Saturday, December 15, 2007

A rare legit Q from a forum poisoned with antismokers

This is a rare post from someone who asked a valid, respectable Q on another forum:

"Now Jay,
Civil disobedience means being civil, right? "

Nope. Civil disobedience is when smokers and owners ignore a smoking ban. You know of owners who simply let their customers smoker.

And when someone is smoking on a Chicago beach, that's civil disobedience too. Since the smokers are violating the ban. You can learn more on civil disobedience in the different smokers rights forums/groups out there.

The description you gave (in your Q) is an American who is obedient instead of DIS-obedient.

Civil disobedience can even include 11-16 year-old Black kids who get away with buying packs with a fake ID. Afta all, they're getting away with breaking anotha smoking law that says you can't buy tobacco if you're under 18.

Civil disobedience in my eyes is the breaking of laws that sound age limits on buying tobacco (these neva existed when I was a lil boy..I could've bought Newports from a vending machine at Dunkin Donuts back then If I had money!), and the smoking bans.

And basically speaking, I guess you can argue when someone breaks ANY law, that person is disobedient period. I've seen several laws being broken during my life in Chicago that goes beyond underage smoking, breaking smoking bans, and those who steal. The only thang I haven't seen yet is a teen driving a motorcycle.

What are some otha thangs I've seen people do illegally in Chicago? I'd ratha not answer that because it's off-topic for my blog. So I guess you'll have to find out for yourself by visiting certain areas of Chicago.

Poll added

I see I can add more permanent polls on here. Instead of adding polls as messages.

The first poll I attempted to post is on the bottom of this page.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Those antis oughta try sucking lollipops

I actually enjoyed debating with antis over there at the Trib forum. When antis online can't come up with evidence to back up their opinions (or facts as they like to call em) they just leave.

That sure is a mature way to end a smoking debate...when you can't produce proof, just leave the "self-righteous" smokers alone. I'd be ROFL if I was imagining us having an offline debate.

The funniest insult I read on there is how "Smokers think they have a right to suck on their cigarettes around those who hate it. They just need something to suck eh? Just quit and suck on lollipops."

I can't suck on lollipops. These can't produce smoke of any type. Some people who quit smoking cigs switch to smoking "something else" instead. If these antis think I should quit, I'd still have a desire to smoke something else. I love the feeling of smoke inside of me!

But tobacco is better for me to smoke compared to that other leaf. I think I'd rather smoke a cigar instead if I DID give antis their wish. LOL

But I don't believe in giving any groups what they want. I do what's best for ME. Not them.

A post for smokers in Illinois

This is a post originally made in my group (I mean SHARED with the group), and I'm sharing it in here for any IL Smokers who reads my blog but are not members of my group. I know of at least 2 IL smokers who drop from time to time in here but they're not in the groups.


The Illinois General Assembly's Joint Committee on Administrative Rules will not vote on proposed rules for the statewide smoking ban until Jan. 9. Anybody want start some line of communication with this committee?

Here is there Charter: http://www.ilga. gov/commission/ jcar/

This is a list of contacts: http://www.ilga. gov/commission/ jcar/member. pdf

As a last ditch effort, I am going to call each one of the reps.

At a minimum, I will email and snail mail the Federal ruling from Austin, Texas. Do you think its possible that these elected officials might understant the the enforcement aspects of the new law are "Constitutionally Vague"?
I'm guessing they aren't concerned about it being constitutionally vague, just vague. It wouldn't hurt to make a case for constitutional problems though. I will also be sending them my case.
Here's an interesting statement by committee member Fritchie:
The efficient thing to do would be to send a "trailer bill" through the legislature to clean up the language, Fritchey said, but there is a concern that "when you open the door a bit, you have a number of folks that would try to kick it all the way open."
Yeah, like us folks! Article below...

Published on: Thursday, December 13, 2007
Illinois smoking ban goes into effect Jan. 1


SPRINGFIELD - The Illinois General Assembly's Joint Committee on Administrative Rules will not vote on proposed rules for the statewide smoking ban until Jan. 9, but the law will go into effect as written Jan. 1.

"The law supercedes the rules," Kimberly Parker, a state Department of Public Health spokeswoman, said Wednesday. "The law goes into effect as announced."

JCAR consists of 12 senators and representatives from both parties. It reviews rules made by state agencies and can make suggestions, object to and prohibit rules from taking effect, according to its Web site.

But Gov. Rod Blagojevich, in a recent controversial decision related to his desire to expand state health-care coverage, decided that JCAR has no power to block administration actions.

Rebecca Rausch, a spokeswoman for the governor, did not return a phone call seeking comment.

The specifics of the smoking ban were turned over to JCAR in late November, so it has until Jan. 9 to approve them. JCAR and the administration could agree to an extension of that deadline. Jan. 9 also is the next day the panel will meet in Springfield.

Rep. John Fritchey, D-Chicago, said JCAR's delay in voting on the rules is because questions remain about the best way to enforce the law.

"There's stuff statutorily that should be in there that's not," said Fritchey, a member of JCAR. "There's a strong concern that the implementation of the act follows the intent of the legislation and does no more or no less."

Among the questions that still need to be answered is whether State Police should enforce the ban, how people can contest citations they receive, whether facilities where smoking research is conducted should be exempt, and how to interpret the part of the law banning smoking within 15 feet of entrances.

For example, Fritchey said, does a business get ticketed if a person waiting to cross the street in a rain shower is standing under a canopy smoking?

"There's a gray zone. I don't believe anybody intended for a private business to be liable for the actions of a private citizen who's not a patron," said Fritchey, who voted for the bill. "One would always hope common sense rules the day. But history has shown we need direction for those who show less common sense than others."

There also is no provision for fines to be contested under the state law, a concern brought up by local health officials at a recent meeting to discuss the law.

Springfield and the unincorporated parts of Sangamon County do have a hearing process under their local smoking bans.

The efficient thing to do would be to send a "trailer bill" through the legislature to clean up the language, Fritchey said, but there is a concern that "when you open the door a bit, you have a number of folks that would try to kick it all the way open."

Another potential problem is that there does not appear to be an exemption for tobacco research being done at Northwestern University in Chicago, said Sen. Maggie Crotty, D-Oak Forest.

"I think a lot of these things can be worked out," Crotty said.

In the meantime, Fritchey said, the law as written should be enforced starting Jan. 1.

The statewide ban affects all indoor workplaces and spaces open to the public. The only exceptions are for private homes not used for adult day care, child care or health care; private vehicles; private nursing home rooms; retail tobacco stores; and designated hotel and motel rooms.

That list of Ohio businesses ignoring the Ohio ban is a cool list

Thanks to D-Nuggets for leaving that link to Ohio businesses ignoring the Ohio ban in here as a comment.

Here's a direct link
since I don't think that URL he left is clickable.

If that's a preview of what is gonna come for IL, I agree. I might even have a grin on my face if I run into a site during 2008 with a list of IL businesses ignoring the state ban.

Someone on the Trib forum recommended using tobacco licenses. That is a good idea to me. In order to allow smoking in an adult-only joint, the owner needs a tobacco license.

Even if that idea happens for real on businesses obtaining liquor licenses, an anti still has every darn right to open up a voluntary smoke-free tavern or restaurant with a bar. But antis don't want to open up their own smoke-free places. Thy want to control the current businesses themselves.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Why IL politicians don't care abotu a solution

If the state makes 2 billion bucks/day off of cig sales, why would IL politicians care about a "solution [to making both sides happy on the smoking ban issue]?" As long as tobacco never gets illegal to them, money talks with those losers living the high life off of smokers' money.

I actually would like to see tobacco sales get banned. So the state of IL can be forced to pour hefty taxes on fast food, junk food, and add even more liquor taxes. They could make 4 billion bucks/day off of fast food lovers.

I'm sure folks on [that Trib forum] would call that idea unfair on making tobacco illegal but taxing fast food by a lot. It sounds fair to me. It would allow you to see how unconstitutional it is to tax one group of people heavily.

And if tobacco actually did get banned or if every person didn't smoke in IL, where are those politicians gonna get 2 billion bucks/day then? That moolah wouldn't come from cig sales! Because cigs would be illegal, remember?

Just think about it....if someone asked me for a solution to the smoking ban matter...but I collect my billions of bucks from cig sales for the day, I'd probably say "F the ban! As long as you keep smoking I will be rich FOREVER!" I bet that's the IL politiicans' attitudes for real!

Laws are still broken and that will always happen

One of those antis mentioned how Blacks eating in a restaurant is a boon. Yeah, that's a benefit for Blacks. You got a darn problem with me eating in a restaurant?

That law which allows me to eat in a USA restaurant doesn't mean prejudice against Blacks is gone. Do you think a law protecting me means the days of hate crimes are over? Far from it! I know what would happen to THAT anti if he stepped into a rough hood full of Blacks. And the KKK still exists even though there's a law protecting me (or SUPPOSEDLY protecting me).

Same thang applies to a smoking ban law. Just because we have a smoking ban doesn't mean you will see no more smokers in IL. You will see smokers AND owners breaking that law. And will there be violence assosciated with that breaking of a smoking ban? Heck yea, when we have cop raids!

I got every darn right to eat in ANY restaurant since "American" is part of my label. But if I can't smoke in there, that violates my otha right as an right to smoke in places. And I will always keep saying if antis hate smelling smoke in places, don't GO to the place "holes."

A lotta thangs are illegal, antismokers!

I am appalled at one antismoker on that Trib forum..I basically said if the govt wants to protect me, they could ban guns for starters. Afta all, if guns neva existed, even my good side would agree there would be a significant drop in crimes and fewer deaths.

This sad person tells me I'm stupid because shooting someone is illegal.

No duh, "sir!" Just because shooting someone is illegal doesn't mean people will neva die from gun shots. Heck, people getting shot to death in Chicago happens a lot. And the gun shooters neva get caught since they know how to avoid authorities.

It's illegal for a kid to own a gun. But kids own em anyway in some areas of Chicago.

Heck, a lotta stuff in this world is illegal it ain't funny. Doesn't mean nobody neva engages into those illegal activities.

But the funny thang is cigarettes are legal! And antis wanna make smoking cigs sound like smoking weed!

Don't think that since you neva smoke, you will live forever. We all live and die, and not smoking doesn't guarantee a long life. I heard of lots of folks younger than me who died before 25 and they neva smoked a cig in their lives! Death can hit us at any given time.

I sincerely hope that an anti will neva get in the way of a bullet's path or becomes a crime target. Because tragic thangs can happen to an anti at any time. But I wouldn't feel sorry at all for an anti's family if he/she died. This world is betta off without fascists.

If that's rude, I'm soooo sorry. But one of my freedoms is speech as an American. If you don't like hearing my speech, please leave my blog. I won't feel hurt with my feelings at all if you can't stand hearing from a smoker who's prosmoking all the way.

There are lots of prosmokers out there. They just haven't seen the world of smoking activists.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

A chart of business that HAVE suffered with smoking bans

I'm sure a lot of people who have been active in the smoking fight for years have seen this LINKED CHART already.

But this is a FYI post for any anti babies lurking on my blog. Smoking bans don't hurt businesses my foot!

As some say "Read it and weep." Or as I'd say, "Any last words?"

Smokers are not the only ones who are against smoking bans

I've heard of a few nonsmoking tavern owners who hate smoking bans. One tavern owner in Chicago had nothing against a group of smokers lighting up in the pool room of his tavern. He even hinted to me "I don't give a squat about what the city of Chicago thinks."

I bet when 2008 starts, a long list of tavern owners will show their displeasure of losing customers and money. Never mind nonsmokers who believe smoking is a right.

Chicago antis in that article's comments area seem to think smoking bans don't hurt businesses. Well honey, you will be in for a rude awakening when we hear how much Chicago businesses lost afta 2008 is over. I'll predict something like a total of 100 million bucks lost within the first few months. Even the casinos in Joilet will lose money.

That sounds like a fair number. Since there are lots of adults-only joints in the city. The number of revenues lost for IL hospitality businesses as a whole (afta a full year of a smoke free IL) might make me puke.

Who the F said lots of smokers fly airplanes anyway? An airplane doesn't offer games to play with your money, and they don't offer live entertainment while you fly (ie: a ban performance). I had to laugh at that comparison between getting used to smoke-free airplanes and smoke-free casinos. A casino ain't the same thang as an airplane! Even a nonsmoker knows that!

I'm used to smoke-free planes all right. I'm SO used to them, I don't botha visiting freakin Ohare airport! Maybe if I ever did fly from Chicago to Hawaii, I'll look into a private jet.

What's one habit witout the other? (Trib Article)

Here's an article that favors the side of the smoking battle I represent.


I left some comments on there with a few of them being replies to the ppl who sound like they're on the antismoking side.

I sure would like to know when Chicago "got rid of smoking" as someone else put it on there. Chicago BANNED smoking in places, but tobacco sales have never been banned. Maybe Chicago WOULD get rid of smoking if the state goverment wasn't allowed to collect profits from cig sales. But of course, there's the other issue of tough folks selling packs underground (even if tobacco sales were banned).

They can keep on dreaming if they think smoke-free casinos is something Chicagoans can get used to, or if Chicago will get rid of smoking altogether.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The state ban will bring more violence to Chicago

In 2008, I expect to see people still smoking in the streets, and I wouldn't be surprised if bar owners ignore the new state ban.

But owners ignoring the state ban means we will have bar raids. And those bar raids will be far from peaceful....especially if we talking about a bar raid in a rough area of the city. If antis think smokers are weak, then the smoke cops betta be prepared to deal with armed smokers.

This would sound like a joke if we were living in the 60s, when people lived peacefully, especially afta the civil rights half of that decade ended with a victory for "us."

But this ain't 1967. This is 2007 (almost 2008) when packs and cartons are at sky-hi prices, and you can't even smoke in adult-only joints anymore. Heck, in modern times, several cartons of cigs is like someone getting their hands on tons of cash!

Anotha difference between the two time periods is people are more aggressive in modern times than they were in the 60's. As a matta of fact, if an anti tried walking up to a smoker in Chicago and say "You can't smoke here," that anti might feel pain from the smoker as a result. I'm not gonna deny I'd make that anti feel pain myself if he/she approached me like that.

There are LOTS of thangs "ppl ain't supposed to do" in Chicago. But they do it anyway. Good luck in stopping a kid from drinking beer. You might have betta luck keeping guns outta of a kid's hands instead of trying to make sure nobody is smoking in all of the bars. But keeping guns away from kids ain't easy in my town either.

I wish I had a Rated-G prediction of how Chicago will be in 2008 with a state smoking ban. But I believe I'm telling the truth when I say "It won't be pretty especially when bar owners get unexpected visits from cops and antis."

I'm not gonna sugarcoat my predictions with "Oh smokers will just accept tickets and owners will agree to pay the fines." That would be a lie for a prediction, especially in rough areas. Simply put, the rough areas of Chicago is where LOTS of thangs are illegal but folks do it anyway. As in "My life, and it's none of your freakin' business! We doing what it takes to make a living out here! And if you don't like it, then eitha leave or face the music!"

And I'm not just talking about people ignoring a smoking ban, and kids having easy access to packs and cartons. I wonder what an anti would do if he saw a kid with a can of beer or a bottle of vodka. LOL

Monday, December 10, 2007

IL makes a lil bit more than $2 billion/day in cig sales

I'm still appalled to hear how much the state govt makes off of cig sales even for just one day. Oh I believe it. It's just part of me keeps asking "What is the address of the place in Springfield that receives their share of tax money from cig sales? They could share some of that profit with me."

Nah, I wouldn't do that in reality. But I now believe greed is behind these constant rises on the different tobacco taxes. A NON-smoking sis asked me once "Wouldn't they decrease the cig prices if the govt depends on smokers' money? Because if I smoked, I would NEVER pay 8 freakin bucks for a pack. Even if I was down to my last 8 bucks in life, I wouldn't spend it on a pack."

I get her point. Common sense would say in order to make more money off of smokers, then you would decrease the taxes on it. I mean after all even if the tax for cigs was only 30 cents/pack (as part of the govt's profit), that's $30 million if I multiply .30 x 1 million smokers!

If the IL govt can't live off of 30 million bucks per day from Illinois smokers, then they are the greediest mothaF'kas I have ever heard of! No wonder they keep their snail addresses anonymous! Because if some folks in my town realized how much IL collects off of smokers, they would probably drive down to Springfield to meet those politicians living off of smokers' money.

Yes, I know they use that money to support stop-smoking programs and to support the anti orgs. But I can imagine some of that 2 billion bucks going into their pockets!

I don't intend on quitting. But I'm not feeding IL politicians' pockets anymore with buying cigs! If I could I'd actually move outta this state. I can't live in a state that abuses my money and tells me "Thank you for smoking " by not giving me a darn place to smoke at in IL aside from homes and cars! I don't even remember the last time I bought a pack in IL period!

I just hope those politicians protect themselves. Because when the rich gets richer, that makes the poor more jealous.

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Don't order cigs from an online tobacco shop that ain't USA-based

I notice from my research online of tobacco shops, all of the non-USA based shops claim they don't report orders. Since they're not located in the USA.

And they probably don't report orders at all. BUT...I also read about several customers of these shops getting their orders seized. Meaning those smokers never got those very cheap cartons from Europe.

My conclusion: Even though foreign smoke shops online are not required to report orders, there IS that risk of you not getting your orders period. My best bet is if you really want to smoke European cigs, maybe you can visit or move to one of those European countries.

What's the point of ordering cartons from an European smoke shop online if someone is gonna steal your order (while it's in the delivery process)? And besides, I can't wait a F'king 4 weeks to get fresh cartons. I need my little friends from those cartons 365 days a year!

Getting your orders seized is the opposite of a shop reporting your orders to your home state every month. If an European smoke shop took your order but you never received the cartons. And the shop won't refund you, guess what? You got SCAMMED! And that's WORSE than me receiving back tax letters from Springfield!

Yes, even shops selling items online can scam you. Not just online and offline investment scammers.