Friday, July 13, 2007

A letter to AMC in regards to an ALA ad

This is a copy of a letter I sent out to AMC, in regards to this commercial that the station is running. AMC is a cable station (American Movie Classics). The commercial is sponsored by the ALA. You can view the ad online by clicking THIS.

-- Original Message ----
From: Jay
To: moviecamp@amctv.com
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 7:47:34 PM
Subject: Commercial sponsored by the American Lung Assosciation

To Whom It May Concern:

It was brought to my attention that your station is running this commercial sponsored by the American Lung Assosciation. This commercial has a young woman lighting up a cigarette, and when she asks the guy for a kiss, her face turns into a monster-like face. And then the guy gasps, and he gets up and walks away from her.

This commercial is not only an insult towards women who smoke, but all smokers really. Smokers are not monsters who make people scared to see them in public. The message at the end of the commercial was something to the extent of "Nobody likes to kiss an ashtray." Well, the American Lung Assosciation is sending the wrong message of kissing a smoker is like kissing an ashtray. Smokers are normal human beings. Not walking ashtrays. And I know I have never seen ANYONE gasp at watching someone light up a cigarette in public, and then run away from the smoker.

This ad is encouraging discrimination towards a group of folks in society, that being smokers. I'd appreciate it if you consider taking this commercial off of your station. Because I know TV stations wouldn't run commercials that encourage discrimination towards other groups in society (ie: Blacks, Women, different religious faiths, etc). What makes encouragement of discrimination towards smokers any different from these groups?

An ad that makes smokers look like evil folks and an ad that sends the lie of smokers being walking ashtrays deserves to be taken off of the commercial reels.

Jay



Thursday, July 12, 2007

American CUTOFF Society

American Cutoff Society sounds like a better name for them. They believe in cutting owners off from making money so the owners are forced to close down for good. And they doing their part to cut off smokers from society by demonizing the act of smoking and by making smokers sound as evil as possible.

Since they believe smokers have no rights whatsoever (not even the right to enjoy a cig in public peacefully), I'd like to give the ACS my own version of cut-offs. It's nice you guys agree the SG is a liar. But why bother supporting smoking bans? I wouldn't support discrimination of smokers even if I never smoked myself!

Smoking bans are basically signs of discrimination towards smoking (and disrespect for the owners' version of freedom of choice). And the smoking activists I HAVE met in person are far from "evil folks" anyway, They're just fed up with society like myself. Just because we're nice smokers doesn't mean we're supposed to show respect to fascist groups like the ACS! And it doesn't mean I'm supposed to obey smoking bans either.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Congress needs more smokers?

Here's what this article is basically about.

"Members of Congress seeking to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover children from wealthier families are exploring new ways to pay for it. The Senate Finance Committee generally has agreed to reauthorize SCHIP for five years with a $35 billion expansion funded by an increase in the federal tobacco tax by 61 cents per pack."

This article is right by increasing the tobacco taxes, fewer people will still smoke. Or at least more smokers would switch to MYOs instead.

But this article goes on to say how Congress needs more smokers. Considering how most smokers are in the 24-44 age range (43 percent of smokers as a whole). and since most smokers are in the poor class (as this article points out itself), here's an idea on how Congress can get "more smokers."

Quit raising the darn tobacco taxes!

While it's true lots of people have quit smoking because of the high tobacco taxes, it's also true more smokers have resorted to getting cigs the illegal way (which includes buying packs underground). When a smoker buys packs underground, or even switches to MYO cigs, Congress doesn't get a single penny from those smokers.

Maybe if packs were a lot more affordable at say 2 bucks per pack, Congress would get its wish of more smokers.

Oh wait a minute. Even if cigs WERE affordable for more poor folks and young folks who enjoy smoking, there's another problem with the idea of "Getting more smokers." We got stupid-A smoking bans in America! What's the point of recruiting more smokers when they can't smoke in places?

If Congress REALLY needs new smokers in order to support this idea of raising the fed tobacco tax, then cigs need to be a lot more affordable. And we need to revoke smoking bans across America ASAP. Because even if a pack WAS only 2 bucks, I'm not buying them if I can't actually smoke and enjoy them wherever I please in public. At least smoking wherever I please is normal behavior in some African countries.

Unless I missed it in my reading of this article, this article failed to mention smoking bans are another reason why more people quit smoking.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Comments on 13 reasons why antis hate smokers

I'm gonna try my best to think about and comment on these 13 reasons why antis hate smokers. You can view the actual list by clicking here.

A. Well, this one certainly explains antismokers the best way. I don't like the idea of you morons forcing your preferences on smokers by trying to get states to impose smoking bans. What you want is a smoke-free USA. What I want is to live in peace and enjoy my cigs. Is that to hard to understand? You might enjoy walking into a smoke-free restaurant instead of trying to make life a living heck for me and owners who don't like the idea of being forced tto follow a smoking ban. I hate the yucky smell of certain perfumes. Does that means, based on antismoking logic, we should have a perfume ban? Please!

B. With all due respect, if your loved one or loved pet died from a train wreck or a terrorist attack, I seriously doubt smoking caused it. I seriously doubt smoking is responsible for ANY death. Now if your loved one got struck by a bullet, smoke from the gun caused that death. But not cig smoke. If you honestly think cigs are similar to using a loaded gun, then good luck if you tihnk smoking just one cig will kill you. Smoking causes me to meet new people. But it doesn't cause anyone to die while walking past me.

C. Why are you ashamed of yourself? YOU chose to smoke. And you can't blame Big Tobacco for YOUR decision to start smoking. If you gonna sue them for changing your life (Big Tobacco), I oughta sue you for forcing me to pay more money on cigs due to the "wrong choice" you made in your freakin life! I know smokers paying more money for cigs because of ex-smokers winning lawsuits is totally unfair! And if you're born again, please find a scripture that says "Thou shalt not use tobacco."

D. Big Tobacco ain't liars. Nicotine is something that's naturally found in tobacco. Anyone with common sense oughta know if a pack says "Lights" on it, that doesn't mean the cigs are safe. That just means Big Tobacco lowered the nic in those cigs. There is no such thing as a safe cigs, MYO cigs included. Natural tobacco cigs don't have those added chemicals on them. But even the American Spirit site hints "Just because our cigs are additive-free doesn't mean there are no health risks assosciated with our cigs.: The health risks are actually non-existent anyway. I still have NO lung cancer after nearly a decade of smoking everyday. Big Tobacco ain't liars though.

E. Big Pharma is more like Big DUMBA to me. Those nic gums, nic patches, and other stop smoking aids are jokes. I even hear those patches and gums have VERY little nic in them. I think smokeless tobacco can give me more pleasure than a darn nic patch.

F. You don't need to be concerned about my life. You oughta be more concerned about your "fellow man" robbing your wallet, and beating the living crap out if you if you ask the fellow man to put the cig out. And I'm not just referring to myself. I was thinking of the UK smokers being just as aggressive as me.

G. I have a Q for you Mister Scientist. When it comes to having dumb-A studies on smoking, why do you use animals (like rats for instance) instead of humans? SHS might kill a rat. But a human's body is different from a rat's body. If you're gonna study smoking effects, do it the RIGHT WAY by using actual humans. Or would using actual humans not support the lie of "SHS kills period, and smoking cigs is a deadly habit?"

H. I'd get a thrill from knocking you down with the help of my "lil black bud" in my hand right here. Want one-last cig before I feed you some "chips" with lead in it, freaked-up fascist? This world would be better if I could wipe antis off of planet Earth!

I. You MUST be a retard if you think you can get AIDS from inhaling clouds of cig smoke. AIDS is a disease related with sex. Not the act of smoking. I guess if inhaling SHS causes AIDS, then you need to put a condom over your darn nose. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

J. I'm sure when you applied for that job, either the application (or the employer at the job interview) brought to your attention that you would be working in a smokey environment. You DID know what the job is all about before you got hired. And you accepted the hiring. That's YOUR fault. Not the employer's fault. At least you get paid for smelling nice cig smoke and rich cigar smoke!


K. If I could do it right now, I'd vote your A out of office right now! We need sensible mayors and politicians in the US. We're so worried about tobacco smoking, we're essentially telling kids to say YES to drugs and beer now!

L. A smoking ban would include banning tobacco sales too, and not just ban smoking in places. A smoking ban would also include banning anything else that produces smoke. This "smoking ban" I see right now has more to do with discrimination towards a group of innocent smokers.

M. You like to argue with people? Well, I don't need to fight with you. Because unline other smoking activists, I don't have the same patience when it comes to "debating" with an anti.

Sunday, July 8, 2007

UK man got arrested for refusing to put cig out

I read this article about a UK man getting arrested for refusing to put his cig out. The smoker gets props for protesting the UK smoking ban by chainsmoking at the pub (That's smoking one cig after another, for any nons who never heard of chainsmoking).

You have to scroll up within the link in order to read the article.

But that cop who snatched the cig outta the smoker's mouth oughta get fired! Anyone who still thinks there's no discrimination towards smokers is blindfolded! Snatching a cig outta smoker's mouth is no different from someone snatching a lady's purse. She will try to catch the robber and beat the living crap outta him. I'd beat the crap out of a cop for not only snatching a cig out of my mouth. But for showing discrimination towards me as a smoker publicly.

I wouldn't care if I went to jail for beating up a smoke cop. I'd remind him "Excuse me 'boy.' I could see it if you wanna ticket me for smoking in a pub after refusing to put it out myself. But you deserve one of these for snatching a cig out of my mouth and then stomp on it!" (POW in the cop's face).

I bet a lot of more crimes are going on in the UK, now that the cops are more focused on arresting smokers. This is a screwed-up world!


If cops terrorizing smokers becomes more of a habit as time goes along, I really hope those smokers learn to defend themselves from smoke cops. Giving me a ticket is one thing. But snatching cigs is crossing the line. AND I have no choice but to give that motha a taste of my other side with getting my fists warmed up. I won't mind spending a night in jail in exchange for almost killing a smoke cop with my fists and kicks instead of a using a weapon. He deserves to feel pain big time!