telling them the negative economic impact of the ban on barts and taverns, they did that too, but to go have a smoke somewhere within the public capital building it's self.
When I was told it was OK to smoke I said It was against the law to which one of them said " well, we make the laws so I guess we can break them". That was meant as a joke, but it scared the hell out of me never the less.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 26, 2007 07:49 PMDear Karl Cheney:
Are you aware that Ritter/Skaggs are giving us a triple criminal illegal alien whammy? First Mexicans, now Iranians (Persians) and Hindu-Indians. It blew my mind that CCD is contracting with an Iranian math professor, who is sneaking Iranian students into this country illegally. Aren't they on one of those Bush lists?
Skaggs and Staney Jordan, in violation of both state and federal appropriation laws, have allowed Metro State College (MSC) to outsource its hiring and recruiting function to Dataman, Inc., an India based and owned company. In both instances, these criminal thugs (Hindus) are also illegally displacing qualified American workers. Jordan, Ritter, and Skaggs need a 101 lesson in CFR-29/41, FAR, and USDOL-OFCCP VETS-100 Reports ( federal procurement, contracting, and hiring laws). I am starting to believe USDOL-OFCCP Secy. Chao, is a closet-dixiecrat. She is the only American permitted by Congress to contract with foreign nationals. Throw in "Mile High NAFTA Stadium" too.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on September 26, 2007 08:07 PMI work with teens and have watched the number of novice smokers decline drastically since the price went up and the places a person could smoke went down. Many are finding that they simply cannot afford to take up such an expensive habit and the message that smoking will no longer be allowed in public has sent a clear message about how smoking can negatively affect others.
I have family and friends who smoke and still patronize their favorite taverns and pool halls. The ban does not seem to have changed much for them except for the inconvenience of going outside to smoke. They still value the social aspects of the local watering hole, with or without smoking, and even they admit that it's nice to come home without reeking of smoke.
Posted by Michael R on September 26, 2007 08:10 PMSpare us the old and untrue argument that the smoking ban affects bar and tavern sales. Please, don't you think there are other factors at stake such as economic and social factors. If you have not noticed, there is a severe credit crunch on, people have less disposable income. Why go to a bar and spend three times to twenty times as much on a beverage at a bar that you can by at the liquor store.
The author's instance on blaming falling bar revenues on the smoking bar either means he is 1choosing to ignore that there are other factors at work here or 2. he is, like most Republicans, intellectually lazy.
That does not address the fact that by Colorado Division of Revenue statistics mom and pop neighborhood bars have lost $16.9 million dollars as of april of this year nor does it address the fact that ETS, second hand smoke, has been proven to not be a health danger in any workplace by the preeminent agency charged with regulating and setting standards of saftey for workers and work places, OSHA, in their seven year study on ETS which has been upheld in federal court as the standard by which all workplaces should be judged.
Tobacco control, purposely ignoring that federal court upheld seven year study, payed for on demand studies by non government sources contrived to support their contentions that are directly contrary to Federal statutory standards of OSHA.
It is also true that big pharmceutical companies, Johnson and Johnson and mega billion dollar foundations, Robert Wood Johson Foundation that own 3.6 billion dollars of J and J stock, which by the way are the manufactures of nonsmoke nicotine delivery devices, have granted hundreds of millions of dollars to state health departments to promote smoking bans that advance their profits of those devices. Tobacco is taxed, these nonsmoke delivery devices are not taxed, meaning the smoking bans support private drug companies profits while reducing the tax revenue states get from tobacco by the convoluted scheme of over taxing it so less tobacco product is purchased.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 26, 2007 08:57 PMSean, you are delusional. After a steady increase in bars and taverns revenue trend of 20%+ or - 1.5 % over a six quarter period, in less than one quarter those revenues after July 2006 implementation of the smoking ban dropped to 3.4 % above 2004 profits, That is below the inflation bar. That makes the drastic drop due directly to the smoking ban and the numbers are continuing to drop and will red line by the end of the year.
The source for this info? The Colorado Department of Revenue statistics for bars and taverns from 2004 to the present time we have aquired from the CDR office. You who believe the propaganda of tobacco control advocates are being lied to and duped into believing what is a blantant falsehood. GO ahead and look the stats up yourself, a steady increase in revenue over many quarters of a sudden drops to about the same as it was four years ago while the cost of everyday business and alcohol increases as well as insurance and workmans comp. No way is it due to anything but the ban as we have always maintained, now The Colorado State Department of Revenue proves it for us.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 26, 2007 09:34 PMThe smokers are already trampled. The drinkers are next. The antis will let it happen because drinking has been so demonized. They won't admit to drinking.
What the totalitarians will go after next might be a bit closer to home; sugar, red meat, high-cholesterol foods, etc.
Don't ever think that the control freaks will stop at any point. Every time they can ban something, they are emboldened to ban something else. They just reserve the right to indulge themselves as they please, and the Hell with you.
Posted by clyde on September 26, 2007 09:47 PMBoo hoo, cry me a river. Now there's only 6 bars at every intersection instead of 9.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 01:20 AMThis is so ridiculous. Of all the valid reasons to oppose the smoking ban, I'd put "evil pharmaceutical companies" towards the bottom of the list.
Posted by Clarence on September 27, 2007 01:22 AM01:22 Am;
You don't get it. All the money for ad campaigns, print media, TV and Radio, spreading the lies and deceptions of tobacco control comes from money donated to pharmas's from a multi million dollar foundation because that foundation owns over $3 billion in pharma stock and pharma's are the producers of non smoke nicotine delivery devices,which aren't taxed as tobacco is, so there profit margine is very high but produces no tax revenue to the state. They want to replace tobacco with these devices, which work poorly at best, to increase their profits, In other words their benefit from bans is at the expence of tax revenue to the state.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 27, 2007 04:40 AMOne question. Now there is a smoking ban, so when it gets passed that druggies can lite up thier doobies, where are they going to get to smoke?
Posted by on September 27, 2007 06:51 AMThere should be designated smoking bars. Non-smokers could choose whether or not to go there.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 07:24 AMFinally some common sense was applied to this topic; and, no, I'm not a smoker -- haven't been for the last 23 years.
Thank you, Anon 07:24 AM. Your post shows that problems can be handled without on group forcing their will (or dirty habits) on another...
"There should be designated smoking bars. Non-smokers could choose whether or not to go there."
Posted by on September 27, 2007 07:24 AM
Posted by mongoose on September 27, 2007 07:31 AMYes, there should be. Problem is, there WERE. Before the ban, some bars allowed smoking, others didn't. The choice was there for everybody to make. To be part of society and take responsibility for yourself.
Posted by Larry on September 27, 2007 07:40 AMGoodness, don't bring fact and individual choice into an emotional arguement. Plain and simple, "If I don't like something, it should be illegal".
Posted by Tom on September 27, 2007 07:40 AMTom, you hit the nail on the head. Banning anything that has not been proved an legitimate health risk. You can't quantify exposure effects without using star trek gear like the Borg had implanted in them. Second hand smoke effects on people would have to be strickly monitored for years to establish a standard negative effect. This has never, ever been done, instead tobacco control made up out of whole clothe there contentions that it is a life threatening danger without proof of quantifying evidentially effects.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 27, 2007 09:34 AMHow many of the anti's ever go to the local tavern for a beverage and a smoke? Not many, i suppose, but they sure want to tell others what they can or cannot do. The Colorado Restaurant Association, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and and other groups including the one that represents the pharmacutical companies got the legislature to pass a law that takes their real jobs out of their hands and puts it onto shoulders of others. Sure, smoking and drinking aren't good for you but neither are a lot other things many of us do. Where do we draw the line?
As for those who support the ban for health reasons, I've got an experiment for you: Sit in the middle of 8x8x8 foot sealed room with a chain smoker at each corner for an hour. You may come out of there hacking and coughing. Now run a tube from the exhaust pipe of your car while it's running into the same room with a 1x1 foot vent. Sit in the middle of it for an hour, and see what happens. Want to ban cars?
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 27, 2007 09:51 AM"They want to replace tobacco with these devices, which work poorly at best, to increase their profits, In other words their benefit from bans is at the expence of tax revenue to the state."
This has to be the dumbest thing I've heard
Posted by Clarence on September 27, 2007 11:46 AMFunny Stan.
At my office we were banned from standing under the covered parking because some complained the cig smoke "infiltrated" their cars. As if the exhaust from their car (or each passing car) didn't.
Even had one person say the 2nd hand cig smoke was far worse than auto exhaust. Like your analagy, I asked them just how many people trying to commit suicide sit in their cars with the windows rolled up and suck down a pack of Camels?
Needless to say, that's where the conversation ended rather abruptly.
Posted by KW on September 27, 2007 11:47 AMStan Broyles
Did your hero James Madison ever mention you do not have the right to inflict your filthy dirty health hazard habit on others?
One mans right to kill himself ends with another mans right not to die along with the selfish fool.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 12:07 PMIt's a good thing nobody has EVER inflicted their dirty health hazard habit on others, otherwise you might actually make a point there.
Posted by Larry on September 27, 2007 12:10 PMIt is so pathetic reading DRUG ADDICTS attempts to rationalize their addiction and their imposition of it on others.
Posted by Constance on September 27, 2007 12:29 PMAgain, it's a good thing nobody has ever imposed anything on you, otherwise you might actually have a point. Nice addition to the brown cloud today Constance, I know everybody around Denver appreciates your contribution.
Posted by Larry on September 27, 2007 12:33 PMCome on Larry. Didn't you know most of the nonsmokers in every bar were hit over the head with clubs and forced to go in against their will.
That's why you never see nonsmokers in the bars anymore. Now that there's a law against forced exposure and all.
Posted by KW on September 27, 2007 01:17 PMLarry
Your selfish pointy head seems to have gotten my point or you wouldn't have reponded.
Excuse me, that's not your head but a dunce hat.
Maybe someday someone will inflict a hazardous concusion to your noggin for smoking around them.
Hahahaha!!!
Posted by Larry on September 27, 2007 01:56 PMAnd exactly what point would that be?
The one about how you should be the only one to allow what goes on in a place you don't go in?
Or the one about how you are the victim of your own stupidity by going in a place that doesn't cater to what you want?
Posted by Larry on September 27, 2007 01:59 PMLarry
It looks like some body already did and left you a giggling moron.
Sorry for picking on. Ididn't realize how bad off you really are. I just thought you were one of those smoking jackasses.
Larry
It looks like some body already did and left you a giggling moron.
Sorry for picking on you. I
didn't realize how bad off you really are. I just thought you were one of those smoking jackasses.
Is that really the best you can do? Yeah I'm so bad off that I want people to take responsibility for themselves and the actions they take. How dare I huh? It's ok Ann, you don't have to hide behind an annonymous screen name anymore.
Posted by Larry on September 27, 2007 02:11 PMLarry
It seems to have been good enough caught your attention and got you up on your soap box .Too bad it's not about the resposibilities you have toward your fellow human beings.
In your case it's all about me,me,me!
Maybe someday a paint huffer will come stand next to you in a close area and spray his huffers rag with paint and let you sample some of his vapors.
You're right, this isn't about my supposed responsibility to save you from yourself. And while mine may be about me, at least I have a sense of responsibility, unlike people like you who think the rest of the world should be thinking about you all the time. I have absolutely no responsibility to make sure you are happy and comfortable wherever you go. If the owner of an establisment would have decided to be non smoking, great! More power to them. But you don't like it when people have to make a choice for themselves do you?
Yes, in my case it's about me me me. As it should be the case for you when it comes to a decision about what you want to be exposed to. You see for me, I take responsibility for the things I do that put me in danger. But you would rather complain that a hammer hit you in the head when you walk through a construction zone without a hard hat. That's pretty simple. If I am ever in a place that allows the huffing of paint, and somebody did that next to me, if I didn't like it, I would leave and go find a place that didn't allow it. I know that kind of thinking goes way beyond what you can understand, but trust me on this, I know what I'm talking about.
Posted by Larry on September 27, 2007 02:52 PMSo let's talk about you for a second.
Do you drive at all? If you do, then what about your responsibility to the rest of the world with the 3 tons of carbon emissions you put into the air every year?
Do you eat meat? If you do then what about your responsibility to vegitarians not to offend them?
Do you drink coffee? If you do then what about your responsibility to the bean pickers who are not being paid enough?
Do you eat fast food? If you do what about your responsibility to the kids who eat there too much and are getting too fat?
You see the line for responsibility for other people has been drawn. Yes I will help people trapped in a burning building, but I will not run a criminal check while I'm doing it to make sure I'm not saving the life a child molester who would be put to death anyway. Just like how I would not walk into a non smoking establishment and demand that my right to smoke is more important than your right not be around it, you shouldn't be going around making sure places you would never step foot into anyway, are behaving in a way that you could be around if you had to.
I have absolutely no responsibility to you, or anybody else. Except of course to the owner who allowed it to go on in the first place. If you want to look down on me because I am not thinking of you first then fine, at least I won't be in a hospital bed at 80 dying of nothing.
Posted by Larry on September 27, 2007 03:15 PMConstance,
No one is "imposing" their addiction on you. If you can't stand smoking, then don't patronize establishments that allow it. It's that simple. However, is it OK for you to "impose" your opposition to smoking on others?
It's all about what you will tolerate and what you won't but, heres the caveat in that social contract; you have the responsibility of free choice in the matter. Go where you won't have to tolerate what you don't want to tolerate. That social contract does not extend your responsiblity of free choice to include everyone having to cater to what you will and will not tolerate. It's simple, If you can't tolerate mexican food, do you have the right to go to a mexican restaurant and demand they prepare Belgian Waffles because you can tolerate them. Somehow I suspect you know the answer is, at least I hope you do, are you out of your bleeding your mind?
The point, while exagerated a bit for arguements sake, is the same as you going to a smoking bar and demanding everyone quits smoking because you can't tolerate that, rather than exercising your responsibility of free choice to not subject yourself to what you can't tolerate.
Anything else is tyranny by a majority over the minority.
Oh Allen, not again.
All you addicts crying about the ban. Don't know much about how it has affected the bars since I am not a bar hopper. However, every restaurant owner I have spoken to has told me that revenue is way up. People have come back since they don't have to be exposed to that filthy smoke you addicts spew.
You can't break the habit no matter how you try. Two of my siblings are addicted and they admit it. Can't live without the nicotine.
Face it, smoking is an addiction, one that I am glad I don't have to be exposed to.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Posted by c on September 27, 2007 08:58 PMc-if smoking were actually an addiction we could not only get government money for it,we could have special smoking areas in EVERY public place,as mandated and funded by the Americans with Disabilities Act.Now if you'll just please put that (or SOMETHING,for Heaven's sake) in your pipe and smoke it we all,especially you,will feel much better.
Posted by Jimminy on September 28, 2007 12:41 AMI have a right to own a gun but I don't have a right to stick it in somebody else's mouth and pull the trigger. Just like cancer addicts have no right to pass their filth onto others.
Posted by j on September 28, 2007 07:03 AMEverytime a tobacco addict insists on smoking in public to get their fix everyone around them is imposed upon. You tobacco addicts would find people more accomodating to you if you used the patch instead.
You want to be a slave to a drug, go for it, just don't expect others to put up with the nasty impacts to the air.
Posted by Constance on September 28, 2007 07:20 AMJimminy-
You are an official member of the "Boy, Has the Tobacco Industry Got Me by the Ass Club".
Posted by c on September 28, 2007 07:23 AMIt doesn't surprise me that restaurants are seeing an increase in sales, most were non smoking to begin with. It's too bad those people who "came back" never had to leave to begin with. So smoking is an addiction, what's your point? Does that make you better than other people?
Please tell us j, who put a cigarette in your mouth and made you smoke it against your will? Once you answer that, you might be able to make a point.
Oh that's right, nobody did. But you didn't like the idea of making a choice for yourself and claimed ignorant about what you did to yourself. If you can tell me just one person who held you down and made you smoke, I will stop exposing your pathetic stance.
Posted by Larry on September 28, 2007 07:27 AMCan you people answer a single question at all?
Why would you keep going to a smoking establishment if you didn't like smoke?
Posted by Larry on September 28, 2007 07:31 AMWhere dialogue exists, zealousness looses creditability. That is why zealots use the mantra of tobacco control over and over again, a tatic right out of Goebbles teachings on propaganda, and never get involved in rational, critical thinking. Truth is their bane, and where truth is spoken they are at sea about how to respond so they fall back on the tactic of debasement of any who disagree with their robot like repeating of the same old tired lies and deceptions.
They are not interested in truth, only that which supports their personal preferences and preconcieved ideas that were instilled in their psyche by others, not by investigation of all the evidence, then making up their own mind. That is called insisting on ignorance and ignorance is the thing that opens the door to tyranny.
I don't expect to change their minds. I'm satisfied just to wait for the time when zealots target them and listen to the hypocrisy of crying about how their freedom is being taken away when they refused to refused to defend the freedoms of others.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 28, 2007 10:48 AMto all smokers
the state of colorado does not want your business
we are lepers
boycott all restaurants and bars(and soon casinos) that do not allow you to smoke in them i.e. the state of colorado
if enough of these businesses fail then maybe, just maybe, well nevermind they will bend to anti-transfat(or pick one of your choice)lobby just the same
BACK IN THE U.S.S.R
Posted by leper on September 28, 2007 11:54 AMIt is not the second hand smoke that bothers me, but the smoke from the burning end of the cigarette.
Now if you can grow arms long enough to hold the cig outside, inhale and exhale into a little tube that goes outside, well then you can come back in.
I can now enter my favorite restaurant through the bar, and go there for chips and dip.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 28, 2007 12:02 PMSo if my favorite place to hang out also caters to kids, shouldn't we ban kids because they're screaming gives me headaches?
Posted by Larry on September 28, 2007 12:27 PMLarry, no, take a Tylanol. Cowboy up cupcake.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 28, 2007 12:32 PMSo basically your the only one that shouldn't have to be inconvenienced by other people?
Posted by Larry on September 28, 2007 12:36 PMLarry,that's EXACTLY what the antis are saying.....I'm glad that Allen continues in the most literate,courteous way to point out the utter unsuitability of the smoking ban in the teeth of a sh*tstorm of hatespeech,lies and extortion from government,the media and all of their whitebread proxies,so many of whom trash good Americans on this thread while exalting our enemies on other threads.But I do like it when something bad happens to an anti.
Posted by Jimminy on September 28, 2007 01:08 PMCigarettes = Death. The people addicted to them are already dead, and radiate death in every way, in their poisonous political attitudes, in their fumes, in their willful stupidity, and in the crooked lying Republican cigarette corporation ghouls that run the government.
It IS all about money, and the cigarette corporations are the oldest money on the continent. (Tobacco was America's first export product to Europe, in 1684. They're dug in. They own Bush and the crooks who run him.)
The chemical fumes of cigarettes (far removed from plain tobacco) kill enthusiasm and hope. They breed cynicism and hate. Cigarette junkies are slobs, and litter every available surface with their butts. They loiter around with nothing to do but stare like zombies into space as they mindlessly ingest their disgusting, poisonous effluvium.
Cigarette dens (bars), should be allowed by law to let their green-skinned addicts kill themselves with abandon.
Living, thinking people would avoid these scummy kill-rooms like they avoid porn shops or crack houses, and nicotine whores would die off quickly, which would be better. Cigarette addicts are beyond help, and should be encouraged to finish themselves off as quickly as possible.
Cigarettes should have a $5 a pack tax on them, and the revenue could be used like they do now only more, to educate people on the poisonous nature of cigarettes, and the profoundly corrupt politics of the cigarette corporations. And to bankrupt those anti-social Corporations.
We don't allow heroin, or methamphetamine, or scopolomine, or MDMA to be sold at 7/11, so why should we allow something worse to be peddled on every corner?
Because of crooked, lying hypocrites like Tom Delay, Karl Rove, and George Bush, all bendover boys for Cigarette Corp Dollars.
Posted by Thanatos on September 28, 2007 02:04 PMOk then.... now that you've shown the world how mad you are, it might surprise you that it's not really a political issue. While it may be about the money to people in charge, would you mind telling us how that equates into not having to think for yourself?
"The chemical fumes of cigarettes (far removed from plain tobacco) kill enthusiasm and hope." I think 1930's jazz clubs would disagree with you.
"They breed cynicism and hate." Strange how the only ones on this thread that are cynical and hate-filled are the people who don't smoke.
"Cigarette junkies are slobs, and litter every available surface with their butts." That's really not even close to being true.
"They loiter around with nothing to do but stare like zombies into space as they mindlessly ingest their disgusting, poisonous effluvium." And how exactly is that effecting you in any way other than your own disgust and ego?
"Cigarettes should have a $5 a pack tax on them, and the revenue could be used like they do now only more, to educate people on the poisonous nature of cigarettes, and the profoundly corrupt politics of the cigarette corporations. And to bankrupt those anti-social Corporations." So you want to tax something you hate in order to pay for programs to get rid of it? Tell me again how that works and doesn't smack of hypocracy?
You are seriously saying that cigarettes are worse than heroin, methamphetamines, and MDMA? Are you on crack? Since that's pretty much the only substance you left out.
Hate to tell you this but tobacco helped form this country with the growing and selling of it. Whether you like it or not, over half this country was once a tobacco field and helped raise the money needed to build a growing democracy. The politicians themselves had absolutely nothing to do with anything, and while I would love to have a chance to blame bush for it, I cannot because none of it would be true.
Posted by Larry on September 28, 2007 03:16 PMWhoever posted the message below made the best statement so far on this subject.
There should be designated smoking bars. Non-smokers could choose whether or not to go there.
Now those who oppose the sick, addicted, helpless fools who smoke could make a choice: Mind your own business or join the party.
Cigarettes kill more people than any other drug.
Posted by Than on September 28, 2007 03:44 PMYes, there should be designated smoking bars. They could be located near funeral homes to save on ambulance fees. Maybe they could even put crematoriums right in the back of the bars, so the addicts could be disposed of with their own butts. Gives a whole new meaning to "scattering your ashes."
Burn, baby, burn!
Posted by Surly on September 28, 2007 04:02 PMWell,shucks.....I think Than would like a whack at it.
Posted by Jimminy on September 28, 2007 04:08 PMSurly gets the Accurate Handle of the Week award.How fortunate for his ilk that the Net is the one place where folks can ignore the ancient saying"Never throw sh*t at an armed man."
Posted by Jimminy on September 28, 2007 04:14 PMOver 400,000 people die each year of causes directly attributed to cigarette smoking. [data from the C.D.C.]
These dying junkies burden the health care system, and the normal, decent people who choose not to be addicted to these lethal posing-props.
Arguments about "restrictions on a legal product" and "nanny culture" are fatuous, insipid gibberish, typical of their predominantly Republican proponents. "Legality" is a non-issue in a loaded game - the CigCorps control the government.
Face it. Cigarettes are going the way of the Dodo bird. Cigarettes are a dying fad. Literally.
Posted by Erik on September 28, 2007 04:56 PMThe CDC is a bunch of of twits who accepted large amounts money from tobacco control advocates and the 400.000 figure you attribute to them is a proveable lie. Even so, you are talking about smoking not second hand smoke which some of the idiots try to say is more dangerous than smoking it's self. I really want to know just how stupid tobacco control thinks we are by saying something so obviousle impossible, and expecting any intelligent person to believe it.
I know what the anti's are, zealots and zealots have only what they believe to back their claims up. Truth, on the other hand refutes their beliefs but they live by the credo-- Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind made up.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 28, 2007 07:41 PMAllen-the CDC and tobacco control don't expect intelligent people to believe their junk science.It's just a fig leaf,something to say.Something to give their pet legislators cover enough to stay bribed.Something to rationalize the public taking out their post 9/11 outrage on someone,anyone.
The Jews didn't lose WW I for Germany,and smokers sure as heck didn't fly into the WTC.
Misery loves company. Smokers KNOW that they are addicted and they would like to see the rest in the same situation they are.
Non-smokers were smart enough to stay away in the first place.
Because you are all hopelessly addicted you will try to find any way to make your addiction look like a right that you are entitled to. You got yourself into this mess the first time you took a puff. Ask anyone who has been lucky enough to kick the habit, they can't stand to be around smokers, can't stand the smell of smoke. When you free yourself of this stinky, death-threatening habit you will not believe how much better you feel. No hacking, hocker spitting, no smelly clothes and hair, no heavy feeling in the lungs. Don't tell me you don't have these things, you're just used to it.
Everything on my co-worker's desk smells of stale smoke, every piece of paper that has gone home for her to work on, every pencil, EVERYTHING. I open the closet where she keeps her coat and it STINKS of smoke. She had a gathering at her house and several guests said they will never go back it stunk so bad. YOU SMOKERS ARE JUST USED TO IT!
Disgusting habit, no way around it. You are puffing your lives away.
Posted by c on September 29, 2007 07:31 AMGol-lee! Sounds like a former smoker.
Posted by Jimminy on September 29, 2007 08:17 AMJimminy, you jerk--
NEVER have I touched a cigarette. Had two smoker parents who eventually conquered the habit. My dad HAD to because he had a quad bypass. My mom followed suit. Was raised around the filthy habit and hated every minute of it.
The car was always filled with smoke, the house was always clean but stunk like I described previously. Smoke, smoke, smoke.
You don't realize what you are doing to your kids. I am aroound kids every day and you can tell the smoker homes a mile away. The kids' hair smells, their clothes, notebooks, even their lunch boxes.
GET IT? Probably not if you're a smoker.
Posted by c on September 29, 2007 12:25 PMWho cares about your anecdotes.Go peddle your hate on the children you babysit.They can't fight back.
Posted by Jimminy on September 29, 2007 01:49 PMRe-TARD-dead.
Posted by Dirk on September 29, 2007 03:29 PMSo Dirk,you'd have me dead,would you?
Posted by Jimminy on September 29, 2007 07:52 PMCasting pearl before swine is futile and getting people to step out of the propaganda mantra that has been instilled in them for the last 10 or 20 years, is like pulling hen's teeth. They are hooked on the belief drug the pharmaceutical pushers foisted on them and now it has destroyed their ability to think and replaced rational, reasonable, common sense thinking with emotional garbage.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 30, 2007 06:57 AMAnd just a question for the idiots that seem to be saying smoking should be banned becase of the smell of it: what about if I was offended by your after shave or perfume because of the way it made my hair or clothes smell, what about if you had bad breath and I was offended by you blowing it in my face, what about if I was offended by the loud music you played on the juke box becase it hurt my ears, what if the smell of the food you ordered offended me because it made me nauseous, what if the way you dressed offended my sense of style, what if your ideas offended my intelligence, what if I was offended by the way you dance because it was an insule to the arts, what if I was offended by the low MPG the car you drive gets, what if the sneakers you wear offends me because it reminds me of a long forgotten childhood traumatic experience, what if just the idea that you exist offends me. do I then have a right to insist on a law banning all these things?
All that is needed is for me to suggest that these actions on your part are detrimental to my health and just maybe might cause me to have a heart attack, and I have established the same case as you have to enact a law banning all of what you do and are, regardless of the damage it may do to your your business, your livelihood, your future and your retirerment security.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 30, 2007 07:34 AM