Wednesday, October 17, 2007

If you like smoking at the beach, don't come to Chicago

It's official. You can not smoke in the parks and at beaches in Chicago.

I guess one positive thing about living in Chicago as a smoker is there are more smokers in the city that what the local media thinks.

If that Fed tax on cigs passes, then Chicago will become the #1 city with the highest cig prices in the nation. I never imagined paying 10 bucks for a pack of menthols, since Kools used to be only 65 cents per pack years ago.

But I know seeing 2 digits in the price of a pack is not something to cheer about in the Windy City. That would mean more business for folks who sell packs in the rough areas of the city.
I wonder what's next for a city that's not even close to being a Promised Land in the 21st century. Maybe an outdoor smoking ban altogether?

Good luck in enforcing that new ban, Chicago. I can see people getting outraged while they smoke and get their beach tans.

I tried a pack of menthols made outside of the USA

I'm under the impression small tobacco companies within the USA actually have their brands made outside of America. I tried a pack of Silver menthols recently. While they taste like a menthol (and this menthol actually tastes better than the menthol Big Tobacco uses), they also taste more like actual tobacco is i them.

I'm under the impression non-USA cigs are additive free, since some countries have regulations on what can not be added in cigs. Compared to Newports, Silver Menthols taste like somethang is missing in them when I take drags and inhale the minty smoke.

And there's regulation on the amount of nicotine that can be in foreign cigs. Particularly European cigs. A Marlboro Red in the UK tastes more like an American version of a Marlboro Light. That's what UK smokers in the past told me.

I know if Big Tobacco was forced to follow regulations like the European tobacco companies have to follow, you would see a lot more smokers in America. Especially more under-18 smokers. Of course in modern times, more kids who are close to adolescence start smoking too. If cigs were additive-free, more people would enjoy smoking actual tobacco in the cigs. Additive-free cigs are less risky, but no cig is 100 percent safe.

I wouldn't like the idea of regulating nic though. Because regulating nic means smokers will smoke more and buy more packs/cartons.

I guess the reason why one small tobacco company in the US have their cigs made in Colombia is because they wanna keep themselves under the radar as much as possible. If more smokers smoked and enjoyed small tobacco brands, the company would be forced to raise the prices and then antis would learn about the small company too.

I notice small tobacco companies don't sell their brands offline (at least not in my town). I guess it's because of the cigs being made outside of the US and not to mention possibly being additive-free? A lot of brands sold offline are stale-a** igs here. Unless you buy a Newport pack from a dealer in underground fashion.

I am impressed with the taste of these Silver Menthols. Someone said they're cheap in price. But they don't taste cheap to me.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Smoking ban proposal for Chicago parks and beaches

I dunno why the heck I didn't hear about this til late this afternoon. But it looks like park officials in Chicago want to see smoking banned in parks and beaches.

If more smokers recognized the truth behind these smoking bans, you probably would see more smokers engaging in civil disobedience. I could actually see civil disobedience happening at a crowded beach or in a park at midnite.

How are cops gonna enforce no smoking on crowded beaches? If I'm outside late at night in a park on a summer evening, and a cop pulls up at 12 am just to gimme a GD ticket for smoking i a park when I'm the ONLY person in the park, then that shows that cop thinks ticketing me for smoking in a park is more important than stopping thieves frm pulling off a heist in Chicago.

Enforcing an indoor smoking ban is easier for cops. But enforcing a beach/park smoking ban is a heck of a lot more tougher. And I hope I end up being right on the latter.

(some more thoughts I had on this topic)

I wouldn't be surprised if the folks in Springfield are voting to ban smoking in all cars and homes in IL as we speak

I was being a lil sarcastic. But I wouldn't be surprised if the next thing to become smoke-free in IL are homes and cars. But yet, you won't hear about the proposal or the voting session til the night before the scheduled voting on the proposal. Just like with this proposal on vanning smoking in parks and beaches in Chicago. I didn't hear about it til I read an email from a Trib reporter (that she sent this afternoon).

Most smokers/smoking ban opposers would agree when I say "I'd appreciate it if you folks in the Chicago council would inform the citizens about the proposal weeks in advance."

I guess IL's motto is "Lets slowly turn IL into a smoke-free state by banning smoking outdoors, and we won't say a word to the public." Not saying a word to the public days in advance will make smokers outraged. There's nothing I can do about it. But I think most opposers of smoking bans would agree when I say "I'd appreciate it if you tell the public about the proposal weeks in advance, so we unbrainwshed smokers can think of ideas on how to fight it.

I did hear the workers swept up MILLIONS of cig butts outta the sand this past summer. Maybe putting up ashtray bins would help decrease the number of butts in the sand. But if you don't like sweeping up my cig butts period, then quit your darn job if you don't think putting up ashtrays would help BOTH of us!

Monday, October 15, 2007

Updated Profile on here

I notice in recent weeks, more visitors have been viewing my blog. If any smoking fetishers are viewing this page, yes, I'm the same Jay who's related with promoting Smoking Rachel online. Rachel is a real and serious smoker who believes in smokers rights herself.

If anyone wants to know more info on, you can view the link I left within my profile. That link will take you to ANOTHER smoking fetish-related site called Best Smoking Sites.

Rachel gets credit for building bestsmokingsites a few years ago, but that site is actually related with myself. Since that site is also the modern home of "Jay's Smoking Links," a site I originally made myself back in September 2000. It got zapped once in 2004, and then again at another site server. I'm sure antis B'ched about Jy's Smoking Links, and that's how the site got zapped.

So far, it looks like Jay's Smoking Links has a permanent home at Best Smoking Sites.

I do know there are so many prosmoking sites online, it might make an antismoker have a heart attack. Good luck to those morons if they think they can wipe away any site that deals with making smoking look positive. At least nobody forces them to visit those sites I enjoy (including smokers rights sites).

Sunday, October 14, 2007

A $100/month fee for Trib workers who smoke?

I see someone left comments on here. I will delete only one of them since Lynda told me she got in contact with the person who asked about her on here.

Anyway, here's a totally F'ked up article on Trib workers being charged a $100 per month fee if the workers smoke or if the workers' dependants smoke.

This is discrimination of smokers taken to a new level.

The Trib oughta be lucky I'm not a journalist with them. I'd resign from my job after hearing this bull (well it IS bull to me...I keep my thoughts real). I'm not gonna quit smoking just to please an employer. And my dependents can't smoke? So that means even if I never smoked, if I had a sis in my life who lived with me but she smoked, I'd still have to pay the crappy $100 fee per month?

Screw the Trib. They oughta charge obese workers 500 bucks per month.

This is also a good reason for smokers to avoid buying a Trib newspaper, and not visit their site anymore. I know I ain't reading the Trib anymore.

$100 per month! When I raise my finger, I can see why the Trib is the #1 newspaper source in Chicago...#1 for a different reason!