Saturday, August 11, 2007

Blago is a dumb governor

I saw a chart online that shows the CTA fare increase as of Sep. 16.

Luckily for me, the CTA is giving a break to disabled ones by not raising the reduced fares. But a roundtrip ride between home and Wrigley would cost just about as much as a pack of cigs in the suburbs at the new FULL fare prices.

And then if I was forced to buy a pack daily, I'd be spending at least 14 bucks total for roundtrip ride and the pack combined.

Blago not only doesn't give a darn about smokers in IL. He also doesn't give a darn about CTA buses breaking down in Chicago on a daily basis. His belief is if the CTA wants more money to improve their service, "Why should I give you money outta my pocket? Just raise the fares and force the poor people to give you more money to ride. If a minority person can afford to pay 8 bucks for a pack, he/she can afford 6 bucks roundtrip in order to travel a long way to his/her workplace on the CTA."

Based on how much money I'm coughing up to live in this town, I deserve to get permission to smoke in places. But at least I get breaks with reduced fares.


Blago is almost like IL's version of a President Bush. He visits Chicago a lot. But he's not interested in solving the problems this city has. I didn't even mention the more problems Chicago will see in relation with the new state smoking ban! Here's a hint. How about fewer tourists visiting IL period in 2008, let alone Chicago?

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Cig ads said a lot about how smoking was viewed

When you look at magazines from the 60's-80s, you'll notice times have changed since then for smokers.

I remember seeing classical Ebony and Jet mags, two mags that are basically Afro-American mags. I noticed the 70s mags (for Ebony) had TONS of pages devoted to cig ads. Even more ads than what I saw in Ebonies from the 60s!

The 70s was the decade after the Civil Rights era, and that's the same decade when the number of Black smokers started going up. The theme I saw (among cig ads) in Ebony mags from the 70s was "You'll enjoy smoking if yo give all of these menthol brands a try." The tobacco companies made menthols sound like breath mints back then. And to me, smoking menthols is still perfectly normal and pleasant today.

Antis argue this is the decade when the companies started targeting more of us and more women to take up smoking. But I could argue the reason why cig ads went up a lot in Ebony mags is because after cig commercials got banned on TV and the radio in 1971, how else are the companies supposed to advertise their cig brands?

When you look at a Ebony or Jet magazine in modern times, you'll be lucky to come across even ONE ad in those. And I bet if there IS an ad in a 2007 Ebony mag for cigs, it's likely a Newport Pleasure ad....the #1 brand for smokers of my type in the USA.

Antis pushed to get cig ads banned from most mags as well as outdoor billboards. Not because they wanted to stop women and Blacks from becoming smokers. But to stop kids from becoming smokers in particular. I think a kid will be mroe tempted to try smoking if he/she hangs out with peers who smoke. I know a cig ad never convinced ME to become a smoker. But hanging around female friends who smoke made me raise my curiosity.

Those warnings in classical cig ads are a joke. "The Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health."

Please! Did the SG ever pay for my child support? Then he can't determine sheet for me in my life! I make decisons for myself!!!

I got a warning of my own. I have determined that banning smoking is dangerous to the owners' financial health.

Here's another. Banning smoking causes business closures, disobedient smokers, senseless deaths, and may tempt gangs and fugitives to get away with doing jobs and trashing places more often (since the F'ked-up cops would be focused more on arresting smokers and owners ignoring the smoking ban)

And if I ever hear someone tell me again "You know smoking is bad for you," I might warn em saying those words will be VERY dangerous to their own health.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

St. Louis should not ban smoking

(Here is my Letter sent to the editor of a St. Louis newspaper)

Dear Editor:

I'm a resident from Illinois, and it was brought to my attention that St. Louis is thinking of banning smoking like Illinois did recently. The Illinois ban goes into effect at the start of 2008.

Well, a smoking ban would hurt the bars and clubs (as well as restaurants) in St. Louis. Smokers will drive to Missouri cities that still allow smoking in bars/restaurants/taverns. Even Illinois smokers will avoid going to St. Louis next year if that city decides to ban smoking.

When a tavern loses smoking customers on a regular basis, the tavern owner will also lose LOTS of money (due to a lack of customers). It only takes days for an owner to start losing customers and money once when a new smoking ban goes into effect. And sadly, owners (in cities with smoking bans already) have been forced to close down their businesses for good.

Smoking bans are not about health issues. They're more about control issues. It's wrong for the St. Louis council to tell owners how to run their businesses, and to tell smokers where they can and can not use a legal product at.

Does St. Louis want to see their smokers drive to other Missouri cities for a drink and a smoke? Does St. Louis want to see the most popular bars and clubs eventually close down due to a lack of regular customers visiting the bars and taverns? Does St. Louis even want to see smokers smoke in prohibited areas within the city instead of being allowed to freely smoke in places?

If you answered "NO" to all 3 questions, then you are able to see why a St. Louis smoking ban would be bad for the city.

-Jay