Thursday, December 25, 2008
(I broke the comment up myself to make it easier to read on here.)
After reading other comments, i realize now that my "recent" headaches are probably due to the "new" cigarettes. I purposely smoke organic cigarettes and pay a pretty price for them too so that i don't smoke chemicals. I am sick of the government ruling our lives and trying to poison us, our water being the number One way of poisoning us with chemicals. Drugs aren't even released into the market place without tremendous scrutiny and years of research so why is this just thrown in our faces. Once again the government does NOT acknowledge the voice of the people.
This country is turning to pure communism, they will tell us what is best for us and we must accept it. I say everyone should wake up and fight for our rights now or we won't have the ability to do so shortly. I am so sick of you (the government) treating us like kids and you are the mother telling us what is best for us. The seat belt law is another example of you telling us what is best for us.
Hey this is suppose to be a free country and our fore fathers fought for that right. Quit telling us what is BEST for us, we can figure it out for ourselves, and if we don't then tough, we endure the consequences. I say that you people have plenty on your plates without targeting smokers.
You have ruined the resturant and bar businesses with your non-smoking policies and now you're really out for the tobacco companies and us. I would like to know why you are after us, because your too stupid to solve the really important issues that lay before you. Because you don't have to worry about be "politcally correct" with us, because smoking isn't fashionable anymore?
So you can say that you "DID" something while you were in office? Because we don't have lobbyists petitioning for us? I am sick of the government antics and I am sick of you ruling our lives. How do you pass this crap without anyone finding out until it is done? Isn't there a law against this? How do you poison people without their knowledge?
You people treat animals better than you treat people. You're all up on you supposedly high pedestals throwing laws out there that serve NO purpose other than to make more trouble. A person can't drive a car without a seat belt, put a hockey rink out on the ice without government worrying about what it wil do to the wetlands, or keeping an existing bar/resturant in business without you clowns ruining commerce and trifling with the PEOPLES' FREEDOM! Wake up and smell the coffee, oh, wait, will you now screw with caffiene too!
By the way, you states that have passed this FSC, lawsuits are coming your way!
"cooljay78" is me. And all I can say is I smoked every brand I wrote a review on for real. Even if it was just one cig of the brand. There should be a link on that site that allows you to see the most recent posted reviews within the past week.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
20 years ago, a pack of Newports used to be only $1.75 per pack in Chicago. A Marlboro carton was about 19 bucks (I rememba seeing) for $19 by 1990. Of course, a pack was actually less than a buck in the earlier 80s within the Windy City.
I even rememba the days of seeing cig vending machines in all kinds of restaurants, including Dunkin Donuts!
In the early 80s, I rememba seeing people smoke all over in fast food restaurants, before the days of smoking/nonsmoking sections. And in the early 80s, it was hard finding an open table at McDonalds....that's how crowded fast food restaurants used to be in my town back then!
Heck, even when there used to be smoking sections just 10 years ago, I STILL saw crowded Mickey Ds in downtown Chicago!
I'm not old enough to recall seeing people smoke in supermarkets. But I heard of smoking in supermarkets, waiting areas and patient rooms of hospitals, and people smoking on buses and trains. That must've happened in the 60s particularly.
I DO rememba seeing people smoke in shopping malls during the 80s. And smoking used to be allowed on planes in that decade. I rememba hearing about free cig packs being given out on planes and at auto races during the 80s as well.
Oh yeah, I certainly rememba smoking being allowed in seats at Cub and White Sox games in those days. I sat behind a red-haired lady at a White Sox-Brewers game at the old Comiskey Park in 1988. She smoked regulars, but I don't rememba her brand. They might have been Winstons since they didn't smell like Marlboro Reds.
It used to be cool seeing people smoke while waiting for the trains at subway stations, although there WERE No Smoking signs on the wall. I think it wasn't til 2003 when the city decided to start enforcing no smoking inside of subway stations.
I certainly can't forget the days of cig ads on outdoor billboards, mags, newspapers, and within sport stadiums/arenas being very common.
When cig commercials got banned from radio and TV in 1971, that's when Big Tobacco started placing more ads in mags especially. I recall seeing Ebony mags in the early 70s...and when I include the back cover, those mags used to have as many as 13-16 pages devoted to cig ads. I was personally surprised smokeless tobacco ads weren't common at all back then.
Ebony mags in the 80s were no different.....11-13 pages worth of cig ads including the back covers. I recall seeing TWO-page Marlboro Country ads too.
Now in modern times....
Smoking ain't allowed anywhere in sport stadiums, at least the ones in my town. But I'm sure this is common in stadiums nationwide. If you leave to go outside to smoke, you can't re-enter, even if you show em your ticket.
You won't find cig vending machines in even Chicago taverns, let alone restaurants. Since my state has a smoking ban, you can't smoke em with your Bud if you bought em from a machine anyway.
Everyone knows about no smoking on planes. And I'm sure most airports nationwide are smoke-free period.
A pack of cigs in Chicago now costs a lot. I ain't paying 8 bucks for a pack of Newports even if someone put a gun to my face and demanded me to buy the FSC Newports.
How many cig ads are in Ebony now? Well, sometimes you might be lucky to run across 1 page for Newports. But even those are rarely seen in modern mags. The only mags in modern times that seem to have tobacco ads period (smokeless tobacco ads included) are adult mags. Like Playboy. And even Playboys no longa have tobacco ads on their back covers.
I actually miss the days of seeing cig ads on the back cover of almost every single mag out there. Including cig ads on Sports Illustrated back covers.
Based on antismoking logic, it's funny people are still smoking despite cig ads period being a thang of the past. And it's also funny teens are still starting to smoke! I thought getting rid of cig ads in mags and their back covers were supposed to help cut down on underage folks learning about cigs. LOL at antis!!!
Goes to show you cig ads were neva the main influence on a person's decision to smoke. I think growing up with smoking parents, smoking siblings, and/or smoking friends are ALL bigga influences than Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man.
I ain't gonna smoke Camels just cause "I wanna be like Joe Camel in this 80s mag ad." I'm gonna smoke the brand I enjoy the most. Joe Camel can smoke as many of those yucky Camels as he wants. That brand would make me quit smoking in an instant if it was the only brand out here.
As for any anti lurkers, I sincerely hope you neva bump into a smoker who believes in smokers' rights. If you can do that, your holidays will be happy too.
Cause while a lotta smokers on those FSC sites may not be aware of smokers rights, I love the way some of em sound though. Those smokers sound like they wanna give their state politicians some payback for changing premade cigs without informing the public about it. (Those smokers DO have the right to be informed and vote if they wanna make premades more poisonous). "Where are my rights as a smoker?" is a common Q I read online.
Reading "FSC my @$$!" has a nice ring to it. :D
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
My theory says premade smokers are more addicted to the actual sh!t put into those BT cigs. That's BT's way of making sure they (the smokers) are addicted to that one brand. That's why I used to see lots of W's smoking only Marlboro Lights in particular. And that's why the majority of smokers in my own community will smoke only Newports. Two bros (or sistas) won't fight over a free pack of Kools, despite those being menthols. They addicted to the sh!t that's within Newports.
If BT made normal cigs without the additives and chemicals and the extra nic, would antis call smoking an addiction then?
People would be smoking a lot less if every brand was made the way Natives make cigs. Natives don't have the dangerous ingredients in their cigs...which likely means their cigs are "less addictive" than BT cigs.
Smoking must be an addiction when someone is smoking chemical cigs a lot more and spending a lot more. And the antis are addicted to watching people buy BT brands.
Smoking is NOT an addiction. It should be a crime for BT to make people smoke cause they "need to smoke" ratha than enjoy it once every few hours.
A bulletin issued on Monday by the General Services Administration bans smoking in the courtyards of federal buildings and within 25 feet of doorways and intake ducts on the outside of federal buildings. The new regulation also does away with interior smoking rooms, which have been an exception to long-standing bans on smoking inside federal buildings.
The new smoking policies, which apply to all buildings under the jurisdiction, custody or control of GSA, will be phased in over a six-month period to give agencies time to comply with their collective bargaining obligations in situations where the changes affect conditions of employment and there is exclusive representation for the affected employees.
Monday's bulletin cancels and replaces a 1997 regulation, Protecting Federal Employees and the Public from Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the Federal Workplace (62 FR 54461). The 1997 rule, which implemented an executive order from President Clinton, prohibited the smoking of tobacco products in all interior space owned, rented or leased by the executive branch, except in specially equipped designated smoking areas, outdoor areas in front of air intake ducts, and certain other residential and nonfederal occupied space.
In issuing the new regulations, GSA noted that during the past decade, as research has shown the effects of secondhand smoke, 26 states have banned smoking entirely in state government buildings and 19 have banned smoking in all private work places.
The American Lung Association began circulating a petition on Dec. 15 calling on President-elect Barack Obama to close smoking "loopholes," including designated smoking rooms, and protect all federal workers from secondhand smoke. The petition cited a 2006 surgeon general's report that "separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke."
Since smoking feds soon will be forced even further out into the cold, GSA urged the heads of executive agencies to implement programs to help employees quit. Program materials are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As with any rule, there are exceptions to the new smoking bans. The new regulations do not apply to residential accommodations for people voluntarily or involuntarily residing, on a temporary or long-term basis, in federal buildings, nor do they apply to portions of federally owned buildings being leased to nonfederal parties. Agency heads also have the authority to grant limited and narrow exceptions when necessary to accomplish missions. GSA urged officials to tailor any exceptions to provide protection for nonsmokers from tobacco
CADMAN PLAZA EAST (AP) — An American Indian tribe is suing Suffolk County in Brooklyn federal court, saying a police blockade of entrances to its reservation was a case of harassment and racial discrimination.
The Unkechaug Nation filed suit Friday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, located in Downtown Brooklyn.
The daylong incident on Dec. 6 stemmed from the tribe's practice of selling tobacco products without charging state tax. The suit alleges the action violated the constitutional rights of the Unkechaug.
Tribe lawyer James Simermeyer says the police blockade was "deliberately set up to harass tribe members" by stopping people entering and leaving the Poospatuck Reservation near Mastic.