First, acknowledging that the post is about addressing ALF's behavior. That they'll conduct business with "the devil" if it somehow benefits them and fall short of practicing what they preach too in certain ways.
Now I'll move on to the basic principles they violate that disgusts me. I'll let Vogue speak for me since they did it so well in their response to these anti-American tyrants:
Lawmaker Who Attacked Mags Over Cig Ads Isn't Happy With Response
AdAge.com - August 16, 2007
http://adage.com/mediaworks/
arti...ticle_id=119899
Vogue Publisher Thomas A. Florio suggested that Congress pass new restrictions on tobacco advertising instead of trying to shame magazines.
"As members of the media, we at Vogue continue to practice our right of freedom of the press, expressing our views on such topics without pressure from, or regard for, a company who may advertise in Vogue, now or in the future," Mr. Florio said in a letter dated Aug. 7 and provided today by Ms. Capps. "In our opinion, however, the goal of Congress should be to create legal guidelines for the marketing, distribution and sale of tobacco products, rather than to bring pressure on a magazine to forgo its legal right to conduct business as approved by lawmakers of the United States."
****
What other LEGAL company is forced to limit where and how they advertise and to promote messages telling people NOT to use their product??!!??
It's insane and enough is enough. Enact prohibition through Congress or return to adhering to the laws of the country. What's taking place with the tobacco industry is a gross perversion of and insult to our free speech and free market values.
In a constitutional republic you can counter speech you don't like with more (opposite) speech, not suppress the speech of the other side.
There's one positive thing to take away from this:
"more than 40 members of Congress called on women’s magazines to refuse advertising for this product"
There's less nitwits in Congress than I thought.
"In a constitutional republic you can counter speech you don't like with more (opposite) speech, not suppress the speech of the other side."
Yeah, but in our government, you can counter speech you don't like with speech funded by, well, the government.
James,perhaps there were only 40 AWAKE at that time ?
only me.
I thought that one of the principles of common law was that unless something is explicitly illegal then it is implicitly legal?
Hearst and Conde Nast are perfectly entitled to sell their advertising space to whoever they please as long as it's for a legal product or service then, aren't they?
I find "or Legacy will end its partnership and stop honoring these companies as public health contributors." quite amusing as well, given that they're now hiding the names of their corporate partners.
I wonder what their reaction would be if Hearst and Conde Nast turned it about on Legacy and publicly and noisily dropped them?
Although TC is always so indignant about others use of their own money when iterating what they deem inappropriate, they obviously are only allowed a prominent media voice because they sought out conflicted funds as the foundation of their moralist campaign.
The planned process of HIA in use by the TC stakeholders promotes in it's training to seek out partners who would find mutual profits from the promotion of such a campaign.
TC cries foul a lot when in reality it is they who should be condemned for an inconsistent value system which applauds those in favor and aggressively condemns anyone or any though opposed to their group think. Are they claiming perfection while condemning everyone else?
Its really pathetic how groups like this with no ethical training or respect; at the drop of a hat are able to dispense medical and economic advice at will, without once considering the long term impact of what they insist is consensus and protective of communities.
TC consensus is so obviously reflective of a top down agreement to follow the leaders and keep your self in step, or risk being kept away from the group financed spotlight or worse; diminished financial returns on your investments.
Roughly translated
the grandstanding for the cameras in an obviously artificial created controversy we have seen all too often, is simply a sales pitch which needs to be sold to an executive board with members who are not subservient. Members who will change their operations decisions only under collusive preasure.
Legacy will likely encourage it's drug dealing partners to advertise more and pick up the slack if the Tobacco ads are dropped. An attempt to run the magazines by TC installing itself above the management who should be allowed to make major decisions.
As Michael leaned, and management boards of their corporate partners are just starting to find out; the cost of membership in TC is your personal opinion which will not be tolerated under any circumstances.
OT---Re:Smoking Ban in NY Cars:
http://www.silive.com/columnists...9690.xml&
coll=1
~snip~
"Children are not parental chattel, a fact clearly recognized by this state's child-protective laws. Gennaro's bill should be enacted into law because it furthers children's legitimate right to an environment that safeguards their health and promotes their wellbeing"
.
Sunz;
How many lies or exaggerations can you find just in the following? The Author is hardly an unbiased spectator.
" The Mayo Clinic concludes that a child who spends just one hour a day in a smoky room is inhaling as many dangerous chemicals as if he smoked 10 or more cigarettes. It also notes that secondhand smoke can cause asthma in children, exacerbates the condition in those who already have it, and precipitates respiratory infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis, chronic middle ear infections, and reduced lung capacity."
The Public Health juggernaut has no boundaries it will not cross, in order to install it's will on anyone who stands in it's way.
A top down moralist campaign which is arrogantly claiming the right to micro manage every aspect of human endeavor.
All things can be demonstrated to have Health outcomes, therefore Public Health should make all decisions. Public health are the new moral leadership of all WHO member States formerly referred to as independent Nations.
Kind of like the radical Muslim tradition of strict adherence to the rules, set out by the non separated "Talking heads" of the faith, comply or else.
I know Kevin. I'm thinking this is how they justify their jobs/positions in life. To save us all----lead us down the 'right' path.
I'm so tired of it all it makes me literally ill.
.
Unfortunately the paper does not value opinions enough to allow responses;
What the heck why waste it, here is what I tried to send them
Hello; I am writing in response to the article Recognizing the risks of secondhand smoke
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
DANIEL LEDDY
Sometimes the outlandishness of targeted propaganda just gets to you, and you just have to say something in response.
My word to you is "enough" The same utterance which brought McCarthy to a halt and Hitler to his knees. Where is the counter argument to public health promotions?
Promotions which operate deliberately in support of openly conflicted funding? Your journalist hires seem to be totally enthralled in the promotions of Socialist Industry dominance through UN agency corruption. Mussolini once referred to his brand of politics in exactly those terms as an Industrial Socialism.
The promotion of public acquisition of parental authority by your publication is beyond reprehensible and should be retracted and apologies made immediately.
Further the use of the term "child abuse" to sell your wares is entirely disrespectful and cruel to those who really were abused.
The act seems to downgrade our aversion of child abuse to a minor mistake in judgment, which should be punished with a minor fine and continued exposure without protection from the danger of further abuse. Is that the message being promoted?
The practice of regurgitation word for word off the news wires, does your readers no service and is promotional of fears and coerced undermining of personal rights and freedoms. Too many died in our past to have an arrogant red journalist simply brush those rights aside as though they had no meaning in deliberate use of children to force collusive decisions on their victims.
If you employ an unbiased investigative reporter assign them a task a relatively simple one, ask them;
How many lies or gross exaggerations can you find just in the following? The Author is hardly an unbiased spectator. Journalism in its highest form should be immune from any claim of participation in "making the news" but dedicated to simply reporting it.
" The Mayo Clinic concludes that a child who spends just one hour a day in a smoky room is inhaling as many dangerous chemicals as if he smoked 10 or more cigarettes. It also notes that secondhand smoke can cause asthma in children, exacerbates the condition in those who already have it, and precipitates respiratory infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis, chronic middle ear infections, and reduced lung capacity."
The Public Health juggernaut has no boundaries it will not cross, in order to install it's will on anyone who stands in it's way.
A top down moralist campaign which is arrogantly claiming the right to micro manage every aspect of human endeavor.
All things can be demonstrated to have Health outcomes, therefore Public Health should make all decisions. Public health are the new moral leadership of all WHO member States formerly referred to as independent Nations.
Kind of like the radical Muslim tradition of strict adherence to the rules, set out by the non separated "Talking heads" of the faith, comply or else.
Your organization seems to agree this would be for the enrichment of the human condition, how soon we did forget the identical mistakes of the past.
Boy, if we want to get into targeting the ignorant, why don't we discuss pharma ads targeting folks that know little to nothing about medicine? Appealing to the manliness of guys with ED? (Cialis, Viagra). Manipulating people by showing how their lives would be all better with this one little pill? It's the same thing the alcohol companies do with alcohol commercials...same thing cigarette companies were doing (though not on tv).
Kevin, great letter, I hope they print it - but not holding my breath.
I couldn't find any comment sections on the site, so apparently they just want to teach and not learn.
Oh, they don't want to hear from "addicts" and "tobacco apologists". Saying anything except the party line gets you blown off.
Tobacco is used by many, I've heard, as a slimming aid. No wonder then, that ads for smokes should turn up in a fashion magazine.
Is this clever marketing, or a cynical ploy to attract new customers? I don't know.
What I do know is this: 80 years ago about 75% of the population smoked and about 25% were obese.
In a few years we will have about 25% smoking and 75% obese.
This, then, is my question: which is the "better" death?
1. Keeling over with a heart attack from obesity.
Or,
2. Keeling over with a heart attack from smoking.
Same cardiac arrest, same result. Death.
Which death wins you a place in that cold, cold TC heart?
I saw on CNBC this morning that Philip Morris will be introducing a line of smokeless products under it's marlboro brand. The ananyists rate PM a buy , and UST a sell, believing Pm will take market share from UST. Bill Godshell....I see the cash register ringing again!
Back to the topic, how does American Legacy Found. know that camel 9 will make young women smoke, who otherwise would not take up the habit? Seems these are presumptions founded on past faulty presumptions. dave K
Colin Grainger - This, then, is my question: which is the "better" death?
1. Keeling over with a heart attack from obesity.
Or,
2. Keeling over with a heart attack from smoking.
Same cardiac arrest, same result. Death.
Which death wins you a place in that cold, cold TC heart?
.....
CG,
We mustn't forget the huge increase in Asthmatics and those millions (who never existed before) who are "super" allergic to tobacco smoke.
Colin Grainger - "This, then, is my question: which is the "better" death?
1. Keeling over with a heart attack from obesity.
Or,
2. Keeling over with a heart attack from smoking.
Same cardiac arrest, same result. Death.
Which death wins you a place in that cold, cold TC heart?"
Does not matter both count as a tobacco related death.
Excellent letter Kevin.
Dr. Siegel, there is no need for me to accuse you of anything because you make it clear what you are up to in each one of your posts. Defending smoking, smokers, and the tobacco industry.
This is what it's all about, getting young people to take up smoking. In Canada, tobacco advertising in magazines is banned, and along with other strong tobacco controls this has led to one of the lowest smoking rates anywhere. Only 14 % of adults in Canada smoke on a daily basis.
Dr. Siegel gets out of bed each day and makes it his personal mission to combat each and every one of these tobacco control measures. Today it's to attack a group that opposes tobacco advertising aimed at young people. Why don't you just cut the subterfuge and go work for PM? I could actually respect that.
The only tobacco control measure I've seen that Dr. Siegel doesn't oppose is indoor smoking bans, which he championed before he made his magical transformation to tobacco defender, so he can't very well change his position on that. Besides, he probably does believe in indoor smoking bans, any reasonable person would. But he can still undermine those efforts too in his own way.
It's very sad to see a medical doctor defend smoking. As for Iro Cyr and Joel Demers, I know they too are disciples of Dr. Siegel as he is frequently quoted by them on CAGE's website and letters to the editor -- generally out of context, naturally.
Dr. Siegel, your response to my last post is typical. Ignore everything of substance I say, in which I essentially demolish your arguments, and then jump on the one jackass thing I said, and imply that therefore nothing else I said could have any validity. That's quite typical of the way denialists (tobacco industry and other) operate, in my experience.
One of the lynchpins of tobacco control is that people smoke only because of the industry's insidious advertising. Some Big Tobacco psychologist mesmerizes them into doing so and they need the protection of the state. This ignores history.
Samuel Eliot Morison in his biography of Columbus wrote that within a hundred years of the explorer's landing in the New World the tobacco habit "had spread throughout the Western World, to men and women alike, despite the opposition of kings and clerics."
Harold Driver in "Indians of North America" noted that tobacco was cultivated in North America more widely than any other plant [including corn].
Johannes Wilbert in "Tobacco and Shaminism in South America" suggested that tobacco may be the very first cultivated plant in the New World.
Tobacco became near universal long before there was advertising, modern marketing, or a tobacco industry.
Glister;
It took some searching but I found a link that works. In case anyone else wants to give them a little what for.
http://www.silive.com/letters/advance/
Smoke em if you've got em
LOL
Only 14 % of adults in Canada smoke on a daily basis.
Another Lie from the Tobacco scam.
Try 26-28% of adult Canadians smoke.
You must be taking your information from an entirely misinformed source Like the Doctors for a smoke free shoe shine box, who get their information from tobacco sales tax figures. They have no way of gaging how many illegal cigarettes are sold. This would also demonstrate the increased ability now more than ever of children to buy cigarettes from numerous new sources who don't ask for their IDs or age. Most sell in bulk for a fraction of the cost to purchase cigarettes in the stores.
TC made it all possible, prices are now lower on the street than they have been in over 50 years.
What is the predicted result of that reality? The Tobacco Scam are selling more cigarettes today than PM could have ever dreamed possible.
The ONE jackass thing you said? I counted at least 3 in this post alone. You voted for George Bush didn't you? "If you don't agree with us and our methods you are not a true Patriot!", right?
I'm sure it's completely beyond you, but it IS possible to support a cause and actually INSIST on ethical behavior at the same time (hopefully while practicing it, but we'll see I suppose). Apparently to you, the end justifies the means, standards be damned! Any "reasonable" person does NOT believe in inside smoking bans. A REASONABLE person believes in inside smoking bans on PUBLIC property, that is government owned (courthouses, police stations, places where non-smokers MUST go). A REASONABLE person does not expect others to bow down to their every demand, because they are too stupid to see smoking and WALK AWAY, especially from property that doesn't belong to you. Quite frankly, you don't have any right to ENTER a restaurant. Ever heard the phrase "we have the right to refuse service to anyone"? Because that's PRIVATE property and if they want to kick you out, out you go. They can do it for no other reason than they don't like how your teeth show when you smile.
When you say something with validity, I assure you, we may very well listen. That does however, base itself on the assumption you don't make a complete ass out of yourself before then. The fact that you insist that you must support a cause, no matter how unconstitutional/illegal/hypocritical/deceptive it is has already ruined that. If we don't hold these idiots to standards, who will? You've shown YOU won't.
As far as getting kids to smoke, the doc doesn't have to. YOU do that, quite well I admit. I don't think I've seen as many teenagers smoking in YEARS. Way to go.
What I really see here and on other smokers' rights websites, sadly, is a few professional tobacco promoters working very hard to rally a small group of fanatical smokers against tobacco control initiatives in order to give the impression that there is widespread public opposition to such laws. See Appendix 8 of the tobacco promotion playbook, "Exploiting mentally vulnerable people".
http://geocities.com/corporate_o...pg=21&cnt=1&
t=a
Apparently it's not enough for tobacco companies to addict and kill their customers, but they also feel the need to rally them to promote their political agenda.
We rally ourselves thank you very much, since we ARE citizens of the country who pay our share of taxes and yours too. Or are smokers no longer citizens? We obviously have no right to speak, you people have made that clear. But we will do what we can to make ourselves heard. Unfortunately for you, at least currently, we DO have rights and we are smart enough to stand up for them without some figurehead whipping us into an overemotional, fearmongering frenzy.
Any names you would like to associate with your accusation scammer?
Oh crap, I've been talking to Cathy again...I'm out of the loop..sorry Cathy...I wouldn't want to exploit a mentally vulnerable person Please disregard my previous comments.
Stephen Helfer said:
"One of the lynchpins of tobacco control is that people smoke only because of the industry's insidious advertising."
Well not only because of advertising but but Big T didn't spend $13 billion in advertising in 2005 for no reason. They are smart enough not to waste their (your) money on something that doesn't work.
In relation to my blog, Cathy said: "Apparently it's not enough for tobacco companies to addict and kill their customers, but they also feel the need to rally them to promote their political agenda."
Cathy - In what way exactly does my blog involve the tobacco companies rallying smokers to promote their political agenda?
Dear Tinker Bell,
Do you have nothing better to do than waste your time on this and other 'smokers rights' websites?
I mean, there is a serious shortage of fairy dust and joy around the world you could be spreading.
And you could live in NeverNever Land forever---and never have to grow up.
CC:Iro Cyr
Joel Demers
Si
.
.
Well not only because of advertising but but Big T didn't spend $13 billion in advertising in 2005 for no reason. They are smart enough not to waste their (your) money on something that doesn't work.
Yeah, well, tell the tobacco company to scoot over in that big bed, big pharma is right in there with them. If you hold the tobacco company accountable for smokers, then you hold the pharma company accountable for hypochondriacs. Talk about targeting the mentally vulnerable. Hypochondria is a mental illness. Being a smoker is not. I know a woman who is on Medicaid who has cost our citizens more in the last 5 years than I have paid in the last 30, and I've had 4 children!
Only 14 % of adults in Canada smoke on a daily basis.
Cathy, you forgot a couple of words here, so allow me to correct it for you:
Only 14% of adults in Canada admit they smoke on a daily basis.
I’m sure you prefer your version, but I’d bet the farm mine is more accurate.
Cathy - In what way exactly does my blog involve the tobacco companies rallying smokers to promote their political agenda?
Come on Doc, you know as well as Cathy has accused, that you are a paid tobacco stooge….silly man. Can’t we press charges against her for “hitting and running”? There should be law…………maybe we gag her? And I know what she’ll say to that, so I can’t wait, as I know what MY response will be, as will Jalestra’s and everyone else’s on this blog (except maybe bill and the other big pharma stooges).
Jalestra said:
"If you hold the tobacco company accountable for smokers, then you hold the pharma company accountable for hypochondriacs."
They are equally scurillous characters.
This clown, -tobaccoscamalysis said:
" What I really see here and on other smokers' rights websites, sadly, is a few professional tobacco promoters working very hard to rally a small group of fanatical smokers against tobacco control initiatives in order to give the impression that there is widespread public opposition to such laws. See Appendix 8 of the tobacco promotion playbook, "Exploiting mentally vulnerable people".
Are you retarded or something?
Rescinding my PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS is all it took for me personally.
I own a hospitality business, and TC has simply crossed the line with me.
My restaurant is PRIVATE PROPERTY, and while it may be "open to the public" you and your smoke-choking friends are under no obligation to accept that open invitation at anytime, for any reason.
You are not required to eat there, and you certainly are not required to apply for a staff position there.
You never were and likely never will.
I don't receive any subsidies, grants, or any other funding from the government in order to keep the doors open. I PAY FOR EVERYTHING.
When the government starts providing me with funding, or in any way starts underwriting the operational costs of running this business, then I'll be more than happy to call it a PUBLIC PLACE, because it will in fact be just that. In the meantime, you are not entitled to a smoke-free environment by any right, real or imagined under the constitution. A Smoke Free environment is a PREFERENCE, not a right, and since it's my property, I'll reserve the right to provide the environment of MY CHOICE, and all you have to do is decide if you want to accept that open invitation to enter MY ENVIRONMENT, or not.
Forcing me to cater to only a portion of my customer base diminishes the economic vitality of MY business.
It's discriminatory toward MY customers and predjudicial treatment toward ME because I prefer to cater to EVERYONE without having to adhere to government sponsored and approved course of hatred toward a particular segment of the population. I don't need to hate in order to turn a profit. TC clearly does.
Stripping away my Property Rights of ownership and leaving me with only the responsibilities of that ownership means that I must continue to maintain the property and pay the taxes on it, but because I'm forced to cater to only a portion of my potential customers, there's less revenue to accomplish this responsibility, and because I no longer have the rights to dictate how the business operates, it will never achieve it's full profit and tax generating potential.
You know what rallied me to opposition of the health gestapo?
It certainly wasn't Big Tobacco, or Big Pharma. It wasn't any of the propaganda spewed by either side in this battle for control of the populations unquestioning loyalty.
It was you. As soon as you and your pin-headed pasty-faced friends decided that you could live my life better than I do.
When you decided that you could run my business better than me. When you decided that I'm wrong, no matter how right I am, no matter what proof I offer.
When you forced me to make a decision between quietly surrendering my civil liberties, and accepting less freedom than I am entitled to and join the ranks of the blind lemming followers of eternal health,...
Or join the ranks of the TC opposition.
I do believe I'm in good company.
The unregulated, hate spewing, and irresponsible rhetoric of Tobacco Control, that's being allowed and even promoted by an equally irresponsible government is directly responsible for my dissent.
I'm thankful that I'm not alone in my sentiment toward such traitorous entities. I take great solace in the fact that I'm able to think for myself, and I pity those who are just to weak to face the truth.
Tobacco Control is evil domestic terrorism, and along with their fearmongering support from "Public Health" they are destroying America.
Just my personal opinion though.
I'm still entitled to that.
They are equally scurillous characters
As are the charities and public health that leeches off of them and their filthy money.
.
Wasn't someone accusing smoker of always asking "what's next" (that would be you scamscamalysis)
Well look where you and your friends have ventured:
Woman banned from smoking in own garden
http://www.thelocal.se/8268/20070823/
Oh, but you say we are not saying you can't smoke.
~snip~ (such nice neighbors)
'"The only way we can get in and out of our house is by passing the path that faces your house. As such, we can no longer accept you poisoning our existence with your disgusting and unhealthy tobacco smoke," the lawyer wrote'
.
Just my personal opinion though.
I'm still entitled to that.
So far, anyway. Though from what I've been seeing lately, it won't be long before you will not be allowed to voice your opinion..........then they'll give you a "mandatory vaccination" for some imagined 'pandemic' for your own good that will also fry your brain cells so that you will no longer even THINK any personal opinions.
Sounds far-fetched, I know, but we thought smoking bans were far-fetched 30 years ago too.
Well said Lighningboy
Too bad more in the hospitality Industry didn't have the guts to stand on conviction, as opposed to cowering under the inspiration of fear. this discussion would have never been necessary.
Perhaps the Fat pandemic and the Alcohol bans will get them motivated. The WHO is targeting them, and the longer they wait to make a stand the less likely they will be able to salvage any future business.
Woman banned from smoking in own garden
What is it with the lawyers in Sweden? This is the second such story, and both times it's the lawyer who's the weak ill one pressing charges.
Karma, that's all I can say.........the karma they are evoking I wish I could witness.
To be honest Lynda, I think this is the same as the one you are thinking from last year. This is the outcome from that lawsuit.
.
BTW LighteningBoy---I caught your letters in the paper, but lost the link as I tried to post here.
Was all set to send some help your way. The antis there were MOST upset with you that you would not name your restaurant. You hung tough with them.
.
LightningBoy said
"This clown, -tobaccoscamalysis said:
" What I really see here and on other smokers' rights websites, sadly, is a few professional tobacco promoters working very hard to rally a small group of fanatical smokers against tobacco control initiatives in order to give the impression that there is widespread public opposition to such laws. See Appendix 8 of the tobacco promotion playbook, "Exploiting mentally vulnerable people".
Are you retarded or something?
Rescinding my PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS is all it took for me personally.
I own a hospitality business, and TC has simply crossed the line with me.
My restaurant is PRIVATE PROPERTY, and while it may be "open to the public" you and your smoke-choking friends are under no obligation to accept that open invitation at anytime, for any reason.
You are not required to eat there, and you certainly are not required to apply for a staff position there.
You never were and likely never will.""
When I Emailed every Maryland politician recommending voting against the smoking ban, I did so also for properties rights. I am not a tobacco stooge, but actually earn my money at tax payer expense working for a Federal Research Lab. In addition I run a business with my wife. My own delegates and senators were against the ban. This is the Email response I got from the only Medical Doctor in the Maryland Legislature. This was his response to my Email:
"Thank you for contacting me with your comments regarding a statewide smoking ban.
As a parent and a physician, I certainly understand concerns many have about second-hand smoke that exists in public venues. There are many establishments statewide, including bars and family restaurants, that have chosen on their own to become smoke-free. I applaud them and frequent these establishments.
I believe that government should proactively issue health and safety
regulations in order to protect the public from hidden risks. The inspection
of a restaurant kitchen and preparation area would be an example of that protection - an inspection of parts of the establishment that the public does not see. Bars and restaurants where smoking is permitted are hardly hidden risks.
Imposing a smoking ban on bars and restaurants, which already indicate
whether they are smoke-free or not, would be no different than banning
businesses from promoting rock climbing, snow and water skiing, or white water rafting, because they are all activities with high risks that are well known to the public.
I would support laws to require establishments to indicate whether or not they are smoke-free. This gives the consumer a clear indication of the
environment that they are about to enter and empowers them to choose whether or not to be exposed to the risk. If businesses begin to lose business because they are finding that customers are choosing to say no to smoking venues, they will change. That's the beauty of a free-market economy - it will be a consumer's free and informed choice, not government's mandate.
With regards to exposure of employees to second-hand smoke, the same choice
exists. They should be told whether or not they will be exposed to
second-hand smoke in the working environment, and then be free to choose to work there or not. Again, by example, why do we let coal companies expose miners to known risks or voluntary hospitals expose heath care workers to HIV positive patients? The answer's obvious - workers accept those risks in return for wages. To impose a statewide smoking ban would be to allow government to chip away at yet another form of personal freedom - a problem in its own sense.
Thank you for taking the time to write. As with many issues that come before the legislature, I know that my view may be different from yours - but I hope you understand the reasoning behind the position I take when I cast my vote on an issue as controversial as this. It is not without an appreciation that there are very valid points to consider on both sides of this issue.
Sincerely,
Senator Andrew P. Harris, MD
Office of Senator Andrew P. Harris, MD
420 James Senate Office Bldg.
110 College Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
410.841.3706 (p)
410.841.3750 (f)"
He did vote against the ban, but the ban passed anyways. Their was talk about exempting private clubs like the VFW and the like. But they were included also, which I like since we will have a lot of pissed of veterans (a powerful voting group). The law passed with a hardship exemption. But is still is not clear how that will be handled. In every bar I go to over 50% of the clients are smokers. These tend to be red neck bars where even the wait staff smokes. While the senator is not mine, he is the kind of reasonable politician we all need. In addition, I am considering starting web site that will let business owners, property rights advocates, and smokers see a list of politicians who voted for the ban so they can be taken to task in the next election. My own legislators also contacted me and I will be pushing them to introduce legislation more in line to what the senator proposes.
LightningBoy if you have lost money as a result of the ban, can you not take your government to court and demand money as this might be considered a public taking? Kinda like the government limiting the use of private property or taking property to expand a road. Not a lawyer, not sure if it will work.
One farther comment. Why can't you, Micheal Siegel, take a stance similar to Senator Andrew P. Harris, MD? Why the heavy handedness? If you really believe SHS is such a serious hazard, why not support complete smoking bans (prohibition). This is what I believe Cathy wants and if you are as convinced about the dangers, you really should fall in line. If not could it be that you do not believe it is really that serious? I do not consider myself a smokers rights advocate as I know the government could easily prohibit smoking. Thus there is no right to smoke. So SHS is really that bad or not. Which is it?
Way to go, Mikey!
tobaccoscamalysis taliBANist supportist---Damn, Osama your voice rings from the mountain top!
As I wrote in a letter to the Legacy Foundation's Cheryl Healton earlier this week, if the cosigners of the letter to Susan Ivey urging Reynolds American to withdraw Camel #9 from the market truly opposed cigarette company target marketing of women, they would have sent a similar letter to Philip Morris executives urging them to withdraw Virginia Slims and Super Slims (which have a greater market share than Camel #9) from the market.
But I strongly doubt that CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA and other cosigners of that letter would have agreed to cosign a similar letter to Philip Morris executives since they are collaborating with Philip Morris to enact FDA tobacco legislation, and since a key lobbying tactic of those organizations is to single out Reynolds and its products for vilification.
http://www.projo.com/news/
conten...KO.25d8914.html
To think this was the land of Walter Williams!
You all gotta read this.
I don't have healthcare.
It is rediculously expensive, but I could manage it at $560 a month for myself. (A smoker over 45 years old.)
That $560 a month figure is 5 years old BTW.
I don't have it now because I haven't been to the doctor in more than 5 years. There simply hasn't been any reason to go, and at $560.00 a month for the past 60 months, that's $33,600.00 that I would have simply given away,......for NO reason.
THAT'S NEARLY 3 YEARS WORTH OF MORTGAGE PAYMENTS!
Offer me coverage that rebates the rediculously expensive premiums at the end of the year if I don't use the plan, ...or at least a sizeable portion of those premiums, and then you've got a plan worth buying into.
Want to reduce Healthscare costs? Stop stealing from people that pay into it, but don't actually use it.
nemo31: Scary. This should be a wake up call to the obese to what is going on. Also, why we should not have national health insurance. My personal belief is that all medical care should be pay as you go. Then watch the cost of health care goes down and freedom return as no one (Bill G.) could complain about what others are costing them.
For your fat people out there (I am one of them). We already have the science for obesity. McDonald's is as harmful as brief exposures to SHS for heart disease. Obesity is contagious. Having fat friends makes you fat, mother's eating the wrong foods during pregnancy increases the risk (causes?) obesity in their children, and obesity can be spread through a cold virus. Does that not all sound familiar?
As a father of an 8 year old, currently the biggest health risk is coming up. Sending my child to public school. Germ city. One kid gets sick, and most do. Believe me when I tell you that, you and your child will be exposed to much more health risks once your kid goes to school, then the minor risk of SHS. Perhaps we should ban school in favor of home schooling for all. Are you a father Dr. Siegel? What is your take on health risks of public school compared to lets say SHS for children and then by extension their parents?
'Stop stealing from people that pay into it, but don't actually use it.'
Exactly----let the hypocondriacs like Bill and RamaScamaDingDong, start paying their own freight. They constantly claim we are the source of the high rates. IMO it is the 'worried well' neurotics that are driving the costs.
I haven't been to the doctor in about 5 years---I stay away and stay well.
.
Bill-
Interesting point. It's fascinating that the complaint is only about the R.J. Reynolds brand.
This brings up the question of why Camel No. 9 advertising is uniquely terrible, since Marlboro and Newport are actually the brands which are appealing to the majority of youths. And why does Virginia Slims get off the hook?
Again - the lack of consistency is eye-opening. It raises questions for me about the integrity of these groups.
The Blue Cross plan is...interesting. If a smoker breaks a leg, he has to pay more for it than a non-smoker does. As punishment for smoking.
Colin is dead right. As gov't charts show, obesity has risen over the last 30 years in direct, inverse proportion to the decline in American smoking.
Lightning Boy--
Bravo! Someone said something about a letter you got published. Where? Got a link?
And also (I ask crankily) could all of us refrain from making partisan (as in Dem V Rep) kind of cracks? Why alienate the many good Democrats or Republicans who've bonded in common cause? The last thing that's useful is division within the ranks.
:
14% of Canadians smoke? mm
Rampant black market.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpo...4b525ef9d26&
k=0
The initiative comes as police, industry and anti-smoking advocates warn of a rampant black market in tobacco, which has made unlikely allies of groups normally at each others' throats. The underground products - mostly coming from native reserves in the United States or Ontario - rob the legitimate industry and government of revenue, shrink the high prices that are considered a key deterrent to potential smokers and allegedly fuel organized crime.
According to a recent industry report, close to one in three cigarettes bought in Ontario and Quebec are illicit, while police say more cigarettes are being slipped into Canada now through eastern Ontario's Akwesasne Mohawk reserve than during the smuggling heydays of the 1990s.
GreatScot
Bill G, when are you guys coming out with Teeth-Whitening Chewing Tobacco?
That will be a great advertising campaign in Vogue and Cosmopolitan...
Can't wait...
Note that tobacco promoters and their lackeys frequently overestimate the number of smokers so as to imply that there would be strong public opposition to tobacco control laws. Turns out though that even most smokers support public indoor smoking bans, particularly once implemented and they find that the sky doesn't fall in as per the claims of the tobacco promoters.
First of all, I find it laughable that Sunz and tnsmoker object to the implication that they may in fact be Iro Cyr and Lucy Brown respectively, then refuse to identify themselves. It seems to me that if these people choose to remain anonymous, I may assume whatever I like about their identity.
The same goes for "si". I never would have believed there could be a more deranged smokers' rights nut than Joel Demers. But if "si" isn't Joel Demers (and I'm far from convinced of that), then congratulations "si", you're the new champ. (And unlike you, I have no interest in Mein Kampf.)
As for Dr. Siegel's objections, unless he has met "Sunz" and "si" personally, I don't think he's really in a position to say who they are and who they are not.
It's funny how these smokers' rights fanatics are so proud of their beliefs, but don't want to reveal who they are. More than once I have seen such people imply or claim to be non-smokers, to deflect criticism that they are just defending a drug habit and that they're really no better than crack addicts.
Speculating on the identity of "Sunz" and "si" was valid but unwise. My mistake was letting the worm off the hook by giving Dr. Siegel something trivial to respond to while ignoring the substance of my comments, and straying for one moment from my purpose here, which is to hold him accountable for his cynical BS (scamalysis) on this blog.
An example from Dr. Siegel's post: "If they can come into our car, then they can come into our home..." I could provide you with a long list of things people can do in their homes but not in a car when it's out on a public road. The suggestion that car smoking bans will lead to all kinds of state infringement inside the home has no merit, and amounts to demagoguery. Ooo, what will the health Nazis go after next? Be fearful, get angry. And on it goes in post after post. It's very sad to watch a medical doctor defend smoking.
Expect more, if and when I find the time. Of course, if he prefers to just have his disciples here, he can always ban me.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
This particular post would be unnecessary if the U.S. did the sensible thing and banned tobacco advertising in media accessible by minors, as we have done in Canada.
What's really needed is a law requiring tobacco companies to publicly disclose all their spending. That's not too much to ask of an industry that causes more deaths than cocaine, auto accidents, AIDS, alcohol, heroin, fire, suicide and homicide combined. Then we would see fewer smokers' rights websites and blogs, or at least we would know where this stuff is coming from so we can give it the credibility it deserves. And it's the same for oil companies and their campaign to head off regulations to curb global warming. Same deal. It's all about putting voices out there that purport to be objective, but in fact aren't.
See Appendix 9 of the tobacco promotion playbook, "The denial machine".
http://geocities.com/corporate_o...pg=22&cnt=1&
t=a
You know, it's really easy to accuse folks of being cowards hiding behind a user name. In case you don't know, there are wierdos out there, and not everyone feels comfortable putting their information out for everyone to find it. I find it disgusting that you are so upset that you call them cowardly, while not recognizing the very real dangers of psychos on the net. What a convenience for you. But, if you feel better I will happily put my information up, because luckily I'm from Texas, and if some psycho comes to MY house, I'm more than welcome (and happy) to shoot them and in a completely legal and justified manner. I hate to say it, but some of you anti-smokers ARE psychos and your abilities to harass another CITIZEN of this country knows no bounds.
And while you're being so accusatory about others not posting THEIR information...I don't see your name, address, and phone number on here either.
Again - the lack of consistency is eye-opening. It raises questions for me about the integrity of these groups.
What integrity, Doctor? They have none, never have had any, and never will have any. They do not know the definition of the word, and ALF and CTFK are among the worst offenders and always have been.
I put Legacy in the same category as another group with the same ALF moniker - the Animal Liberation Front----which is actually a terrorist organization, just like Legacy and the rest of tobacco control. Just like tobacco control-freaks ALF seeks to destroy certain industries by any means possible, but unlike tobacco control, ALF is at least honest and owns up to their actions. In other words, as despicible as they are, at least the ALF has integrity.
As for Dr. Siegel's objections, unless he has met "Sunz" and "si" personally, I don't think he's really in a position to say who they are and who they are not.
If IPs can be tracked, then actually, he would be able to make negative determinations if posts were deemed from an authentic server, etc.
It's funny how these smokers' rights fanatics are so proud of their beliefs, but don't want to reveal who they are.
I take offense to this, because the mentality is that my whole life must be on display just so I can post an unpopular view on a blog.
I think also there are other worries and barriers about posting, especially on the side of the issue that is agreed by received knowledge to be wrong. And people deserve semi-anonymity. I really don't care where someone lives when I argue a point with them--in fact, if I want to generalize beyond their argument, it doesn't really matter. And quite frankly I am sick of anyone who says ANYTHING against anti-smoking measures being labeled as a loudmouth.
Because I think I haven't really been courageous enough to stand up for my rights in the past, and I want to change that. And I would feel this way whether you posted or not.
PS who am I? Or am I not shilling loudly enough? 
Hi All:
You will notice my new credentials. I just graduated. Now the senseless nonsense I speak carries weight by virtue of my education.
A US Corporation selling a legal product advertised? Oh, the huge manateee!!!
Why not just ban tobacco already? We won't need to have these debates anymore.
Anyone?
What Eric, no BS? lol
The suggestion that car smoking bans will lead to all kinds of state infringement inside the home has no merit, and amounts to demagoguery.
You really need to get your head out of the sand dear…..they’ve already started the “home infringement” and I’m talking about homes that have NO children in them…….but just because it ‘bothers’ the neighbors. California in particular is fond of this. A judge in Colorado has forbidden a couple from smoking in their condo because it annoys their neighbor (and the condo assoc has a rule about no smoking anywhere on the grounds, not even in your car in the parking lot).
What was that you were saying about our suggestion having no merit? And not for nothing missy, but TC is the biggest outfit using emotional blackmail to get their way (“for the children”).
Try doing your homework next time.
Ooo, what will the health Nazis go after next?
In case you haven’t noticed (you really do have your head buried somewhere don’t you), they are going after a number of things………..trans fats, foi grois (sp?), sugars, peanuts, tag at recess in some schools, tracking diabetics blood sugar tests (NYC), baggy pants, bottled water. That’s all I can list off the top of my head and that I’ve recently read or heard about.
And you are more than capable of googling all this stuff yourself, so I am not going to do your work for you on this.
Care to try again?
This particular post would be unnecessary if the U.S. did the sensible thing and banned tobacco advertising in media accessible by minors, as we have done in Canada.
So you are suggesting that tobacco companies ONLY advertise to men? Because the ONLY media NOT accessible to minors (not legally anyway) are the girly mags and porn rags. Talk about squashing “free press” and “freedom of speech”. IF pharmaceuticals can promote illnesses to push their drugs, then tobacco companies are allowed to advertise also. IF they can air ads for Viagra and Cialis during prime time when kids see them, then cigarettes can surely be advertised on TV AFTER prime time for the adults. As long as the product is LEGAL they should be allowed to advertise it. I don’t know about Canada, but here these are constitutional rights here.
Jalestra, she’s just doing that because I busted her for not using the name she used to use. Trying to come on board with another name in my mind is quite sneaky and deceitful and says much about her character.
She refuses to understand the difference between always posting with the same name and trying to post under a different name.
She refuses to understand that Si, Sunz, Gabz, yourself, West, etc………..always post under those IDs.
I use my real first name and last initial, I wouldn’t post my full name for the very reason you cite………..too many physchos out there, and personally I feel she is one of them.
And I may as well fully disclose who I am: Lynda F QBTU, VM, EVPG (Queen Bee Of The Universe, Virgin Mary, Executive Vice President to Goddess) 
Jalestra wrote:
"In case you don't know, there are wierdos out there, and not everyone feels comfortable putting their information out for everyone to find it."
Yes, the wierdos are the selfish smokers who post on this blog ad nauseum, who hide behind alias names and handles, and who make personal attacks against those of us who use our names so others can find out our information.
jalestra, the whole world is full of BS.
Everyone is a selfish liar...big tobacco companies, anti smoking groups...there are no good guys here.
Don't take me too seriously. When in Rome...
Bill, I'm sure it is killing you that somewhere at this very moment:
Some guy you've never met
In a PA city you have never heard of
In a strip club you would never walk into
On property you don't own
Is stuffing money that is not yours
Into the G-string of a woman who would never talk to you
While drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette
And you are at home trying to figure out a way to put a stop to their fun on a Friday night.
I can't join them, nor would I want to. I have to give the kids a bath and read them a bedtime story.
Cathy wrote: "What's really needed is a law requiring tobacco companies to publicly disclose all their spending. ... Then we would see fewer smokers' rights websites and blogs, or at least we would know where this stuff is coming from so we can give it the credibility it deserves."
Cathy - Which smokers' rights websites and blogs are you then accusing of being funded by the tobacco companies? Can you please be specific if you are going to make an accusation like that without backing it up.
Cathy - Which smokers' rights websites and blogs are you then accusing of being funded by the tobacco companies? Can you please be specific if you are going to make an accusation like that without backing it up.----Dr. Siegel
He's right Cathy. Prove it.
Now if you'll excuse me, the limousine is waiting outside to take me to the airport where the Philip Morris private plane (where smoking is not only permitted but encouraged)is waiting to take me and my date Pamela Anderson to our weekend vacation in Cabo.
I have a better idea, in a variation of the spammers own words.
What's really needed is a law requiring TC to publicly disclose all their spending AND, all of their "donors" AND, all of their "affiliates" AND all of their "grass roots" groups, AND, AND, AND,......(you get the idea.)
How 'bout some detailed financial disclosure from TC. That would be refreshing, and I'm sure the money changes hands often enough to create a "best seller" book form. That would likely be either a "who done it" mystery, or a "fantasy fiction". Either way I'm sure it would be a real page turner, but based on the TC track record of honesty to date, I'm leaning toward the fiction.
As has been pointed out here on numerous occasion;
pot, kettle, black.
Cathy wrote: "This particular post would be unnecessary if the U.S. did the sensible thing and banned tobacco advertising in media accessible by minors, as we have done in Canada."
Um. Are you suggesting the we give up are 1st Amendment right to free speech?
Bill G. wrote: "Yes, the wierdos are the selfish smokers who post on this blog ad nauseum, who hide behind alias names and handles, and who make personal attacks against those of us who use our names so others can find out our information."
Not hiding. Following the link. My credentials are government employee for a federal research lab and business owner. Yes you are paying my salary. Degrees include BS Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, MS Mechanical Engineering, Drexel University, Pennsylvania. Author refereed articles in refereed scientific journals, referee for scientific journals, presenter/author international conferences (including but not limited to Canada, Italy, Greece, England, Germany), bilingual (English/German), grew up overseas, world traveler, etc. Where did your narrow mind take you? Have you even been outside your state?
Yes, the wierdos are the selfish smokers who post on this blog ad nauseum, who hide behind alias names and handles, and who make personal attacks against those of us who use our names so others can find out our information.
Jesus Bill, can't you once make a comment without name calling? What the hell is wrong with you? And then the minute someone so much as implies you are a bully you go whining to the Doc about how mean we are to you. I know 4 year olds who are more mature than that Bill.
I don't hide behind any aliasess, but as a female living alone, my real first name is ALL I'm willing to divulge. You don't like that? Too friggin bad. I look out for my own safety as best I can.
Cathy - Which smokers' rights websites and blogs are you then accusing of being funded by the tobacco companies? Can you please be specific if you are going to make an accusation like that without backing it up.
Cathy, didn't your mother ever teach you any manners? IF you are going to make accusations, you damned well better have the proof to back them up.
WHAT groups are you talking about? Specifically.
You all realize that we probably just chased Cathy off for a while, because she always disappears when confronted for proof.
Then she'll try a new ID......unfortunately she is impaired enough to not realize that she gives herself away every time.
So we're listing credentials and ID as qualification for,...what?
Expressing an opinion?
Ummmm ok.
I'm a 35 year smoker, and before November 6, 2006 I didn't even know what the term "TC" stood for.
Now I know that it means the gradual movement of the US government toward Socialist utopia funded by my own tax dollars and a major funding effort by the US Pharmaceutical industry.
I'm a business man whose only connection to the tobacco industry is as an over-paying customer for most of the 35 years previously noted.
Ummmm what else, ..oh my name.
LightningBoy will do just fine, because that's all you get.
My friends call me LB.
BillG and other Freedom hating Anti-Tobacco zealots can call me "the enemy", that will be just fine too.
It is always fun to see the overly abusive comments from the outsiders, who can't come in to play simply because we don't like them.
That is what Kills Cathy / AKA Billy in the basement. The more they complain the more you can be sure they see something they won't admit is killing them,. that being simply another opinion which diminishes their importance in any belief of it's validity.
You don't need Big tobacco funding to be opposed to the type of people drawn to these selfish campaigns.
Self-ish is exactly the most appropriate description, despite the fact it is their favorite projected accusation against others.
Smoking has always had an etiquite which was of acomodation and socialization. Those on the outside were always envious of the cool kids in school and the fun people in the bars, who felt the whiners just were not a lot of fun to be around, Simply too depressing.
The Cathy/Bills of this world will never be satisfied despite how far society has bent over to please them, they continue to cry as their personalities demand, never satisfied because the incessant whining is the only thing in life which makes them feel complete.
In reality by the gross and organized in common chants by the thousands can anyone truly state they are impressed by the lot of them? I certainly am not.
I smoke, and if that bothers someone else that remains a problem for them to deal with, I have other things in life much more important and certainly a lot more fun, than listening to unimportant whiners, demanding I legitimize their causes or justify their lies.
Cathy/Bill/Group think or what ever your calling yourself at this moment, your acting out is too disgusting for words, get some psychological help, because no one here is going to offer you any.
your addiction is one of hatred and that is more lowly than the lowest of crack hoes who you believe yourself above, while the rest of us can only watch and pity your ignorance.
Boy I think Cathy has blown a gaskett!!!
Si is Si, although often he is Anonymous. He corrects himself as quickly as he realizes his error.
I am Sunz, and no one but Sunz, and on occasion am Anonymous as well.
I will call Iro and Joel (whoever and wherever they are) and let them know that in addition to the tobaccoscam deal, you are now currently running, you are now involved in idenity theft. I think that's against the law.
You assign new idenities to your liking and I'm sure you have found a way to profit from this as well. I will email the FBI and other authorities. The Pope might also be interested in this religous zealotry gone awry.
.
Guys, with a nut like this running loose, she wonders why we protect ourselves???? God help us all.
.
Kevin==="your addiction is one of hatred and that is more lowly than the lowest of crack hoes who you believe yourself above..."
And the toxic venom that comes from their keyboards is more poisonous than any tobacco smoke known to date.
.
Bill, when I say psycho, I mean murderous, psychotic, criminal person. Surely you aren't calling smokers that are you?
And if you are, then I will be happy to pull out the list of names I have for you...blind, bigot, zealot..and those are the NICE ones. I have yet to see a smoker invade someone's home and make another person smoke. However, psychos will not only invade your home, but also try to torture/maim/kill you.
Oh yes ask for all our info so that you know who and where to send the minions so that they can do what they do to any opposition to the diatribe.
Come on Cathy, you accuse everyone of doing exactly what you are doing! Just because you receive funding, and hide behind fake names doesn't give you very much ability to throw stones in your glass house.
Come on tell me where I'm getting my money from, since you know! (ps- haven't talked to the tobacco co., or even got any $ from them) You think that using funding from gov't's tobacco taxes cleans your hands; really? Your only one step away from the tobacco co. money; cause you rely on smokers just as much as the tobacco companies do!
I guess its sad to be beaten by someone who can afford dialup eh??? LOL I know not as good as your flashy money can buy, but I actually care; I'm not paid (unlike you) for this response or caring I show.
I have yet to see anyone in Canada who is for bans, not profit from their "advocacy" somehow! They even have to pay the "youth advocates" (1) through the health units!
(1) Sudbury Youth Tackle Tobacco
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2006
"With funding provided by the Ministry of Health Promotion’s Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy, the Sudbury & District Health Unit has hired youth peer leaders to support the province’s efforts to become smoke-free on May 31, 2006. The peer leaders make up two groups: the Urban Youth Action Alliance and the Francophone Youth Action Alliance. They are two of 31 youth action alliances across Ontario. Their common goal is to involve youth in tobacco control activities and improve the health of their communities.
http://www.sdhu.com/content/news...sp?n=388&
lang=0
Typical ad:
We Offer:
Hours of work: Casual part-time as needed, Monday-Sunday, work schedules are developed in advance. Approximately 10-15 hours per week
Wage Rate: $8.00 per hour
Forward confidential resume by June 29, 2007 to:
Brant County Health Unit
Sandra Wilson, Manager, Human Resources
typical activity- picking up a few butts on a cold day to pass out information to the throngs not at the beach
Lynda F wrote:
"In case you haven’t noticed...they are going after a number of things………..trans fats, foi grois (sp?), sugars, peanuts, tag at recess in some schools, tracking diabetics blood sugar tests (NYC), baggy pants, bottled water. That’s all I can list off the top of my head..."
Off the top of my head I recall a politician in (I think) New Mexico proposing car seats for pets, and a councilwoman in L.A. trying to ban soft drinks in parks. Either to do with obesity or diabetes.
Locally, they banned desserts in the elementary schools. Their reasoning? The national obesity epidemic.
Bill, Bill, BILL.
Buddy, Buddy, BUDDY!
Being called a weirdo is a step down from being called a rapist, and yet, and yet...
This foul smoker cannot feel properly grateful.
I was considering whether to say, good point about Marlboro/Newport vs Camel #9 in the other thread. I felt guilty thinking, "Why bother, after such a good observation he'll come up with a nonsequitur in another thread."
I didn't think it'd be so soon.
It's really a shame, too. You probably should just be happy that those of us who vocally oppose bans are still "denormalized" enough not to post our full names and that there are only a few of us, so far. Can't you see the spittoon as half-full? If it's just about the smoke, which is much worse than a few insults(or you're in pretty hot water) what's a few insults before(at least in theory) the anti-anti-smokers quiet down?
And let's be honest, you don't mind dropping your full name on us when you mention whom you've worked with to pass smoke-free laws, or how long you've been hed of Smoke Free PA. A bit of the sin the other way from wanting anonymity, I'd say.
Your post reminds me of that one book, "All the insults I really needed to know, I learned in Kindergarten." Wait, no, that wasn't quite it.
While Bill has been boasting that he's never taken money from... who?... Big Pharm?... he's been otherwise silent on the subject of government and NGO grants -- much of which is filthy tobacco money, extruded from MSA or from taxes on cigarettes-- provided by, for instance, a local DOH to fertilize the (wink-wink-nod) grass roots whose assignment is to lobby the same DOH and the same local government or government agency to ban, tax and scorn.
So how bout it, Bill?
Cathy
I could provide you with a long list of things people can do in their homes but not in a car when it's out on a public road. )
(Clearly, she jests at cars who never felt a ... thing.) And oh yes, please do provide us with that list. Honest; we're all ears.
:
Personally I welcome Cathy's posts. Her blind bigotry and ridiculous arguments does more harm than help to TC.
If I believed in conspiracy I would wonder why TC haven't ordered her to be silent. Perhaps she is a smoker highlighting the irrational rantings of the Tobacco Control Industry by pretending to be in the TCI? Maybe she is Iro??
I found it quite touching that Bill G jumped to her defense. Unfortunately he reverted to type with the usual insults.
GreatScot
And oh yes, please do provide us with that list. Honest; we're all ears.
Hmmmm, I know I can come up with 3 things immediately: No sexual activity, no undressing, no drinking alcohol.
The reasons? Easy:
Puritans believe sexual acts to be sinful and dirty, and ONLY necessary for procreation. Not that I mind not having to witness various sexual acts in public, but THAT is the reason it has to be kept private. They don't get that we ARE sexual creatures.
The undressing thing? Well that's because men don't like seeing other men nude and can't control themselves when seeing females nude. On the other hand, there's quite a few bodies out there that make me grateful for this law as seeing them nude would truly have me doubled over and heaving......hehehehehe
Drinking alcohol DOES in fact impair one's thinking and refelxes. And this is one law I think makes sense. Why we can't drink out in the open in the park or beach, or even on the street walking, is beyond my comprehension, because the worst they can do is just fall down. But in the car, it makes sense to not take in anything that will impair your reflexes and judgment while driving what then becomes a lethal weapon if you lose control.
Those are the three I can think of that Cathy will use to justify not smoking in a car with children. Though I also heard that somewhere they are trying to make it illegal to smoke in your car, period, children or no children. Go figure.
Lynda,
that somewhere would be the UK.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/
u...2078600,00.html
Greatscot
Thank you GreatScot. I thought it was the UK I heard that about but didn't want to single you out.
Commenting by HaloScan
