Friday, July 4, 2008
Some of those more recognizable African countries (like Egypt and Nigeria) are closer to being places where folks can live independently for real. Being able to smoke whereva you want without trouble from authorities is my version of living independently.
I guess I couldn't exactly do that now over there (that being smoke where the he!! I want and when I want) since smoking bans are spreading like the HIV across Africa. :(
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Congressional Black Caucus Urges Lawmakers To Include Menthol Restriction In Tobacco Legislation
02 Jul 2008
The Congressional Black Caucus is calling on lawmakers to add restrictions on menthol cigarettes to legislation (HR 1108, S 625) that would give FDA the authority to regulate tobacco and outlaw most flavor additives, the New York Times reports (Saul, New York Times, 7/1). Menthol flavoring was left out of the bill as a concession to the tobacco industry, without which the bill would not have a chance of passing. Three out of four black smokers use menthol-flavored cigarettes. Like other additives, menthol, which is derived from mint and is available in synthetic form, can help mask the harsh taste of tobacco. The additive is the most widely used flavoring in cigarettes (Kaiser Health Disparities Report, 6/18).
Virgin Islands Rep. Donna Christensen (D), head of the black caucus' health task force, said the caucus is working with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the House bill, to address concerns about menthol. In an e-mail, she wrote, "We are very aware and gravely concerned about the disproportionate incidence of lung cancer in the African-American community and, along with so many minority health experts, have long been concerned about the role menthol may play."
Christensen did not disclose the exact language of any proposed changes to the legislation, but she said the caucus is working to strengthen provisions on research and reporting about menthol and to allow FDA to ban menthol. Lorillard, the cigarette company that would stand to lose the most from a menthol ban, on June 22 sent e-mails to customers encouraging them to contact their congressional representatives "and tell them to oppose any amendment to ban menthol cigarettes." Michael Robinson, a spokesperson for Lorillard, said, "We think it's important that consumers know what's going on in Washington and have an opportunity to make their voices heard" (New York Times, 7/1).
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
http://www.topix. com/business/ tobacco
Especially reading all of those complaints from several dudes and chicks who smoke the FSC Marlboro Reds.
Me tried to help the smokers on there by pointing em to alternatives to FSCs. I know most smokers don't like the idea of making their own regs. But hey, afta reading the complaints on there about Reds, making your own reg cigs is darn worth it!
It's a good thang FSCs didn't exist when I was a teen. I neva would've thought of smoking a reg in my life afta reading the sheety comments on the FSC Reds.
Some of em view these FSCs as Big Bacco's way of forcing smokers to quit. I view it as a way of forcing smokers to look into smoking REAL cigs with REAL bacco in em.
I feel sorry for that one business in Iowa where all of the employees are smokers....the one the article refers to. I hope that one business with all workers plan to have a smoke-in as a protest.
Don't like being treated as useless citizens, Iowans? Well, have smoke-ins. Engage in civil disobedience. Offer your customers to give voluntary donations for the fines. And if an anti threatens to call the smoke cops, kick his A$$ outta your joint if you the owner! You have the right to kick any troublemaker out!
Sounds like I'd be a good fit among southern IL smokers, since I agree defying a ban is the only way to come close to revoking it. The difference with down there and up here is up here, smokers are too scared to light up in a tavern. And the cops up here ain't scared to issue tickets cause law-breaking in general is common in Chicago. They know how to deal with smokers being law breakers.
In Southern IL, the authorities down thee think the smoking ban is a sick joke. And it certainly is! I wouldn't have to worry about cops snooping at me on every move I make with a cig indoors down there.
Well, I heard Daley is gonna fight that decision. Cause now, it's legal for all Chicago residents to own a gun. And if anyone honestly thinks gun owners in this town are just gonna keep the guns in the cribs only, then those smokers need to come to Chicago as tourists.
As someone pointed out in the groups, Chicago has a lot more Blacks living in it now compared to when he used to live here decades ago. And he said he didn't feel safe in his car.
And since Chicago is mre of a Black town on the South and West sides, anyone who thinks someone with a gun is just gonna use it only when an intruder enters the crib, I can only chuckle at that.
Daley wants to fight the decision cause now more of "us" are gonna get guns and use em in the streets as part of self-defense. I can even see more hood kids getting guns and try to use the self-defense as an excuse. The decision is also bad news for anti-gun advocates who want to see Chicagoland gun shops closed down...afta all, no gun shops would mean a lot less crime on the streets. But since it's legal for me to have a gun in a crib, you can't close all of the gun shops down now!
Someone said if smokers actually used more guns, then smoking bans wouldn't last. Well, she's definitely right about that.
But if there's a smoker who's not used to being in a big city, I wouldn't recommend visiting Chicago. I ain't gonna deny there are lots of law-breaking here, including small law-breaking. Just cause the Court says it's legal to use a gun only in your own crib for self-defense, doesn't mean nobody is gonna take that gun with em in the streets.
Heck, even before the Court made that decision, it wasn't uncommon to run into someone with a gun in the Chicago streets who's not an actual criminal. That bro has a gun for one reason only if not to commit actual crimes...and that's....you guessed it! Self-defense from troublemakers.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
I guess I should add a RYO Magazine link for those who want to look more into RYOs/MYOs. Since I hear several smokers hate the FSCs. One smoker online said he has quit smoking Marlboro Reds for good cause he can't stand the taste of the FSC Reds.
Although most people know me as a menthol lover, I ain't afraid to admit making your own regular (FF) cigs taste much betta than a Red. Premade regs tasted gross to me, except for Winstons. But those MYO regs that I tried once actually tasted similar to a WInston, and they tasted very good for a reg.
If you smoke lights, don't worry. You can get light cig tubes as well as light-flavored tobacco. The tubes come in king size and 100mm size.
Menthol MYOs taste like I am smoking a breath mint in the form of a cig. Those menthols I made tasted even fresher than premade menthols, including BH Menthols and Salems.
Instead of having the tobacco companies force you to quit with the FSCs, AND if you REALLY love smoking, don't stop! Instead, switch to making your own cigs instead!
Orders are not reported at stuffyourown.com as well as orders being report-free at agoodcigarette.com (that latter link is on my actual list off of the right) I know cause I've been a customer at both for a long time..
If you looking for the best shop online to buy premade cigs, agoodcigarette.com is your best bet.
At least at agoodcigarette, you can buy cartons of Native-made brands (as well as the premiums). And the Native brands are like a premade version of MYOs....they have 100 percent tobacco in em with no additives. And the Native brands ain't FSCs (Fire-safe cigarettes).
Blackhawk Tobacco Shop is still on my link list....you can buy solely Native-made cig brands at that online shop.
The last poll Q's results were simple. Of the 6 voters, 3 think we won't see any changes or a revokement of the IL smoking ban til December 2008. 1 voted for November, and 2 voted for October.
EDIT: If you get a message when attempting to place a vote, I wish I could explain what the problem is. The poll is open to all visitors. Excluding my 2 votes, otha people were able to place their votes without any problem. Maybe trying again lata might work in having your vote appear (if it's not showing up)
Monday, June 30, 2008
Actually, I could see a smoker trying to quit smoking as being a voter in favor of a smoking ban. I dunno how banning smoking is gonna help anyone quit, since you'll still see people smoking outdoors. But most of those folks who vote in favor of a smoking ban could give a flying sheet about what I and otha smokers want. They only care about THEIR needs. Not anyone else's needs. As long as they feel safe in the public, why would they care about innocent people smoking in the rain, snow, heat, or wintry cold weather? And they certainly don't give a darn about how much money the owners lose as a result of smoking bans.
(Quote from John Palmer in my IL Smokers Alliance Group)
And how many parents do the holes at ALA think are gonna actually follow those dumb-A signs?
While I'm not a dad myself at this time, you know where I stand on this issue. What a parent does around his/her kid is nobody's business. Unless it's child molesting. And smoking around a kid is not remotely comparable to molesting a kid.
I hope parents ignore those signs in the same fashion I ignore no smoking signs. Those signs can't arrest parents for smoking around their kids in a park or home.
Smoke ban often defied Downstate
Rural authorities say state's law is too ambiguous
- By E.A. Torriero and Steve Schmadeke |Chicago Tribune reporters
TAYLORVILLE, Ill. — The sign on the door of the American Tap warns patrons not to smoke. But sitting at the bar, customers merrily puff away, sharing cigarettes with the bartender and the owner while openly defying and mocking the state's ban on indoor .
"I told the health department weeks ago, 'Go ahead and fine me,' " said owner Gary McWard, flicking an ash from his cigarette into an empty beer can on the bar top. "And I'm still waiting."
Enforcement could be a long time coming. Light up indoors in Chicago and the suburbs and get caught, and it's virtually certain the law will try to snuff it out. But in Downstate Illinois, where state smoking rates are the highest and opposition to the is most vociferous, some communities are refusing to halt indoor smoking or levy fines.
Six months after the state's blanket ban on smoking in indoor public places took effect, Downstate smokers can easily be found either breaking the law or craftily skirting it except in urban areas such as Springfield, Bloomington and Champaign.
In and around Taylorville, a cozy community just 27 miles south of the Capitol building where the law was passed, more than half of the county's 17 major drinking establishments are filled with smokers, county officials said. Complaints pile into the Christian County Health Department, where officials fume they can do nothing more than issue warning letters and threats of fines to violators.
'A legal vacuum'Some rural prosecutors and county health departments say they are in a legal bind: The law that took effect Jan. 1 is not specific in how it should be enforced.
Though the law spells out fines from $100 to $250 for smokers and from $250 on up for business owners, it does not detail a due process to enforce it, they say.
And it leaves it up to local authorities to wrestle with the ambiguity. Officials in Chicago and the suburbs are enforcing the ban despite the lack of certain guidelines, but some Downstate prosecutors are reluctant to—especially with strong pockets of public sentiment against the ban.
The Tribune contacted officials from more than a dozen Downstate counties who say they are doing nothing to enforce the law.
"We have been forced into a legal vacuum," said State's Atty. Tom Finks of Christian County, one of many Downstate counties that have not prosecuted a single violator. "Legally, the legislature has not given us the proper tools of enforcement. Our job is not to fill in the blanks."
Asked why he did not adopt Chicago-like enforcement standards, Finks said, "It's a classic difference in government philosophy between us down here and the folks up there."
Peoria attorney Daniel O'Day, who believes the ban infringes on personal liberty, travels across the state working for free to represent smokers cited under the law. He said the ban has a number of flaws, including no specific requirements for bartenders to enforce the law; no penalty for failing to remove ashtrays; and no legal limit on the dollar amount of fines for bar owners.
"This is Lawmaking 101," said O'Day, who is himself trying to give up smoking.
O'Day is confident the state smoking ban will be ruled unconstitutional. His attempt in Will County was rebuffed last month when a judge upheld the ban as well as the police citation process in which five bar smokers in Joliet were fined. A Bureau County judge is expected to rule on O'Day's arguments next month.
Legislators in the last session tried to close the legal loopholes, but the bill was tabled. Backers vow to readdress the issue in the next session. Ultimately, prosecutor Finks said, the revised law will likely provide for an administrative hearing process that will not involve county legal systems.
"In the meantime, there's nothing much that can be done about it," said Kathy Drea, director of public policy for the American Lung Association.
"We get calls all the time about violations, but for now people can get away with it," said Drea, who lives in Taylorville and knows of the rampant smoking in bars here. "It's frustrating. "
Michael Grady, who helped craft the law for the American Cancer Society, said most communities have no problems upholding the law.
"The law is sufficient," he said. "If there is a situation, it is in people choosing not to follow it, not in legislative flaw."
Ban proponents are seeing more than 90 percent compliance statewide, Grady said. And the violations seem confined mostly to small bars, officials said.
The state's public health agency has gotten more than 3,700 smoking complaints this year. Complaints are forwarded to counties for investigation, but state officials said they have no idea how they are handled.
Creative strategiesSome tavern owners say they are following the letter of the law while creatively getting around the spirit of it.
Outside Decatur, Frank Conaway, owner of the tavern Timbuktu, erected a corrugated metal wall around a patio and stone bar. He installed heaters and television screens while leaving a few inches of open air between the walls and the roof. That, he said, makes his "Butt Hut" comply with state law, a claim that ban proponents doubt.
"People can smoke out there all they want, and we'll serve them food and drink," said Conaway, who removed the wall for the summer to create a beer garden.
"It cost us a bundle to build it, and we think it is within the law," said owner Star Diserens. "If we didn't do it, we'd lose our core customers, who all smoke."
Across the state, tavern owners are building beer gardens next to their establishments so customers can smoke outdoors.
At 's Bon Air in Alton, one of the state's busiest bars, the owners spent some $800,000 to build an outdoor facility resembling an old-time ballpark. The serving bar sits beneath an overhang. In winter, massive heaters blow warm air on the patrons, many of them smokers.
"I would never credit this stupid smoking law, but it certainly has helped our business," said Ed Sholar Jr., whose family owns the bar.
But in Taylorville, a town of 12,000, some bar patrons brazenly smoke indoors.
On a recent at the American Tap, seven of the 12 patrons sitting at the bar puffed away while sipping beers. Owner McWard acknowledged making a feeble attempt at deterrence by placing a sign outside the front door advising of the smoking ban and not putting out any ashtrays.
So regulars like David Martinez bring their own ashtrays, a makeshift cup he called a "butt basket." Others dump their ashes into empty beer cans. As they smoke, the fumes waft past a picture of smoking ban proponent Drea, who McWard said is not welcome in his establishment.
McWard has gotten several violation notices from the county and knows of at least 65 complaints filed against the tap. But until enforcement happens, McWard figures his customers can smoke at will.
"We would like to get this stopped, but we can't," said Gerry Grigsby, administrator for the Christian County Health Department. "We're stuck with a bad law, and it's a health hazard."
Sunday, June 29, 2008
A nonsmoker is a person who doesn't smoke and actually respects being around smokers.
An antismoker is a fascist who hates people who smoke tobacco. An anti smoker is someone who wants a smoke-free USA as well as a smoke-free planet Earth. But a smoke-free planet Earth will neva happen. They use lies and fake stats in order to support their arguments on SHS being deadly.
A brainswashed smoker is similar to an antismoker. This type of smoker believes every single word that comes out of the antis' mouths. This smoker feels bad smoking a legal product, and even regrets starting when he/she is a lot more older.
A smoking activist is someone who defends the right to smoke a legal product publicly, as well as defend the owners' right to make their own decisions in allowing smoking in their establishments. Smoking activists ain't limited to smokers with common sense. They include nonsmokers. Because not all nonsmokers (and ex-smokers too) in this world hate smokers. And not all nonsmokers agree with the antismokers' lies. A smoking activist also wouldn't mind the idea of fighting with an anti in a literal sense.
Which person are YOU?
I know future posts from yourself won't appear on here. Because you don't have to prove to me you're a brainwashed Kool smoker. I guess the only reason why you keep on smoking is because you're (as several say) "I'm hooked, and I can't stop?" I don't know how otha ex-smokers are able to quit smoking if that was the case.
Of all of the thangs I remember about you over the years, I forgot about that flame board you created a few years ago entitled "Fun with Jay." Where it was primarily used to make fun of me as a person. Of course, if that board was on Boardhost, I would've reported it to them immediately since unlike that Asiaco support, Boardhost support actually responds to people who report forums that violate their TOS. It's against their TOS to have a forum that's meant to solely attack anyone. I reported one smoking forum back then that had racial remarks from Cajun, and I had to report that. Because if the moderator is gonna be inactive, I'll take matters into my own hands.
My time is betta spent focusing on fighting for the freedom to smoke instead of dealing with a pervert like yourself. And I know one thang for sure. If I'm not welcome on your end of the net, then you're not welcome on MY end of the net. I don't care if you actually said "I'm sorry." Cause an apology means nothing from you. You said that years ago. But yet, you STILL keep copying posts on other forums without my permission. When I tell someone "I'm sorry," I mean it, and I grow up. If you actually meant that apology from a few years ago, I hope you show you meant it one of these days.
And for someone who actually advised me to ignore somethang I don't like reading years ago, you oughta follow your own advice.
I hope you'll still be living when I'm 60. Since you're a lot more older than me, and I want you to see for yourself you can smoke for more than 40 years and still live. Heck, my own mother isn't even dead yet despite being a smoker for almost 48 straight years. That should show to anyone with at least a HS diploma that just because you smoke doesn't mean you'll have a short life.
Posted by John on 6/28/2008, 5:53 pm
I don't know your real name, and I don't care. I know it's not John because you said so yourself years ago that John isn't your real name. I believe you're a smoker who tried to quit in the past. But obviously you're a good example of a smoker who's poisoned by antismoking thinking. It's actually mind-boggling period that you smoke at all, based on how negative you make smoking sound over the years.
I guess I'm "nutty" to you because I see the fascism behind the treatment of smokers. But you accept the second class treatment like mills of other smokers. And you must be living in a fantasy world if you think no anti in this nation is gonna try to confront a smoker period. Antis don't care about me and my freedoms. Especially if they're gonna call me every name in the book. So I believe in returning them the favor by making them feel real pain.
For someone who claims to be a smoker, I notice you're a whimp like an anti by posting a comment to a blog post on another forum, but you're not manly enough to leave a comment on my blog.
I know you read this blog. After all, anyone with common sense knows if you copy a post of mine without my permission, you have to be reading this blog. And if you're gonna act like a little boy and post your comments on a different forum instead of talking to me on here like a man should, I guess I could give you the same treatment by bringing your comments on here where they belong.