Friday, October 17, 2008
Ever thought of lighting up inside of a classroom while class is in session?
I talked to a friend tonight (who's near the Kankakee area). She told me she was upfront with her sub-professor and this young lady even cussed a lil atthe woman. Cause the friend didn't like the professor treating her like a lil girl (as the friend put it).
She did have a point on saying to me "I pay for her salary. So I should have every right to say anythang about her upfront."
I was slightly playing when I told her "Maybe you oughta light up a cig during class to make a statement about her." But the friend hinted she might actually do that if the professor keeps (her words) "pushing her buttons."
It would be interesting to hear of more college smokers lighting up in class to make a statement on smoke-free campuses instead. Especially since more colleges in IL are thinking of having smoke-free campuses 100 percent.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Here's news about a death caused by the smoking ban in the Chicago area. I'm sure antis will argue that it's stupid to assume that a guy got shot to death just cause he stepped outside to smoke.
But the way he was shot to death...that ain't surprising to me. I even heard of Black kids getting shot by Chicago cops in the dark streets before...those senseless deaths are worse than this one (but they are similar on both of em being senseless shootings)
I mean based on the time of day that shooting happened, I ain't surprised it happened. And I hate to say it's common to hear of ANYONE getting shot to death afta leaving the bar or restaurant at night in rough areas specifically.
That guy would have neva lost his life if he didn't have to go outside to smoke. I'm sorry to hear a smoker died. But I don't mean to pass it off as nothang cause deaths that happen where the victim leaves the place and gets ppfted once outside in the dark are (sadly) common deaths in this town. It's sad news. But it's also sad news that's common to hear around here.
Yet another death by smoking ban
Posted on October 14, 2008 by Marshall
A 56-year-old man was shot to death Sunday night after leaving a bar in
Chicago's West Englewood neighborhood to smoke, police said.
Officers were called to the 5700 block of South Ashland Avenue about
10:30 p.m. after the man's body was found in the street. He had been
shot in the head, police said.
Authorities identified the victim as Bruce Peebles of the 7900 block of
South Parnell Avenue.
Come on Smoke Free the deaths by ban keep piling up and you have yet to
show one real death by second hand smoke!
Filed under: Ban Damage, anti insanity, reality check | Tagged: death,
Politics, smoking, smoking ban
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
>>>"I dread walking through the courtyard," said BethAnn Swartz, 18, of Urbana; Quipped 19-year-old student Dana Garber: "I hate walking there, too. You can't avoid (the smoke) out there, breathing that second-hand smoke."
I can't believe a college student said these words. Sounds more like talk from a lil girl who lost her doll. And that's puttin it nicely.
Even for this message, I'm keepin the language clean. But this is the most hilarious quote I read from an anti in a long time. I hate walking past trash cans. But I aint interested in banning cans in the streets with trash.
I'd find a way to put an end to this Iraq war. The US is losing money from that dumba** war.
I'd make it illegal to raise tobacco taxes and lower em to a certain level. Instead of raising tobacco taxes once every so-and-so months, how about raising fast food taxes?
I'd make it legal to buy tobacco at ANY age. That's the way it was decades ago. A teen is gonna smoke if he/she wants to. Whetha or not society likes it. Teens have their way to get cigs. So you mught as well allow em to buy em openly.
I wouldn't support tobacco regulation. I wouldn't support banning flavas, including menthol. Last time I checked, every teen ain't interested in mint. And this BS about saving us Blacks by banning menthols....those Black antis oughta ask would you ratha see Afro-Americans smoke menthol tobacco, or weed? Cause trust me. You ban menthols, and you'll see a LOT more Blacks smoking weed instead. If you really wanna save the Black community, don't encourage bros/sistas to smoke illegal drugs by encouraging menthol bans. I hope those antis are aware that more teens in general are smoking weed instead of cigs. Since the schools make cigs sound deadly, and the teachers forgot about saying NO to drugs....somethang similar would happen in our community. Blacks who used to smoke cigs will just smoke Js if menthols ever get banned. I know I wouldnt wanna see that even if I was neva a smoker to begin with.
And it's hard to find those cigs in otha flavas anyway.
I'd also make it illegal for anti orgs to collect money from cig sales. They would go out of business if that tobacco tax money went to smokers rights orgs instead. And once they outta business, nobody would even be thinking of smoking bans.
U.S. Cigarette Makers Ask Court to Reverse `Lights' Ruling
By Bob Van Voris
Altria Group Inc. and other U.S. cigarette makers asked a to reverse a judge's decision to bar the companies from marketing cigarettes as ``light'' or ``low-tar.''(Bloomberg) --
Lawyers for the companies asked a three-judge panel of the court in Washington today to throw out the August 2006 ruling of U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler, which came in the Justice Department's civil racketeering suit against the industry.
In a 1,653-page decision, Kessler ruled after a nine-month trial ending in 2005 that the cigarette makers violated U.S. racketeering laws. She ordered them to stop marketing their products as ``light'' and to issue ``corrective statements'' about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking. The decision won't take effect unless it is upheld.
``The industry's already won this case,'' said Morgan Stanley tobacco analyst David Adelman in an interview. ``The realistic worst-case scenario is really manageable.' '
In the suit, filed in 1999, the government had originally asked for $289 billion to reimburse it for money spent treating sick smokers. A series of pretrial rulings prevented the government from recovering money from the companies.
In addition to Richmond, Virginia-based Altria, the biggest U.S. cigarette maker and its Reynolds American Inc., the second-largest, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co., the company spun off by Loews Corp., British American Tobacco Plc's British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd. and Vector Group Ltd.'s ., the defendants include Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based
Kessler's ruling barred the cigarette makers from violating racketeering laws in the future.
In briefs filed with the court, the companies claimed that the government failed to prove they intended to defraud consumers, as required under the, or RICO. Kessler also improperly considered the companies as part of a racketeering enterprise, they claimed.
The companies argued that, because of voluntary marketing and advertising restrictions contained in a 1998 settlement with 46 states, there is no reasonable likelihood they will break the racketeering law in the future. While the trial was proceeding, the appeals court limited Kessler to considering only legal remedies designed to ``prevent and restrain'' future violations.
British American Tobacco, based in London, claimed that its activities, which included communications with its former U.S. affiliate,, and document destruction in Australia and Canada, aren't sufficient to subject it to U.S. liability.
Kessler found that Liggett isn't likely to violate RICO in the future.
The government argued in its briefs that the appeals court should uphold Kessler's finding that the companies violated the racketeering law. Corporations can combine to make an illegal enterprise under RICO,claimed.
``Defendants formed and maintained their enterprise to deceive American consumers about the two defining characteristics of their product: its toxicity and its addictiveness, '' the Justice Department said.
A group of public-health organizations, including the Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association, joined in the appeal to argue that Kessler should have considered stronger measures against the companies, including a program of anti-smoking education, smoking cessation programs and youth smoking remedies.
The case is U.S. v., No. 06-5267, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (Washington) .
Monday, October 13, 2008
If a business has revenues that go down in immediate days afta a smoking ban goes into effect then the smoking ban killed the business. I see when you read furtha down in the article, you'll read about a female owner who actually blames the smoking ban for making her business go WAY down.
If you can't smoke, don't go, and keep your wallets shut. Sounds like some PA smokers are actually following that advice.
Some say the ban boosted traffic in their establishments, while others say people stopped coming when they could no longer light up inside.
Still others can't tell if it's the economy or the smoking ban causing a drop in business — it's just too soon to say.
The workplace smoking law, known as the Clean Indoor Air Act, bans smoking in most public places, including schools, government buildings, and bars and restaurants, with some exceptions. Bars that sell less than 20 percent in food sales and portions of casinos and clubs are exempted.
Opponents say the ban should have been across the board, and not let certain businesses allow smoking, because it was designed to protect the health of all people who work in public places.
Instead, the ban only protects some workers, said Lou Pantages, owner of Shenanigans in Hazleton.
"I sell 30 percent food and I have to be nonsmoking," he said, asking why the law doesn't protect the health of people who work in bars that sell less than 20 percent food. "Aren't they affected? It's just unfair."
Jason Misto of Bottlenecks in West Hazleton agrees the law isn't just.
"If you're actually looking for the health concerns, the amount of food you serve should have nothing to do with it," he said.
The law singles out and hurts establishments that struck a happy medium between a bar and restaurant, Misto said. Out of more than 110 active liquor licenses in Hazleton and West Hazleton, 100 still allow smoking, he said.
The smoking ban didn't affect the Roads End Pub and Club in West Hazleton, because the bar and restaurant does less than 20 percent in food sales, owner Jim Christman said.
Smoking is banned in the upstairs dining room, but the first-floor bar area is still a smoking area, he said. Even with a smoking area, Christman has seen a drop in business in the past month, he said.
"Our business is down a little bit — 5 (percent) or 6 percent," he said. "I think that is economy-driven. People are cocooning, or entertaining at home."
A few blocks away at the Cinema Drafthouse in West Hazleton, business at the theater and eatery is down, said Sue Hillman, special events coordinator.
She attributes the drop directly to the state's smoking ban.
"People came to the movies during the Depression," Hillman said, noting that it was an affordable form of entertainment then and still is, compared to others. "It's not the economy."
She had customers say they don't want to go to the movies or sporting events shown on the big screen, unless they can smoke, she said.
"There is a large population that is not happy with it," Hillman said. "And smokers spent more on food and drinks than nonsmokers."
At Benito's in Hazleton, the employees who smoke are the ones that aren't too happy about the ban, said manager Dave Mehalick, and they're the ones the law was supposed to protect.
Customers of the restaurant haven't said anything one way or another, he said.
As for business, Mehalick said he can't tell if there has been an increase or a decrease.
The same is true at Ferdinand's in Hazleton, said Mary Alice Lazo.
"We haven't been able to tell (if there is an increase or decrease)," she said. "It's only been a couple weeks. I haven't seen a drastic change."
Business at the Beltway Diner in Hazleton has increased, said hostess/cashier Sharon Garshell.
"It went to our benefit. We have more business," she said.
People also like that they don't have to walk through a smoking section to get to a nonsmoking section, or smell smoke while they eat, Garshell said.
"It's so much better. The environment is more inviting," she said.
Customers at Byorek's Knotty Pines in Hazle Township appreciated its move to nonsmoking three years ago, owner Bernard Byorek said.
"They were happy we did it. It was the right move," he said.
Back at Shenanigans, Pantages isn't sure the move to nonsmoking was right for his Hazleton restaurant and bar. Patrons at his other restaurants in Lake Harmony accepted the ban more easily, because many come from states that already banned smoking in public places, he said.
Customers in Hazleton feel the state is taking away their rights and resent the ban, he said. He doesn't know if they'll come back in a few months or not, Pantages said.
He also said the smoking ban might have come at the wrong time, when folks are dealing with tough times financially.
"Business definitely seems to have tightened up," Pantages said, but he's not sure if it's the ban or the economy. "It's too early to tell."
Sunday, October 12, 2008
A proposal to give the the power to regulate tobacco products appears dead for the year, but anti-smoking advocates say they expect it to pass in 2009.
The measure passed the House this summer with overwhelming support, but a threat from , R-N.C., to block it and a veto threat from the White House helped stall it in the Senate.
The Senate left town last week without bringing it up for a vote and is unlikely to do so even if lawmakers return after the election.
William V. Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a public-health advocacy group, said he expects shifts in the political landscape will ensure passage in 2009.
Unlike President Bush, both John McCain and Barack Obama strongly support giving the FDA the authority to restrict tobacco marketing and set standards for nicotine levels in cigarettes.
And an increase in support for the measure in the Senate this fall will make it harder for Burr to block the bill next year, Corr said.
The bill attracted its 60th co-sponsor, , late last month. That number is significant because if Burr and others attempt to block or delay the bill by filibustering it, 60 votes are required to move it to a vote.
“But for , we think this legislation probably could have passed this year,” Corr said. “There’s no question this bill will pass next year. It’s inevitable.”
Many in the public health community say the measure would reduce smoking rates and cut down on tobacco-related deaths.
But some opponents say government oversight could mislead the public into thinking smoking is safe. And others, including Burr and the current FDA head, say the agency is too burdened with other activities to add tobacco to its portfolio.
“Nobody’s been able to answer the question of how FDA regulation would make tobacco products safer,” said , a spokesman for Burr.
Even if he cannot block the legislation next year, Burr “will make sure there’s a long and healthy debate on this issue if it were to come to the floor,” Walker said.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., the bill’s lead sponsor, said she expects a vote
Opponents of the legislation - including Reynolds American- say predictions of certain passage are too optimistic.
“Clearly this past Congress seemed to be their best opportunity to date to pass this bill. It didn’t happen. The basic question is why?” said Tommy Payne, for public affairs for Reynolds.
Tobacco control groups say they simply ran out of time. The bill did not pass the House until late July. .
The Senate left shortly after that vote for summer vacation. When lawmakers returned in September, other more pressing issues - including the financial rescue package - trumped a vote on the FDA bill, said Paul Billings, vice president of national policy advocacy for the American Lung Association
The fact that Reid signed up to co-sponsor the measure in late September is “a good indication that it’s on the ‘unfinished business’ list from the last Congress” and will be taken up early next year, said.
“We don’t want to take anything for granted. But we’ve done all the work we can do, and we’re in a position for it to pass next year,” he said.
Of course, I neva believed smoking causes cancer to begin with. Otha ingredients possibly causing it....yeah I can see that. But a cig with 100 percent tobacco can NOT be deadly to put in my mouth.
Even a cig with 100 percent tobacco and the mint flava ain't as deadly as antis making it sound. Antis say I'll die sooner than most cig smokers cause I smoke menthols, and menthols have crystal glass in em.
That's nothang but a scare tatic to make me feel bad as a Black smoker. But I ain't new to hearing scare tatics. Based on that logic, I should be dead already really. LOL!!!
http://www.douglass report.com/ deardrd_index. html
Q:I've read before that you don't think second-hand smoke is
dangerous. How can you say that, with all of the evidence out there
proving that it's harmful to your health?
A: Here are the four main points about tobacco smoking I've been
making for years, and will continue to make until I get some
There are piles of studies and research on BOTH sides of the tobacco-
as-health-hazard argument. A lot of it is inconclusive in its
findings. But you'd never know this from the presentation of the
issue in the smarmy mainstream media or among the politicians angling
for another tobacco tax or some other form of regulation. They show
us only the research that paints the most alarming picture - no
matter how flawed its methodology or how biased its authors. What
this means is that the average American couldn't make a truly
informed decision about whether or not to smoke even if he or she
wanted to. I don't think this is right.
If smoking really DOES cause cancer and disease, is it really
tobacco's fault - or is it all the toxic junk manufacturers add to
keep it fresh longer, lighting easier, tasting minty-fresh, or
whatever? Is anybody researching this? Here's a better question: If
studies found that smoking pure, unadulterated tobacco were safe,
would we even hear about it?
Think about it this way: Are the beef, cheese, and potatoes that form
the raw ingredients of a fast-food meal what makes it deadly? No,
it's the hormones and antibiotics in the cattle, the refined flour in
the buns, the sugar in the ketchup, and the trans-fats in the fry-oil
that make it harmful. Why should it be any different for cigarettes?
If simply smoking tobacco killed, why weren't the Indians wiped out
by lung cancer? We need to look at this.
If it can be proven that smoking really does cause cancer, why hasn't
it been banned outright along with asbestos and red dye #2? This
means one of two things: First, that there really isn't enough
evidence to damn smoking conclusively - only enough to hold tobacco
companies for ransom in huge court settlements (almost all of which
went straight into the pockets of states, not individual "victims")
and regulate tobacco until it's nothing more than a cash cow for the
government. Or second, that there IS enough evidence to damn tobacco,
but the government is willing to tolerate a large number of deaths if
a carcinogen is profitable enough. Either way, it's about money in
the revenuers' pockets, not your health or freedom.
My last major point about the mainstream's viewpoint on smoking is
the most important of all, in my opinion. Here it is:
This is a FREE country, or at least it used to be. One of the great
benefits of living in a free country is that you can live your own
way - even if it's a little riskier than what's optimum. This goes
across the board, not just for smoking.
If we don't want to wear our seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, why
should we be required to? If we want to gorge ourselves on junk food
(arguably a far greater mass murderer than cigarettes have ever been
proven to be), we should be able to without the Los Federales
interfering - and without our court system entertaining lawsuits from
people who can't control their appetites.
It's about basic freedoms to do what we choose instead of what some
paternalistic government decides is best for us.
Bottom line: We've all heard the risks some say are associated with
smoking - this information has been mandated by the feds. But beyond
this, the ball's in our courts as individuals. The government should
have no right to glean billions in tobacco lawsuit settlements if we
choose to smoke. And by the same token, the media should have no
right to withhold from us the whole truth about the tobacco debate (I
use this term loosely). We should be told ALL the facts, so we can
choose what's best.
It just isn't the government's - or the media's - job to protect us