PDA

View Full Version : Bravo, Obama!



Adamodeus
23-06-2009, 02:44
Now if only the pathetic Russian lawmakers did 1/10th of what this law means. But no, cigarettes in Russia are still cheaper than in Africa.

Well done, Obama!

BBC NEWS | Americas | Obama signs tobacco bill into law (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8113810.stm)

Judge
23-06-2009, 12:33
The Kremlin would have a revolution on its hands if the price for a pkt of cigs was the same like in America or the EU.

annasophia
23-06-2009, 12:49
Pfaff. Red herrings.

Just like gay marriage and teaching of evolution/creation in schools, politicians in the US love to sidetrack the public with these meaningless campaigns to distract their attention from the real realities and pressing issues. Media manipulation of the public's frontal lobe while real issues are buried and ignored.

A *smokescreen* you might say.

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 15:17
The Kremlin would have a revolution on its hands if the price for a pkt of cigs was the same like in America or the EU.


Indeed, there would be riots immediately. One of the reasons USSR fell so quickly was the severe shortage of these commodities in the past. I remember a coupon-based distribution of vodka, wine and cigs in the beginning of the 90ties.

Judge
23-06-2009, 15:23
Indeed, there would be riots immediately. One of the reasons USSR fell so quickly was the severe shortage of these commodities in the past. I remember a coupon-based distribution of vodka, wine and cigs in the beginning of the 90ties.

I'll be on top of the tanks if my LD cigs go any higher.already bloody 16 rubles,was only 7 rubles 5 years ago.:cussing::cussing:
Cigs, vodka and gas for living are 3 things the Kremlin must never touch.Imagine if they hike the prices up now,in crisis time.

Qdos
23-06-2009, 15:24
I don't smoke, well not nowadays, I'm an ex-smoker and I quit before the UK ban on smoking in public places, but after the UK tobacco advertising ban was implemented. If you think Obamas tobacco legislation is tough then look instead at the UK, where it is far tougher!

You can't smoke in bars, cafes, shops, restaurants or clubs. Nowhere in any indoor public place - including trains, stations, planes, passenger ship indoor areas, your workplace, etc, etc.

They're now also making noises about banning smoking in the home where you may have children, and from banning smoking in cars!

And you reckon Obama is tough? He's a pussycat... :)

Judge
23-06-2009, 15:32
' ban smoking in cars'

It's madness,you are stuck in traffic,late for work and need to calm your nerves.I can see an increase in road rage.:ak::ak:

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 18:15
I'll be on top of the tanks if my LD cigs go any higher.already bloody 16 rubles,was only 7 rubles 5 years ago.

That's what I meant when saying once that my life was much better under Yeltsin:). KGB sucks. My salary used to be around 25 thousand rubles, but I was renting a one room apartment for... 600 (six hundred rubles). Besides, we had free press back then, like NTV, where Putin was mocked openly:).
I guess I need to start writing something real nasty here so that FSB puts me in jail for a year, and then I can apply for a political asylum and will go to GB for nice government-sponsored life and fat ugly pussies:).

Qdos
23-06-2009, 18:22
I guess I need to start writing something real nasty here so that FSB puts me in jail for a year, and then I can apply for a political asylum and will go to GB for nice government-sponsored life and fat ugly pussies:).

I saw a few of those fat ugly wimmen last night on a drinking tour, and I tell you... the gulag would be better RL, don't doubt my word... :devil:

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 18:25
I saw a few of those fat ugly wimmen last night on a drinking tour, and I tell you... the gulag would be better RL, don't doubt my word...

Hehe, I have boned so many hot slender Russian chicks in my life that I can make do with some fatties now. Besides, I adore the language:). View it as a cultural exchange of sorts - you get the hot Russian chicks here, I go to GB as a solace gift to the local birds:). Someone has to do it:).

DDT
23-06-2009, 18:37
This is exactly what I mean about the Left-Wing loons. One personal freedom after another disappears with them, and it starts ....."for the sake of "the children"", or our "own good". We predicted 10 to 15 years ago when the first smoking bans were talked about that "one day we will be stopped from smoking even in our homes." Well, this is already happening to some people in the USA, under court orders from child visitation cases.
Soon Obummer will give us his "special" cameras in our children's nursery to make sure that parents are not doing anything "bad for baby"!

It's only a matter of time, with the Left! Kiss your freedoms good-bye now.

PS: I have heard that some US states have cigarettes for sale as high as almost $9 per pack.

Judge
23-06-2009, 18:59
I guess I need to start writing something real nasty here so that FSB puts me in jail for a year, and then I can apply for a political asylum and will go to GB for nice government-sponsored life and fat ugly pussies:).

You might even get British Citizenship,but watch out ,the MI6 might slip you some poison.So they can stir it some more with your beloved Russia.:focus:

Qdos
23-06-2009, 19:02
You might even get British Citizenship,but watch out ,the MI6 might slip you some poison.So they can stir it some more with your beloved Russia.:focus:

Or he could become a bodyguard for Boris Abramovich Berezovsky... :D

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 19:15
You might even get British Citizenship,but watch out ,the MI6 might slip you some poison.So they can cause stir it some more with your beloved Russia.

I have nothing to lose but my chains:). Is it an official permission to me from the expat.ru stuff to start waging a full-fledged intellectual war against FSB oppression here on the site?:)

Judge
23-06-2009, 19:17
Or he could become a bodyguard for Boris Abramovich Berezovsky... :D


RussianLad is having second thoughts now.Fat pussy or poisen??:mml::mml:
Screw it,it's worth the risk laddie boy.
But to keep on topic,if you smoke and go to England,a pkt of cigs cost about 5 quid.

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 19:23
Fat pussy or poison??

I am still undecided:). The quandary I have learnt upon as presented by Qdos and you is despicably harrowing indeed to my vodka-jiggered mind, Judge:).

Judge
23-06-2009, 19:32
I am still undecided:). The quandary I have learnt upon as presented by Qdos and you is despicably harrowing indeed to my vodka-jiggered mind, Judge:).
I'll try and help you some more... Fish 'n' chips,mushy peas,kebabs to die for,washed down with fine ale and a good fight in the town centre.Nice night out?
Sorry for going off topic. I can never forget when I moved to Bristol .My first night out in the centre, there were police horses out in force.I thought I was in the middle of a riot.

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 19:37
Hehe, I like fights, though. Knocked out a guy just a week ago, really enjoyed the violence, that familiar and much cherished smashing sound when the knuckles hit the cheek bone. He was asking for it, though, usually I am timid and bashful:). The situation was almost identical to the video I posted the other day, I almost had a deja vu fit. Not know if Jack is still with us, but my knuckes are perfectly fine:). I smoked a Belomorcanal cig, had some vodka and banged a girl after that (to stay on topic).

Judge
23-06-2009, 19:51
Hehe, I like fights, though. Knocked out a guy just a week ago, really enjoyed the violence, that familiar and much cherished smashing sound when the knuckles hit the cheek bone. He was asking for it, though, usually I am timid and bashful:). The situation was almost identical to the video I posted the other day, I almost had a deja vu fit. Not know if Jack is still with us, but my knuckes are perfectly fine:). I smoked a Belomorcanal cig, had some vodka and banged a girl after that (to stay on topic).

You will fit right in.

Qdos
23-06-2009, 20:54
I can never forget when I moved to Bristol...

Yay, that's my home turf... :lovepot:

Adamodeus
25-06-2009, 01:34
This is exactly what I mean about the Left-Wing loons. One personal freedom after another disappears with them, and it starts ....."for the sake of "the children"", or our "own good".
Well, DDT, you have to be either for personal freedoms or against them. It's funny that some smokers keep bringing the "personal freedom" issue when it affects them, but conspicuously ignore personal freedoms when it's convenient for them.

The rights of one individual end where the rights of another individual begin.

As simple and clear as that. That's the golden rule. Non-smokers have as much right not to smell your cigarettes as you have the right to smoke them. And while other people's right is a major inconvenient hole in the "personal freedoms" case, you still have to respect them.

DDT
25-06-2009, 06:24
Well, non smokers have the right find another spot to stand if they don't like smoke. Just as they have the right to not stand at a bus stop if they don't like diesel fumes. If you want to live with others you had better realize that you can not control every situation.

I am talking about personal freedoms not peoples personal dislikes. You make light of the fact that the state now tells a private citizen what he can and can not do in his private business. Such as not allowing him to serve people who are smokers in his restaurant or bar. Since when did it become the state's business who my customers are?

btw, in case you have been deluded into thinking that there is direct evidence that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. A few years back the W.H.O. suppressed their own findings on a study of 2nd hand smoke when they could not come up with evidence that it was the case that it caused cancer.

Adamodeus
26-06-2009, 00:46
Well, non smokers have the right find another spot to stand if they don't like smoke. Just as they have the right to not stand at a bus stop if they don't like diesel fumes. If you want to live with others you had better realize that you can not control every situation.
That's a very common twist. You pick up a habit and they expect the world to just accommodate you. It's not about smoking, about something that bothers other people i.e. infringes on their rights. Let's look at another example. There's a guy who likes to walk around with a stereo that plays rap music at 150 decibels. If he's standing next to you at a bus stop and it bothers your eardrums, if you're a 5'3" 100-pound weakling and he's 6'7" 300-pound bodybuilder, my may have to choose to swallow it and walk away, but we both know it is in fact your right not to hear that music in a public place and he's in the wrong. Which is why if your neighbor plays loud music you have the right to call the police and they'll be on your side. His right to listed to loud rap music stops, where the right of his neighbors not to hear it begins. Smoking is exactly like that. The people you're bothering with whatever it is you're doing (smoking, music, farting, screaming, etc. etc.) don't have to "leave if they don't like it", it's you who has to do it where it doesn't bother other people, because it's a public place (not private property) and everyone has equal rights of access.

I am talking about personal freedoms not peoples personal dislikes. You make light of the fact that the state now tells a private citizen what he can and can not do in his private business. Such as not allowing him to serve people who are smokers in his restaurant or bar. Since when did it become the state's business who my customers are?
Dislikes? I am talking about personal freedoms too. If you're unwilling to respect other people's personal freedom and put your own personal freedom above everyone else's then yes, the government must regulate your behavior and put you in your place, absolutely. What you're not getting is that the action is irrelevant. You have the freedom to do whatever the hell you like as long as it doesn't bother other people. As long as your behavior does not affect others, you can smoke a whole pack at a time for all we care. When your smoke affects others, you are infringing on their personal freedom.

btw, in case you have been deluded into thinking that there is direct evidence that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. A few years back the W.H.O. suppressed their own findings on a study of 2nd hand smoke when they could not come up with evidence that it was the case that it caused cancer.
You see, I don't give a damn. The smell is disgusting. If I'm in your house and you light up right in front of my face, I'll bite my lip and you won't hear a peep from me. But when we're both in a public place I don't want to see it.

DDT
26-06-2009, 06:10
You have the freedom to do whatever the hell you like as long as it doesn't bother other people.
Actually that is quite wrong. "Bothering someone" is subjective and won't necessarily stand up in court. You can say almost anything bothers you.

BigSpaseeba
26-06-2009, 18:35
This is exactly what I mean about the Left-Wing loons. One personal freedom after another disappears with them, and it starts ....."for the sake of "the children"", or our "own good". We predicted 10 to 15 years ago when the first smoking bans were talked about that "one day we will be stopped from smoking even in our homes." Well, this is already happening to some people in the USA, under court orders from child visitation cases.
Soon Obummer will give us his "special" cameras in our children's nursery to make sure that parents are not doing anything "bad for baby"!

It's only a matter of time, with the Left! Kiss your freedoms good-bye now.

PS: I have heard that some US states have cigarettes for sale as high as almost $9 per pack.


So then you must agree that I have the right to smoke marijuana without interference from the government or police.

Also, if I want to do magic mushrooms, lsd, etc.

If not then all your talk about "freedom" is meaningless.

DDT
26-06-2009, 18:56
So then you must agree that I have the right to smoke marijuana without interference from the government or police.

Also, if I want to do magic mushrooms, lsd, etc.

If not then all your talk about "freedom" is meaningless.

Of course you have those Rights! When have I ever said anything else!
The government has no business regulating what I eat, smoke, inject or how many guns I buy a month!

Carbo
27-06-2009, 01:07
The problem Russia has, as always, is corruption.

Increasing the price of cigarettes will simply increase the market for smuggled or illegally made cigarettes.

This could be stopped, but stopping that would require dealing with the criminals that smuggle them in and distribute them, and that means dealing with the corruption.

In any country which has any type of social, government paid medical care, the tax on cigarettes should be gargantuan. Cancer treatment costs a fortune. Cardiology is expensive. Smokers should pay. But I'm not sure that's practicable in Russia.

Now, on to something that really raised a smile, isn't it a surprise to see DDT taking the side of the tobacco companies? I wonder if there's ever been a major corporation lobbying effort that didn't fool him? Honestly, what a sucker! Is there any subject on which DDT doesn't take the side of the mega-rich or of the major corporations?

Just wondering.

DDT
27-06-2009, 01:26
And I wonder if there has ever been a Marxists that hasn't fooled our illustrious Carbus Insidious!

Carbo
27-06-2009, 01:31
And I wonder if there has ever been a Marxists that hasn't fooled our illustrious Carbus Insidious!
I don't think I've ever prescribed to "Marxists" doctrine. Or Marxist, for that matter.

Think it's morally wrong. And, even if one could argue that it isn't, I think it has been proven time and time again not to work.

Meantime, sucker, are you going to answer the question?

And by the way, for one who is so interested in personal freedom, you seem awfully bereft of knowledge of John Stuart Mill, who clearly said that people were free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others. It's one of the central tenants of your constitution, which I happen to believe is one of the greatest documents produced by man.

Now tell me how the f*ck smoking in a room and forcing non-smokers to breath your poisoned air fits with that, sucker. I'll expect a reply once you've had a chance to visit the British American Tobacco lobbying website.

EDIT: I'm must be a real centrist, I think: Russian Lad thinks I'm the reincarnation of the robber-baron industrialists of America's gilded age, DDT thinks I'm ready to seize the economy's commanding heights in order to hand the means of production to the hero-proletariat. Interesting. I feel vindicated.

Russian Lad
27-06-2009, 01:57
Now tell me how the f*ck smoking in a room and forcing non-smokers to breath your poisoned air fits with that, sucker.

May I volunteer to answer the question?
You heard about powerful air conditioners?:)
Besides, there can be restaurants for smokers and non-smokers, or well-conditioned sections for smokers only. Fighting smokers to me is an agenda of an overfed society where a lot of public attention is also draw to the rights of queers or to anti-abortion campaigns.
As to your political views, I think they are bent to the right, but rather centrist, on the whole. But it is hard to be a centrist, so you may swerve to the right or to the left spectrum, occasionally, depending on the issue at hand.

DDT
27-06-2009, 02:02
Now tell me how the f*ck smoking in a room and forcing non-smokers to breath your poisoned air fits with that, sucker. I'll expect a reply once you've had a chance to visit the British American Tobacco lobbying website.

One can only assume that you are absolutely totally unaware of the laws placed on many US cities and states by the "Smoke Nazis"!

These Nazis and morons, who demand that other people not smoke around them insist on going to places where they know that smokers have gravitational propensities.

Not only do they demand that others adjust their legal habits for the sake of non-smokers, while on private property and owned by private individuals. They actually have forced laws on these private property owners that forbid them to even exercise their Constitutionally declared God given Right to establish a business geared towards smokers!!!

Now, how is that stepping on your anti-smoking, Nazi-Facsist, politically-correct-but-dumb, fothermucking rights? Hmm?....................Hmmmmmm?.........................Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Carbo
27-06-2009, 02:25
[/B]Now, how is that stepping on your anti-smoking, Nazi-Facsist, politically-correct-but-dumb, fothermucking rights? Hmm?....................Hmmmmmm?.........................Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Pssssst: DDT, I'll whisper this incase my mother hears, but I smoke. Tiny cigars or, occasionally, big, fat, Cuban ones. I just don't think I should impose it on others in a public place. It's not fair. It's not what freedom is about. Like I want my freedom and I don't care how it affects others. Jacking up heroin in bars would be better and safer for people's health than allowing smoking.

Russian Lad
27-06-2009, 02:32
Pssssst: DDT, I'll whisper this incase my mother hears, but I smoke. Tiny cigars or, occasionally, big, fat, Cuban ones. I just don't think I should impose it on others in a public place. It's not fair. It's not what freedom is about.

You probably did not see my post on page 2, but anyway. Any public place can be divided into two sections and one can be for smokers, with powerful ventilation. What's wrong with that picture? Sometimes I wake up at night because I hear a train coming, but I am not demanding the dismantling of the railway station in the vicinity.

Adamodeus
27-06-2009, 04:17
Actually that is quite wrong. "Bothering someone" is subjective and won't necessarily stand up in court. You can say almost anything bothers you.
Sure, something things will not stand up in court. But most of the things we are talking about here will. If something has a direct physical effect on someone else - something like that will probably stand up in court because it infringes upon someone's personal space. Any person has the right not to be experience a physical effect from something that someone else is doing.

DDT
27-06-2009, 04:27
You probably did not see my post on page 2, but anyway. Any public place can be divided into two sections and one can be for smokers, with powerful ventilation. What's wrong with that picture? Sometimes I wake up at night because I hear a train coming, but I am not demanding the dismantling of the railway station in the vicinity.
True, but I am referring to the fact (Carbo) that in the USA a man is not allowed to allow smokers in his own establishment. It is against the law to have for example, a bar for people who smoke! Why is it the governments place to dictate who a bar owners customers will be? Notice that Carbo has avoided this question! They have bars for non-smokers but it is against the law in many places to open a bar for smokers. As a matter of fact they have always had bars for non-smokers in recent decades. Why was that legal, if it is not legal to have bars for smokers?

Adamodeus
27-06-2009, 04:29
You probably did not see my post on page 2, but anyway. Any public place can be divided into two sections and one can be for smokers, with powerful ventilation. What's wrong with that picture? Sometimes I wake up at night because I hear a train coming, but I am not demanding the dismantling of the railway station in the vicinity.
There would be nothing wrong at all with that picture if it were realistic or achievable. I've been to a couple of Moscow restaurants where ventilation was superb and non-smokers had no problems at all. Fantastic. Unfortunately, "any public place" cannot be divided into two sections: there are millions of public places where such a thing would be impossible or impractical or prohibitively expensive. Those are the places where such laws should be applicable.

Adamodeus
27-06-2009, 04:42
They actually have forced laws on these private property owners that forbid them to even exercise their Constitutionally declared God given Right to establish a business geared towards smokers!!!
A business "geared towards smokers" does exist - it's called a "smokers' lounge". Such places are perfectly legal and non-smokers have no business walking into one. We should try to protect such establishments against any government infringement whether we are smokers or not.

However, a bar is not "geared towards smokers" - it's geared towards drinkers. All people who drink are welcome use bars. Just because some drinkers also happen to smoke, doesn't mean they have the right to forget about the drinkers who don't smoke.

You can open a smokers's lounge with a liquor licence to satisfy your thirst for both vices.

DDT
27-06-2009, 04:55
However, a bar is not "geared towards smokers" - it's geared towards drinkers. All people who drink are welcome use bars.
.



A bar is geared towards whoever the owner wants it to be geared towards. He doesn't need to reclassify his bar as a lounge to suit bureaucrats. If the owner wants his bar to be for smokers who drink while they smoke, that is not your business.......is it!

Adamodeus
27-06-2009, 12:32
btw, in case you have been deluded into thinking that there is direct evidence that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. A few years back the W.H.O. suppressed their own findings on a study of 2nd hand smoke when they could not come up with evidence that it was the case that it caused cancer.
Incidentally, DDT, how does your self-serving "second hand smoke is harmless" theory explain the large body of research that shows huge cancer rates among waiters and waitresses? Hmm?....................Hmmmmmm?.................. .......Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

SMOKING AND RESTAURANTS: (http://www.atmospure.com/information/Smoking%20and%20Restaurants.htm)

SpringerLink - Journal Article (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1187878813r6823/)

SpringerLink - Journal Article (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1eb3rtmj22cnked/)

I'm guessing, leftist loony propaganda?

Carbo
27-06-2009, 13:32
Incidentally, DDT, how does your self-serving "second hand smoke is harmless" theory explain the large body of research that shows huge cancer rates among waiters and waitresses? Hmm?....................Hmmmmmm?.................. .......Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

SMOKING AND RESTAURANTS: (http://www.atmospure.com/information/Smoking%20and%20Restaurants.htm)

SpringerLink - Journal Article (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1187878813r6823/)

SpringerLink - Journal Article (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1eb3rtmj22cnked/)

I'm guessing, leftist loony propaganda?
Adam, all you need to do is find a big, nefarious corporation who is spending millions lobbying for less smoking to make more profit at the expense of the freedoms of others, and then DDT will believe you.

He gets suckered into any propaganda released by these types.

You're right of course. I read some news the other day that in Britain research has been done that even children whose parents do not smoke in the house have higher rates of cancer and respiratory illness. They looked into the reasons for this and found that it was because the chemicals from cigarette smoke stay in hair and in the fibres of clothes for days, and when babies are hugged and touched these chemicals are inhaled or rubbed onto their skin and clothes.

They're so deadly that it only takes regular contact with tiny amounts to have an effect.

So not only is second hand smoke a danger, but "third hand" smoke is, too, one might say.

But of course, there isn't a single corporate lobbying effort or belief to benefit the uber-rich which didn't sucker DDT.

DDT
27-06-2009, 23:36
It is well known that studies are funded by donations. Tobacco studies have been funding by tobacco co's in the past, leaving one to wonder if the study was biased. Smoke Nazis have also been funding tobacco studies too. The difference is that in today's world studies funded by the Smoke Nazis are never disputed by the PC crowd and Media. So you are going to have to dig a lot deeper for the truth about 2nd Hand Smoke, and use common sense!

I seriously doubt the veracity of any report saying that a smoker handling a baby is detrimental to the bay's health!

You'll need to research both sides of this issue before you hysterically outlaw smokers .......for their own good of course. (Oh and the sake of the "chiiiiiildren)

Secondhand Smoke Studies: The Hype and The Deceit (http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html)

Carbo
28-06-2009, 01:52
It is well known that studies are funded by donations. Tobacco studies have been funding by tobacco co's in the past, leaving one to wonder if the study was biased. Smoke Nazis have also been funding tobacco studies too. The difference is that in today's world studies funded by the Smoke Nazis are never disputed by the PC crowd and Media. So you are going to have to dig a lot deeper for the truth about 2nd Hand Smoke, and use common sense!

I seriously doubt the veracity of any report saying that a smoker handling a baby is detrimental to the bay's health!

You'll need to research both sides of this issue before you hysterically outlaw smokers .......for their own good of course. (Oh and the sake of the "chiiiiiildren)

Secondhand Smoke Studies: The Hype and The Deceit (http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html)
OK. Stupid question, because I suspect the answer I'm going to get is going to be about some vast international conspiracy, but what motivation is there for ANYONE to want to curtail smoking if it does no harm?

Like, why on earth would someone want to stop smoking for no reason? If it's harmless, then what's the problem?

DDT
28-06-2009, 09:35
I don't think anyone says that smoking is harmless. The question is how much smoking is harmful and to what degree. That includes second hand smoke. I've heard that up to 10 cigarettes a day is nothing to worry about. What about 5? Are there any studies on light smokers?

Somehow I get the impression that studies are usually done to prove a preconceived theory. Why should I trust a study done by people who hate Tobacco companies or hate the smell of smoke?

Why did the W.H.O. suppress the findings of a study they did, that I heard about over 10 years ago, on 2nd hand smoke when they found nothing conclusive?

Carbo
28-06-2009, 11:43
I don't think anyone says that smoking is harmless. The question is how much smoking is harmful and to what degree. That includes second hand smoke. I've heard that up to 10 cigarettes a day is nothing to worry about. What about 5? Are there any studies on light smokers?

Somehow I get the impression that studies are usually done to prove a preconceived theory. Why should I trust a study done by people who hate Tobacco companies or hate the smell of smoke?

Why did the W.H.O. suppress the findings of a study they did, that I heard about over 10 years ago, on 2nd hand smoke when they found nothing conclusive?
НYes, but WHY would anyone want to do that? If they commissioned a study, and that study found that second hand smoke wasn't as harmful as originally thought, what would be the point in suppressing it?

DDT
28-06-2009, 12:13
НYes, but WHY would anyone want to do that? If they commissioned a study, and that study found that second hand smoke wasn't as harmful as originally thought, what would be the point in suppressing it?
The ex-Hippy Yuppie scum come Marxists are a holier-than-thou bunch who don't mind forcing us to bend to their idea of healthy living. They like the idea of taking down big business. And if laws passed for our own good, to force us to be healthy (or anything else) also give their nanny State access to our homes and businesses, that also gives them more control over the masses, it's a duel benefit to them. Socialism can only work when they have good control of the people.

DDT
28-06-2009, 12:17
Top Stories: Bars rebel against smoking ban, ban, bar, hicks - www.gazette.com (http://www.gazette.com/onset?id=19674&template=article.html)




Several Colorado Springs bar owners are rebelling against the statewide smoking ban, inviting their customers to openly defy what they call an “illegal law.

DDT
28-06-2009, 12:25
First They Came For The Smokers...
By Digger

And so the coming prohibition on tobacco comes one step closer.

As we all know prohibitions work really well. And as with the alcohol prohibition of the early 1900's the coming tobacco prohibition that is sure to come will have the same impact on this country.
Henry Waxman Jack In The Box
Henry Waxman - Lunatic in the Box
With passage of the absolutely outrageous and deceptively entitled bill called the Family Smoking and Tobacco Control Act (HR 1256) brought forth by Congressman Henry Waxman, the United States takes one more step closer to controlling every act that citizens of this country make. Whether it is having a little red wine after dinner, having a cigar, a cigarette or dipping or chewing tobacco. All of this is being done in the name of "the public interest". And all of it is being done without input from the public, but input from those who want to control what you do under the guise of good.

It is stated outright in the bill under their findings:

"(12) It is in the public interest for Congress to enact legislation that provides the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to regulate tobacco products and the advertising and promotion of such products. The benefits to the American people from enacting such legislation would be significant in human and economic terms."

First They Came For The Smokers... : Diggers Realm (http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003148.html)

Adamodeus
07-07-2009, 04:26
Enjoy, DDT!

Electronic Cigarette, e cigarettes and more by Cigarti | Cigarti Home Page (http://www.cigarti.com/servlet/StoreFront)