Saturday, June 16, 2007

Denying smokers jobs

One of the more modern trends assosciated with antismokijng in society is employers denying a person a job (or firing the person) only because the person is a smoker. WEYCO was the first company to get into the habit of not hiring smokers. They claim not hiring smokers will save the mmoney on insurance.

I dunno how not hiring intelligent people who smoke saves the company insurance. I'd like to think obese workers and alcoholic workers would cost the employer a LOT more for their insurance. I'm guessing this insurance is one of those benefits for workers at the company.

A smoker has every darn right to make money like any other American. While it''s true a smoker needs money to suport his/her habit, that smoker still needs money for other things in life. And I can understand job ads that specifically says "Nonsmokers preferred." But some job ads do not make those words clear. And then the applicant learns the hard way smokers are not allowed when he/she either fills out an application or goes through a job interview.

One female online told me she tried to apply for work once, and she was told "Sorry. You can't work here at all if you're a smoker" during her interview. I don't understand how come her application didn't specifically say "Nonsmokers preferred?" Because I'd feel upset myself after spending time and money on filling out a job application and going through an interview...only to find out at the last minute I've been denied a job simply because of one of my choices in life. For the record, she is currently woeking at a club that doesn't discriminate against smokers.

I dunno if it's possible to actually sue an employer for not hiring you simply because of your choice to smoke. Especially ifthe job ad and the application both never made it clear "Smokers are prohibited from working at this place.": But here's a tip. If a business specifically says "Smokers are welcome" on the door/windowm there's a good bet that smokers will likely get hired as workers.

My dream job is actually more like working for a tobacco company, or at a smoke shop. I might as well take a "dream job" that's assosciated with my habit. Otherwise, I wouldn't enjoy going outside to smoke (and walk far away for smoking, in the case of hospital jobs). Making it convient for me to smoke on breaks is more important than making money on a job. Too bad more places don't have smoking shelters outside.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Nonsmokers vs, Antismokers

Some smoking activists think ALL nonsmokers are antis. But this isn't the actual case.

Nonsmokers usually respect my right to smoke, and the owners' right to allow smoking in their joints. Some nonsmokers even think owners SHOULD have the right to allow smoking inside, considering the fact the owners own the property of their respective businesses.

While there are people who may not be interested in smoking themselves, they don't mind being around smokers. Some nonsmoking dudes even find smoking ladies very attractive. I can imagine an anti gasping at those words. But it's the truth. Just because someone doesn't smoke doesn't necessarily mean he/she hates smoking. I know of one nonsmoker at a different smoking forum who made the prediction of a Tobacco Prohibition coming to America. So far, and basd on the direction major anti groups are going towards getting FDA to regulate tobacco as a drug, his prediction might be correct in the next few years.

Unfortunately, it seems like nonsmokers who respect smokers are in the minority. Nobody is interested in socializing with me in public, unless it's a bro or sis asking me for a cig. And when it comes to meeting people online, I ain't gonna lie on my smoking status. I think the pleasure of smoking outweighs making love with a nonsmoking lady.

One lady (from a dating service online) asked me: "Would you quit smoking if you fell in love with a woman who doesn't smoke?"

I simply told her NO! And with that word, she sadly stopped talking to me. I'd prefer a lady who smokes. But if the lady is a nonsmoker, I'd hope she's at least one of the few out there who doesn't mind being around smokers. I've met my share of smoke-free chicks who told me to "GET AWAY FROM ME WITH THAT CANCER STICK!" And one day, I remember talking to a nonsmoking sis on the phone, and when she learned I do smoke...the next day, she told me to "DON'T YOU EVER CALL ME AGAIN!" and hung up on me. She used expletive words though.

Thanks to anti poison-anda, it's hard to even make new friends with MOST nonsmokers. I had better luck meeting actual smoking ladies (and mature smoking ladies I might add) over the past few years. But at lest there are some nonsmokers out there with common sense, and they don't fall for the anti poison-anda.

I've shared my thoughts on antismokers several times in this blog alone. And I'd rather refrain from getting even more honest with my thoughts on antis. Since I'd be using city words in order to be real honest on them. But my "real honest thoughts" on antis is similar to my indirect thoughts I shared on smoke cops in an older post.

But I will say nicely if this world didn't have racists, antismokers, and smoke cops, the world would be a much better place to live in. Albeit taxes deserve BOOS from me as well.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Smoking Parents

Antis think if parents smoke, they should lose custody of their kid(s), Because according to them, parents smoking around a kid is the same thing as child abuse.

Child abuse my foot! If smoking around a kid is child abuse, then what does that make parents who may not smoke but they will beat up/rape their own kid(s)? Smoking around kids in the past was never viewed as child abuse. The reason why it is now is because the majority of people in society think inhaling 2nd hand tobacco smoke for a kid is very dangerous. A kid is not gonna die by living in a smoke-filled house. And it's the parent's right to smoke in the home in the first place.

If there's a kid who actually hates being around parents who smoke, he/she will just have to live with it, til he/she is old enough to make it out here on his/her own. And the last thing a kid needs to do is to press charges on his/her own parents for smoking in the house.

If more folks were educated on the truth of smoking, then topics such as parents losing custody of their kids simply because of Mom and Dad being smokers can be put in a burner. I can see parents who literally abuse their kids end up losing their custody. And those parents should be put behind bars. But smoking parents are very innocent. Smoking parents have better sense than nonsmoking parents anyway.

Smoking is a habit. Not a murder weapon towards kids AND adults who don't smoke.

One thing I disagree with

Some activists believe that if (for illustration purposes) the ACS claims 25,000 people die from SHS per year, then the activists want to know the actual number of deaths caused by SHS. I disagree with this thinking. This is almost the same thing as me telling the AS...I mean A-C-S...that I actually believe SHS causes deaths. And I wanna see proof of the exact number of deaths caused by SHS.

I'm more interested in seeing proof to the claim that SHS causes deaths period. That proof isn't gonna come from death figures. It would come from a test antis conduct. A test that is meant to show how SHS kills folks. They actually had tests of this nature...and their tests failed!

Other parts of the truth on smoking

I'm gonna find a way to post at least once daily in here. Here's a more recent post from myself within the groups). This post is in relation to letting society, antis, and brainwashed smokers learn about the truth on smoking.

Well, with all due respect to [antis], I'd like to ask them:

How do you explain numerous closings of businesses across the nation (within states and cities with smoking bans)? A couple of businesses have closed down in the Springfield area (as far as my home state is concerned). And I think a LOT more IL businesses will eventually close down in 2008 unless exemptions are granted to taverns and night clubs.

I'd like to see the antis, lawyers representing them, and antismoking orgs try to stretch the truth of "Smoking bans DO hurt businesses." And I hope those uneducated folks come up with a better excuse than "Well, those places had poor food and poor service anyway."

I wonder if they can explain how come lung cancer rates have gone up, despite the fact only 20 percent of American adults still smoke. I know how they'll stretch that part of the truth. "People still smoke because they're hooked to the nic. I can't explain why lung cancer rates have gone up with fewer people smoking."

BS if you ask me! As I said in my blog, if people just wanted nic, they could swtich to smokeless tobacco. Since it's more convient to "get nic" by dipping. Unless there's a smokeless tobacco ban I never heard of.

There's certainly more to the truth than SHS not being dangerous...although I'll admit that's the main part of the truth. But as I tried to point out in the form of Q's for antis, there are other parts of the truth antis don't want society to hear.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Antismokers are the worst fanatics on planet Earth

I never wrote a post on here about antis specifically. But after hearing about ASH in Ireland trying to start removing cigs and tobacco from the index used for measuring inflation, I'm convinced these fanatics are the worst ones on planet Earth. They make up lies on smoking, they make up excuses when one of their claims is proven to be a lie (or one of their own tests flunks), They treat smokers as trashy citizens, and the average IQ level of an anti has to be like -50 at times.

I love an anti who says "I don't care if you smoke. Just don't smoke around me." Here's a piece of friendly advice, you big baby. Don't STAND around me if you don't like smelling smoke. Or I might be inclined to blow smoke in your face intentionally. I ain't doing anything wrong by smoking near you. YOU walked towards me, moron.

That comment is like someone telling me "I don't care about how you look. Just don't sit next to me on the train." You claim you respect me for who I am and my pride. But you don't want me sitting next to you on a train? I ain't doing anything wrong by sitting next to you. Especially since you don't mind us, according to YOUR words.

But getting back to this Ireland article on ASH wanting tobacco and cigs taken off of the index.

Taking tobacco and cigs off of an index is another way for them to make tobacco look as evil as possible. I guess there was some positiveness going on with the tobacco being in the index.
Antis claim removing cigs from the index will allow the Ireland govt to hike up prices and discourage people from smoking without driving up inflation. And they think this is a benefit assosciated with removing it from the index? Puh-leeze! I seriously doubt people will get discouraged to smoke whenever these low life fanatics do sheet ANYWHERE in this world!

Someone asked "When will this anti craziness end?" Simply put, it will end when smoking activists shove the truth (on smoking bans and the blown-up cons of smoking) down antis' throats. The truth shall hopefully set society free from anti madness.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

A theortical comment I might get

I'm sure I might get a comment somewhere saying "You say in your tax post that smoking is a money issue. But in your reply to the House member, you make smoking sound like a health issue."

For those activists who spend most of their days sending out letters to politicians, mayors, and reps of the major anti groups, I could see this interpretation being made.

I never agreed with tobacco being a health issue in my letter reply. When the House member said how my state has a right to protect nonsmokers, I didn't wanna tell him "You're full of sheet. SHS is NOT dangerous!" He probably would've laughed hard at me and even send a personal attack in friendly words.

But if I give him ideas on how to make both sides happy (as I did in my reply), then he'll be forced to read my reply in language he understands. I even hinted to him if tobacco IS a health issue, why don't the IL folks make tobacco sales illegal? But I said it in a language he understands....the theme of protecting nonsmokers. The way I see it, if I'm gonna send future replies to responses to my future letters, I gotta be more than just nice and friendly. I gotta rebut the thoughts in a way I WANT the politician to read my darn reply at least.

Sorta similar to how some smokers respond to my thoughts. But they try talking to me in the type of language I use in my personal life (so I can understasnd the message they're trying to make). It's actually cute hearing smokers online using occassional "city words" when replying to my thoughts.

Tobacco tax is the govt's piggy bank

Money is powerful. When some people find loose money, they grab it, or would even fight for it.' People also get greedy when it comes to making money.

Same is true for how the different govts treat tobacco. They treat tobacco as their piggy bank. And if tobacco was a health issue, it would've been illegal long before I was even born. But it's not banned because selling tobacco is how the screwed-up govts and major anti groups make their money!

Imagine if every single smoker quit. I don't have a calculator. But is it safe to assume the govts would lose MILLIONS OF BUCKS (in tobacco taxes) if people stopped smoking? Or maybe if every smoker switched to MYOs? The greedy govt doesn't wanna make (as they call tobacco) the demon weed illegal. They wanna keep ringing up millions of bucks in tobacco taxes collected from cig sales.

I guess if tobacco WAS illegal, the govts would be collecting tax money from fast food instead. That Big Mac is unhealthy. But mills of folks still eat them everyday. And parents wonder why their kids turn obese as a result of eating fast food meals everyday.

Tobacco never was a health issue. It's all about the moolah, and that's why cig taxes keep going up. The govts feel if I ain't gonna quit smoking, then I can give them more money via tobacco taxes.

You know how some folks of my type are greedy towards money, that those folks will do whatever it takes to get more big bucks into their hands? Well, that's how states are treating back tax bills they send to smokers who bought cigs online. The states are attacking innocent SMOKERS who bought cartons online ages ago. And the states are demanding the smokers to pay 1000s of bucks in back cig taxes. The difference is the states ain't pulling out threats in order to steal that money from the innocent smokers.

I wish someone from Springfield's revenue dept DID pull out a literal threat on me in order to
steal my money. Not only would I defend myself from that freaker, but that would make the national newsreel.

"A rep in Springfield, IL's revenue dept meets a Chicago smoker with the intent of getting back taxes on cigs from him. And he threatens to hurt him if the taxes are not paid. But the smoker pulls out his own weapon, and smoke of a different kind comes out. No charges were filed because the Chicagoo cops thought the African-American smoker fired the registered gun for self-defense. Springfield will investigate on why the rep even bothered to make a threat by going to Chicago."

Yup, if that happened for real, maybe an incident like that would make collecting back cig taxes illegal in EVERY state. It's already illegal in Wisconsin to collect the back taxes.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Comments on possible FDA tobacco regulation

Major anti groups, as well as politicans, have proposed the idea of the FDA regulating tobacco in the USA. Aside from regulating the amount of nic in cigs, the major groups want to see graphical images of a smoker's body on the packs (these pics are already on Canadian packs). And they want to ban the type of cig ads that target kids. They feel the Camel No. 9's ad is a prime example of Big Tobacco trying to atract kids to smoking.

The FDA oughta make it illegal for Big Tobacco to add anything to cigs aside from nic. If cigs had just nic in it (as is the case with those who smoke RYO cigs), they would become a lil bit more safer and more enjoyable to smoke. Since the premade cigs would become 100 percent-tobacco cigs. The news said years ago the nic alone in cigs have NO risks assosciated with it. And if all-natural cigs existed, I bet more kids AND adults would start smoking.

Of course, antis don't want to have more smokers by making premade cigs all naturals. So instead of banning additives, they want the FDA to force Big Tobacco to make cigs with lower amounts of nic. Hello?? Didn't I just say if premade cigs had nothing but nic in it, there would be no risks assosicated with smoking cigs? A lot of sites that focus on RYO/MYO cigs even confirmed this point on cigs being better with just nic and no additives.

If you make cigs with lower amounts of nic, that is gonna force smokers to buy more cigs and spend more on cigs. And smoking would become less enjoyable for me. Since I've essentially been smoking strong cigs my whole life. I know how a cig with lowered amounts of nic feels. Lights ain't for me. I can hardly feel smoke on inhales from a light compared to the type of cigs I love. At least menthol lights have that nice mint flavor on inhales.

No offense to smokers who actually enjoy smoking Lights. I know Marlboro Lights is a popular brand for one group of smokers. Just like with Newports being a popular brand for us.

FDA regulation would make bootleggers of cigs find ways to ADD nic to cigs. Adding nic yourself sounds dangerous. While nic alone poses no health risks, too much nic in a cig is dangerous in terms of causing a possible death (I guess like more than 3 mg of nic is dangerous...since classical premades never had more than that nic amount in the 60s and 70s).

I remember a guy who actually ate a cig. He ended up killing himself from eating the cig. This old article pointed out an unlit cig actually has a LOT more nic in it, compared to when the cig is actually smoked. I guess when the cig is lit, some of that nic in the cig goes up in smoke with the burning tobacco.

I know if tobacco ever becomes illegal, there are those of us smokers who will NEVER stop. Those smokers will find ways to get cigs and/or their own tobacco in illegal fashion. Some smokers might even grow their own tobacco. But I can't confirm the legality of growing your own tobacco....I just heard of the idea before.

Underground cig sales is already happening in my town. It will happen in all 50 states (but to different extents in each state) with a Tobacco Prohibition.

As far as images on packs go, I wouldn't mind seeing black lungs on a pack. I wonder if I was actually born with "black lungs." LOL!!! But seriously, if you think seeing images on a pack will scare me, you gotta be joking. I'll just ignore those rated PG images on packs. I have seen images worse than a smoker's lungs...and the funny part is I saw those worse images in the streets rather than in a hospital.

The only thought I have on cig ads targeting kids is if a kid really wants to smoke, he/she can ask mom, a sibling, a friend, or a smoker in the streets for a cig. That kid can even buy a pack from a bootlegger. Cig ads have lil influence on a kid's decision to start smoking.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Is smoking an addiction or a disability?

This is a topic I've shared my thoughts on before in smoker right groups/forums. And I talked about it briefly in one group today.

"Is smoking an addiction?"

Heck no! If smoking WAS an addiction, I'd be smoking ANY type of cig....including Ultra Lites! When people say "I need a cig now!" they mean they miss the feeling of a cig in their hands and mouth. And they wanna spend time enjoying the pleasure of smoking.

People who quit smoking but return to it do so because they miss the feeling of holding a cig. And the nice feeling the cig gives to them when smoked. Smoking is a pleasurable habit. But it's not an addiction.

If the ex-smoker (or ANY smoker) wanted just nicotine, he/she can use smokeless tobacco or eat potatoes. Why go through smoke if you just want nicotine? It's obvious smokers enjoy cigs, cigars, or pipes for more than just the nicotine.

"Is smoking a disability?"

Well, based on my view of the word disability, smoking is obviously not a physical disability. Nor is it a mental disability. Antis might argue it's a mental disability when the only thing on a smoker's mind is having that next cig after a long wait. But then again, some people have been able to successfully quit smoking. If someone can succeed in quitting, then smoking can not be a mental disabiity. So no, smoking is not a disability in my opinion. Smokers oughta be getting benefits if it IS a disability to others.

Social Security's main Q (in regards to getting benefits) is: "Does this disability prevent you from doing any type of work?"

Well, my cerebral palsy limits me in the type of work I can do. I obviously can't take a job that has a lot of physical work involved. Like construction. But I feel smoking doesn't limit my ability to work period. Albeit I need smoke breaks at times in order to stay focused and prevent from getting stressed out. Or I should say, in my case, I use bathroom breaks as smoke breaks. Since I'd get fired if a supervisor caught me smoking anywhere else in the ballpark. Co-workers smoke in stalls always!

Even if someone tried convincing to SS "My smoking habit makes me disabled" good luck in proving to them you're disabled. They would ask for medical proof. And their definition of work is you having any type of job. Even if it's a PT job where you work only 1-2 times per week.

If you're lucky to get a job in a smoke shop or with a tobacco company, you might get benefits (as a worker) in the form of free packs or discounted prices on packs. Actually, I believe I deserve to get free Newport cartons for at least one year, based on me being one of the few serious prosmokers out there for my age.

A small sidenote: Smoking prevents Alzheimer's. My grandpa never got Alzheimer's til a few years after he quit smoking. And he sadly died a month later after getting the disease. At least the docs didn't blame his former smoking habit for causing his death.

Smoking Bans cause deaths/crime attacks

Remember when NYC first enacted their smoking ban in 2003, this bouncer over there got murdered for simply trying to enforce the ban? I recall this chick from NY who got raped while she smoked outside of a bar during the night as well.

Bloomberg felt sorry for the bouncer's death, but he didn't blame the ban for the employee's death! What world is that Mayor living in? If there was no smoking ban, the smoker never would've gotten outraged at the bouncer. I bet if Bloomberg entered a NYC bar today and saw some nice disobedient smoking going on, he might die himself if smokers in the bar charged at him and give him punches for making their lives miserable. Because as I heard recently, the NYC owners and smokers have basically said "Screw this ban! We gotta live! And owners gotta continue to make money! Therefore, screw Bloomnerd! We're lighting up late at nite while he's in bed!"

If there was no smoking ban, that chick never would've opened herself up as a crime target, since she smoked alone outdoors. If there was no smoking ban, she would've been safer by smoking inside instead.

As sad as both of these incidents sound, it's TERRIBLY sad to hear about an elderly smoker dying while smoking outside of a Canadian nursing home back in January of 2007. That smoker's family sued the home for her death, and a nursing home worker got fired after the death.

Smoking bans are supposed to protect nonsmokers. But they do a bad job of protecting smokers and workers who just do their job. I mean, the bans don't protect smokers/workers from possible crime, as well as protection from dangerous weather. Do you think antis care if an elderly smoker dies outside in the cold, or cares about a female smoker getting raped while smoking in a big city? Yeah right on antis showing concern!

I wouldn't be surprised if chicks got raped over here in the dark while smoking. Just because I didn't hear of it on the news doesn't mean that crimes assosciated with smoking bans ain't happening here. At least the type of crimes where people step outside to smoke on lonely nights.

Luckily for me, I've never been a victim while I followed a smoking ban. Since my smoking makes other guys get cool with me. But if a lady smokes alone outside, she oughta have someone with her as she smokes. So those "other guys" won't even think about attacking her.

Part 2 of the followup

These are some other quotes from me that was viewed as me implying that SHS is dangerous.

"You say Illinois has a right to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke. Illinois can do this by encouraging all public places to use adequate ventilation indoors."

If SHS is dangerous as I "imply," then why did places have ventilation in the past? Wouldn't they have been betta off banning smoking instead of making smoking sections to accomodate smoking customers? Why make accomodations for both sides (by adding ventilation to smoking sections), when SHS is supposedly deadly to inhale?

You are not protecting anyone by forcing smokers outside. You oughta make accomodations for both sides inside. I think that's where the confusion is with this quote of mine. Ventilation is supposed to make both sides happy. Even an enclosed smoking area would make both sides happy. I don't view that as implying SHS is dangerous. I view that as alternatives instead of forcing me to smoke outside in bitterly cold or darn hot weather.

The best "protection" for nonsmokers from SHS is further down.

"This state can protect nonsmokers by not allowing tobacco sales at all."

I'll stand by this quote til the day I die, or til tobacco is illegal. No politician or anti can tell me I can't smoke in places. But yet, they don't mind taking my tobacco tax money. A Smoking Ban should include banning tobacco sales. And not just ban smoking in places.

"Nonsmokers can protect themselves by not approaching areas with several smokers gathered around a building outside."

This is pure common sense! It's sorta similar to me keeping my wallet shut by not going to a nonsmoking restaurant. If you don't smoke, don't go to places where smokers hang out at, duh! Otherwise, you better be prepared for a negative reaction by complaining to smokers inside OR outside.

Followup to a comment on my letter/replies

I see that posting of my letter (and the replies) produced an indirect comment away from this blog.

I dunno how me hinting "SHS auses no harm" and then me turning around with "I heard of some who suffered from inhaling the smoke" conflict with each other.

I can see that politician saying: "SHS doesn't cause harm? But Jay, how can you say SHS doesn't even cause harm to asthmatic people?" I know there are folks out there who can't be around SHS at all. That's why I said I heard of SOME who suffered from inhaling the smoke.

HOWEVER, the majority of nonsmokers do not have asthma. And there is no legit evidence out there that proves SHS even causes asthma. Most of the folks with asthma are eithr born with it, or something else in this world made them come down with it. I also heard of asthmatic smokers who enjoy their habit. I dunno how they do it, but those smokers are more brave than me,

If I said I heard of several nonsmokers who suffered from inhaling the smoke, that would do more than just kill my argument. It would be a lie in itself. Most nons (antis included) might think SHS stinks. But most of them don't actually suffer from inhaling it. Replacing "some" with "most" changes the whole meaning of my quote.

I wasn't joking when I said "Show me a death certificate that says SHS specifically caused this nonsmoker's death." That's my way of asking them for PROOF that SHS can cause harm that could lead to "death." If SHS can cause deaths for real (even if the deaths happen gradually instead of instantly), how come I never heard of secondhand smoke being listed as the main cause of death on a nonsmoker's certificate?

If anyone thinks I'd get pounded by antis by imlying that SHS causes no harm, and ventilation works in places, these Q's would pound those antis as my way of counter-attacking them.

1. SHS causes harm for folks in the 21st century. But it never caused harm to folks 3-5 decades ago. Can you explain what makes SHS any different from the 60's compared to SHS in the 21st century, in terms of why nobody believed SHS caused harm at all in the 60's? If a gas is harmful to inhale right now, my common sense tells me that same gas would've been harmful to inhale in the past. Essentially making SHS dangerous to inhale forever.

2. I heard you guys actually tried testing out to see how dangerous SHS is within places. But the tests I read about online showed your guys' tests FAILED to prove that "SHS is deadly to inhale and/or causes harm" theory as a fact. Can you point me to a SHS test (conducted by you guys) that PASSED?

Can't find a SHS test that passed, moron? WOW!!!! Since SHS is deadly and causes harm according to you, there MUST be a test out there that proved this dumb theory to be correct. If all of your tests fail, then you're as wrong as heck on SHS being deadly and/or causes harm.