Friday, May 16, 2008

A classic antismoking quote

This is a quote from an anti in Maine named Ben.

"I remember several instances when I got on the lift and the person next to me lit up. It was disgusting, as well as unhealthy."

So if someone lights up a cig on a ski lift, then that's disgusting? Dude, seeing someone light up a cig anywhere is normal. If you wanna know what's really disgusting to see, here's a hint. Ever see someone up there use an alley as his toilet? I certainly have! And that's not comparable to smoking on a ski life.

And bud, if you think seeing adults smoke on a ski lift is "disgusting and unhealthy," you betta not say those same words to a kid in my area. Especially if his/her mom is with the kid(s). It would be unhealthy for you to be rude like that to ANY smoker really. But especially a mom who knows her kid is a smoker.

Seeing someone smoke on a ski lift is disgusting.. .that is hilarious! I'd hate to hear what he thinks of a kid smoking with the sis's (the mom) permission.

PS: If you wanna know why being rude to a smoker is "unhealthy for you," that smoker might get arrogant and bully you around if it's a hood smoker. But since you in Maine, you probably don't encounter those type of people in your streets. A Maine smoker might simply walk away from you.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

I hope Paul wins the Rep. nominee (EDITED)

As a smoker, I think it's cool the Rep. race is down to Paul and someone else. And I really hope he wins the Rep. nomination. As a smoker, I agree with her Paul is the most sensible candidate since he doesn't believe in a nationwide smoking ban. And he believes in making the US the Land of the Free again.

Paul vs. Obama would be an interesting presidential race in November. I already mentioned why I'd vote for Obama. But if Paul gets the Rep vote, this will be one time where I'd actually vote for a Rep instead of a Democrat. As much as I'd like to see a Black President (and I still stick by my past comments on that), I will confess a candidate who believes in preserving my American freedoms and hints he thinks smoking bans should be illegal, then that would be one time where I wouldn't care if he's not a bro. I hope Paul's plan is to make raising tobacco taxes illegal as well if he's the next President.

You'll get my support Paul if I see your name on the November ballot. Cause I wasn't playing when I said my right to smoke and the owners' right to allow smoking are both very important as my civil rights. And if I see Paul's name, I gotta lie about voting for OBama if someone in the hood asked me "Who are you voting for?" My vote is a secret nobody needs to know. Not even good folks in society.

EDIT: I heard within the smokers groups McCain has the vote locked up for the Republicans. That's sad to hear since I was prepared to place a vote on behalf of all smokers and owners nationwide. But now I'm gonna pick the person who actually respects the Black community nationwide. Even if he IS an antismoker.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Why govt wants to ban all cig flavas cept menthol

I was reading somethang on Limbauugh's site, and he wanted to know why menthol cigs get a free pass on govt wanting any otha cig flavor banned. Including cloves.

Well, I dpn't need to read a page to find the answer.

Big Tobacco would lose 75% of brothas and sistas who are menthol smokers. Govt doesn't wanna ban a flavored cig when 3/4 of a minority group's smokers enjoy the mint cigs. Sheet, there's a reason why back in the 70's I read about Newport vans going up and down in cities with hoods and passing out free packs to all of us in the hoods. They even gave out free packs to Black lil kids! Cause Lorillard wanted to attract smoking to our audience, and they were competing with the Kool brand.

I don't believe that BS on me having a higha rate of getting cancer just cause I smoke menthols.If antis and Limbaugh wanna scare me as a menthol smoker, they gonna have to do betta than that! Does a Black NON-smoker have this "higha rate of cancer" too? I highly doubt it.

Wheneva someone wants to talk about Black smoking in a bad light, I'm surprised no anti is making a claim like "If Blacks smoke, especially Black kids, that means they're evil people who live in their hoods."

I wouldn't say every single person in a hood actually smokes menthols or Js for that matta. But I definitely see a connection between a law-breaking bro/sis and menthol smoking. Almost every person in the area who even shares my thoughts on certain society topics loves his/her Newports too.

Tobacco Regulation on the move

The govt wants to make smokers quit. Raising taxes don't seem to help. Since smokers evade those taxes by buying em online or by switching to MYOs. And of course, a hood smoker is more interested in getting those packs for free so to speak.

But if people ain't gonna stop smoking, you can make em quit by forcing em to pay more and buy more packs.

How do you make smokers buy more packs and pay more as a result? By regulating tobacco itself. But I seriously hope tobacco regulation NEVA happens.


http://www.ombwatch .org/article/ blogs/entry/ 4803/18

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Tobacco Regulation Bill on the Move

The House yesterday took a step toward regulating tobacco products,
as the Energy and Commerce Committee voted 32-12 in favor of giving
oversight authority to the Food and Drug Administration.

Among other things, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
Act (H.R. 1108) would allow FDA to set standards for nicotine content
in cigarettes and to exert control over the marketing and advertising
of tobacco products. The bill would not permit FDA to ban nicotine
outright. The bill would allow FDA to collect user fees — a
controversial process whereby regulated companies pay the federal
government to inspect and oversee their products — in order to fund a
new tobacco regulation office. (More info here.)

The federal government can regulate lots of products that have the
potential to do harm including food, pharmaceuticals, and vehicles.
Yet on tobacco, a product certain to do harm, government is
completely powerless.

Industry pressure has kept tobacco off the government's regulatory
radar, as a New York Times editorial states this morning: "For years,
the industry greedily fought off regulation with mendacious denials
and addictive donations to lawmakers' re-election kitties."

This time around, the tobacco industry is divided. Phillip Morris has
expressed support for the bill, but Reynolds American is opposed.
Reynolds claims that FDA is ill-equipped to handle the additional
regulatory challenge.

If you're waiting for FDA to set the record straight on its ability
to regulate tobacco, don't hold your breath. FDA Commissioner Andrew
von Eschenbach said last year that placing tobacco under the agency's
purview would be a burden, according to The Wall Street Journal
(subscription) . The Journal also reports President Bush may veto the
bill if Congress finalizes it this year.

FDA is an underfunded agency, and the lack of funding has made it
difficult for FDA to fulfill its mission. However, the user fee
program should provide a steady source of income. According to the
Journal, "The House panel estimates that the FDA will collect $85
million from tobacco companies in the first year and eventually
assess fees of $712 million in the next decade."

Moreover, FDA should not shy away from the responsibility to regulate
tobacco because it cannot afford to do so. Instead, it should embrace
tobacco regulation, then zealously push Congress to provide robust
funding for all the agency's activities.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Comments on pics related with the case article

Me just viewed pics in relation to the article. (from one of those "Related Links")

That chick who was smoking next to that guy looks cute with a cig. If she offered me a cig, I'd accept her offer. Even if a smoking lady hates menthols, I still can't turn down a cig offer from any chick. Regs seem to taste betta when a chick hands me the cig. :)

That otha chick who had the "WHAT'S NEXT, BACON?" sign was funny. But I follow her point. It's the same point smoking activists online brought up, including myself. First it's smoking. Next, the govt will ban certain foods to keep me from becoming obese. Any smokers in here who met me in person before know I'm far from obese. But they liked seeing me smoke my menthols in enjoyment.

That dude with his own sign and he wore some shades...antis might use that pic to argue that "Smokers are unintelligent, since they can't spell." (He had "to" on the sign instead of "too")

Give him a freakin break. Maybe he didn't have room on that sign to write the full word. Me believes me saw a pic of O'Day as well. He must be the guy exhaling some smoke in the sun, It's neat he's a smoker himself.

IL Smokers take case to court

Me found an article this morning talking about smokers having a date in court. And this must be the same case Jim previously talked about in the IL group.

Based on what I read as me attempted to hi-lite da article for copying/pasting, yup, this is the media's version of the same case. Me bets Jim is a more legit source than a Fked up journalist who's in favor of smoking bans.

Smokers take cause to court


May 13, 2008

JOLIET -- Outside the courthouse Monday, protesters bemoaned the smoking ban.

They'd gathered just before 11 a.m. on the north side of the building near Jefferson Street, many of them puffing on cigarettes.

"Come on, honk!" one woman yelled to the drivers passing by. "Honk for your freedom!" And the horns started blowing.

On the other side of the street, a man sitting on the bed of a parked pickup waved a homemade sign proclaiming "Smokers have rights, too."

Inside the building, four local residents ticketed by Joliet police in March for allegedly defying the ban were in the courtroom of Will County Judge Marzell Richardson. Paul Leoford, 63, of 802 Cottage St., Shorewood; Bruce Hockin, 63, of 1317 Frederick St., Joliet; and Jack Jackson, 65, of 900 Windsor Drive, Shorewood, were at Paulie's Pub, 2104 W. Jefferson St., when they allegedly were caught smoking.

Donald Poplawski, 56, of 1115 N. Center St., Joliet, was at Woody's, 1008 E. Washington St.

Tough act to follow?
The Smoke Free Illinois Act, a law that went into effect Jan. 1, forbids smoking in most indoor public places.

The four men are being represented by Dan O'Day, a Peoria lawyer who has worked on similar cases. He has filed paperwork in court arguing, among other things, that the ban was unconstitutional because it was unnecessarily broad. After a brief discussion, the judge suggested that they address the constitutional issue first and the other objections at a later date.

Moving vehicles
The new ban forbids smoking in public places where employees could be exposed to second-hand smoke, O'Day argued. That includes some vehicles such as public buses and police cars, for example. So if a police officer stopped a squad at a busy intersection and rolled down the windows, no one could smoke within 15 feet of either side of the car.

If a customer was smoking inside a car and stopped at the drive-through window of a fast-food restaurant, that person also could be breaking the law if an employee was nearby, O'Day argued.

"You start adding up all these outdoor places and the vehicles that are moving ... Can you even pick a place where you can smoke?" he asked the judge. "I don't know of any point in Illinois outdoors, except for the woodiest ravines, that employees don't have to go."

That argument is an unreasonable interpretation of the law, argued Will County Assistant State's Attorney Michael Woods.

"Public places are open to the public. Someone's car is not open to the public," Woods said.

The new law is similar to others regulating alcohol, Woods said. There are places where drinking is allowed and others where it is forbidden. People can drink in their homes and inside taverns, for example, but they can't walk down the street with a bottle of beer, he argued.

After hearing both sides, Richardson decided to consider the issue until 2 p.m. May 30.

Waiting for a ruling
Back outside, the protesters still waved their signs. Some local bar owners and their employees were sitting on a bench, waiting to hear the outcome of the case. Mary Woodard, owner of Woody's, said she felt terrible about the fact that some of her customers had been ticketed."I think we should have the right to put a sign on the door saying that it's a smoking bar," she said

A quote from Mayor Daley

"Secondly, if we can ban smoking in every restaurant in Chicago, why can't we as citizens, not only of Chicago but of America, say we don't need guns in our community?"

( A Daley Quote from THIS ARTICLE )

Why don't you tell the truth Daley? The only reason why smoking is banned in IL is cause you're hoping Chicago can host some darn Olympics! And based on the context of your quote, smoking is not really banned in the sense of tobacco sales being illegal in Chicago.

You mentioned how if we can ban smoking, we should get ALL guns banned in America. Well a firearm ban would mean owning a gun would be illegal on my part, and I can go to jail.

But you can still buy tobacco in Chicago, despite smoking being banned.

Based on the definition of a smoking ban, are you hinting that we should ban using guns in public,but it should still be legal for me to buy a gun at a gun shop?

Even if gun sales WERE illegal, you can't stop someone like me from buying a gun from a gangsta. Gangs got easy access to guns illegally. And just like a teen buying one in the hood easily, I can buy one myself underground even with a firearm ban.

If you ban tobacco sales in Chicago, you would have a TRUE smoking ban then.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Loks like NY State wants to collect taxes on ALL net purchases

Looks like those smokers who keep asking "How come the states don't collect taxes on ALL net purchases?" will get their wish in NY state. NY is now trying to force online retailers like Amazon to "Gimme the darn taxes off of those orders if you wanna stay in business."

If otha states follow suit, then that means buying anythang online will be no different from buying stuff offline.

N.Y. Orders Large Web Retailers To Charge Tax
State Estimates New Rule Will Bring In $50 Million In 2008

Tony Aiello

NEW YORK (CBS) ― New York Internet shoppers, take note: in five weeks, sales tax-free shopping will end on many Web sites thanks to rewritten state rules that are trying to force Internet retailers to collect.

At Chrono Tech Watches in White Plains, Jerry Nally is glad the clock is ticking on many Internet retailers that don't charge New York sales tax. Nally says those so-called "e-tailers" steal his customers.

"They'll come in our store, look at our product, touch it, play with it, look at the warranties, then go back to the web and buy it tax free," says Nally.

For years, retailers with "brick and mortar" stores in New York, such as Wal-Mart, have charged sales tax on orders placed through their Web sites. Yet and other e-tailers with no physical stores have not charged the tax, much to the delight of Internet bargain hunters, like online shopper April Cantin.

"Coming here, you have to pay a lot of tax, when you pay on line, you pay nothing, just shipping and handling and the item," she says.

In the midst of a budget crisis, New York is now telling Amazon and certain other large Internet-only vendors they must collect state and local sales tax -- if they allow sales via "click-throughs" from New York-based Web sites. The new rule is set to go into effect on June 1.

The state estimates this new Internet tax will bring in $50 million this year and $75 million next year.

The Retail Council Of New York State hopes the new rule is the first step toward collecting sales taxes on all Internet commerce.

But the new rulings aren't sitting well with the Internet giants. Amazon, the largest Internet retailer, is objecting to the decision, saying "this is the wrong time to increase taxes on New Yorkers."

"You will drive people away. People are not going to want to shop online anymore," says Cantin.

Nally is hoping online businesses will comply, however, telling CBS 2 "it's about time!"

"I have to pay tax, and Amazon should pay tax, it's as simple as that," he says. "There's no reason for a difference."

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Ohio is cracking down on net cig sales

I heard that Ohello is cracking down on net cig sales. Does that mean any smoker in that state will receive back tax bills from now on? I can definitely see Ohello authorities forcing the online tobacco vendors to cough up the info on all of the tobacco vendors' Ohello customers.

"Thugs" is a good way to describe authorities trying to stop smokers from evading tobacco taxes. These mothas try hard to crack down on REAL crimes. But yet, they think stealing the money of innocent smokers is perfectly normal! Go figure!

Here's a tip for an Ohello authority who wants to "steal money" from smokers buying cigs online. You might have betta luck stealing money from othas (and get the moolah a lot more quicka) if you rob a bank instead. LOL!!!

Someone who tries catching a REAL criminal but turns around and steals 1000s of bucks from Ohio smokers buying cigs online is hypocritical. I know if I was an authority cracking down on crimes, I'd make myself look stupid by sending back tax bills to the Ohio smokers I know of who bought tobacco online.

I wonder what Ohello authorities intend to do with that money they get from smokers paying back tax bills. Put that money in their pockets? They can get stolen money in their pockets MUCH fasta by doing a REAL job so to speak. I seriously hope Ohio smokers IGNORE those back tax bills.

Followup Post on my hood atttude towards "No Smoking"

If I sound like someone within my area with that strong attitude in my last post, then I guess I'd be a selfish smoker in an anti's eyes. Since I don't give a sheet about No Smoking signs. And I don't give a sheet if/when I do get caught. But that thick cloud of smoke in the air makes it tougha for anyone to tell if I'm actually smoking.

I used to be worried and nervous about getting caught smoking on the job. But not anymore. I'm doing good as a worker, and I'm providing myself as a service. If I can't openly smoke on the job, that's cool with me. Cause I'm used to doing secret thangs in a restroom otha than smoking.

If I'm gonna provide someone my money OR my service on a job, I'm lighting up my menthols inside. And if you don't like it, you antis and the ACS can all die in he!! one day. You don't care about owners losing their businesses thanks to a smoking ban, so why the F should I care about you?

Those restrooms might be even MORE smokey than usual thanks to the weather today. But I guarantee you nobody is gonna drop dead from inhaling that SHS.