Saturday, January 10, 2009
I read this stuff on Topix, and it sounds like fires being causes by FSCs are already happening in the FSC states. So far, I haven't heard of a similar fire incident caused by a lit FSC cig within IL.
Keep up the good work BT and politicians who passed FSC laws. You low life mothaFkas are doing great in proving that FSCs were NEVA fire-safe to begin with. Watch and see a large increase in fires caused in homes and public buildings. Not cause of careless smoking. But cause of the FSCs smokers thought were out.
The govt doesn't believe in using guns to kill more smokers. The govt wants to use FSCs with more dangerous chemicals to kill more smokers. And the FSC's themselves WILL cause a lot more burns and more fires since these ashes fall off at any given time.
I think changing a product without notifying smokers about the change is actually worse than someone putting a gun on my cheek. But that logic of killing a group of 2nd class people is still there with smokers. I can see a politician saying "Instead of pointing a gun at smokers, let's give em fire safe cigs that will do the killing job for us. If smokers don't die from smoking, they WILL die from a fire caused by these cigs."
The govt MUST think smokers are dumb...it's funny they think smokers can't tell the difference with FSCs and non-FSCs. A lotta online smokers can tell the difference indeed.
I think an obese teen might find it a good idea to try smoking if he/she wants to lose weight.
Obesity risk might turn teens off smoking
Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:29pm EST
By Megan Rauscher
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Telling teenage would-be smokers that lighting up may make them fat down the road may be a more effective deterrent than harping on the risks of heart disease and cancer from smoking, hints research published in the latest issue of the American Journal of Public Health.
In a study, Finnish researchers found that smoking during adolescence strongly predicted the development of abdominal obesity in adulthood, among both men and women.
In particular, they found that girls who smoked at least 10 cigarettes daily during adolescence had a 3.4-centimeter larger waistline as young adults, on average, than did girls who had never smoked.
Smoking during adolescence also increased a woman's odds of being heavy in general later in life, not just having a large waistline. Girls who smoked at least 10 cigarettes daily during adolescence were twice as likely to become overweight as nonsmokers.
The findings stem from a long-term follow-up study of nearly 4300 Finnish twins born between 1975 and 1979. About 50 percent of the men and women had never smoked and 12 percent had smoked during adolescence. By the time they were in their early 20s, about 24 percent of men and 11 percent of women were overweight.
In comments to Reuters Health, study chief Dr. Suoma E. Saarni, from University of Helsinki, told Reuters Health that smoking in adolescence "seems to predispose" the smoker to a large waistline, independent of health habits and parents body weight (i.e., a young person's genetic predisposition to being overweight or obese).
"And most interesting, " said Saarni, the apparent link between smoking during adolescence and being heavy later on was independent of the young person's own body weight -- meaning that those who were heavy smokers had greater waist circumference even within the same body mass index (BMI) levels as their non-smokers peers.
This research, Saarni added, "gives a tool" to highlight the risks of smoking to adolescents and young adults "by showing the unhealthy effect on the body shape." This can be an important deterrent, "because usually young people find cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes or even cancer so distant risks that they have very little impact on ones smoking behavior."
SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health, January 2009.
If you looking for a site where you can read and post reviews on different cig brands and different loose tobacco brands RYO/MYO smokers use, you can check out cigreviews.
This site is scheduled to have a re-launch. I was told the site will include a shop on the re-launch. I can't say if the shop will include tobacco brands of any kind. But I'm waiting to see this new shop for myself.
The cigreviews site already has a forum with various smokers topics, including one for smokers rights. As you can likely guess from lurking over there, I'm one of the mods for the cigreviews forum.
Friday, January 9, 2009
I don't mention any names in the post. But she's a good role model for those smokers who don't understand why not spending your money period in a smoke-free state is a good idea.
Kinda similar to me visiting the south, and a manager asks me to relinquish my seat for a W chick when I'm in the middle of eating the meal I paid for. I'd make sure I NEVA visit that restaurant/tavern again, even if smoking is allowed in there.
Of course one difference between a smoking ban and my analogy is smokers already know if a place is a smoke-free town before they step foot into the town. I couldn't tell beforehand which restaurants in the south have racist owners toward a patron like me. That GA restaurant/tavern owner I read about (the one who actually kicked this bro out for refusing to give up his seat for the W chick) actually denied "We ain't racist towards our customers" in antismoking fashion. He sounded all nice and innocent like an antismoker in his words.
(I know that bro sued the GA owner's @$$. I haven't heard anythang new on the case, but I hope he won on behalf of my community.)
Now that Obama will be President in a few days, the antis are confident he will approve this SCHIP plan, since he's more of an anti than a true smoker.
Some online smokers think Obama will be on the smokers' side since he smokes too. Sure, this guy may sneak smokes behind his own family's back. But he ain't a true smoker. He sounds more like the type of smoker I used to be...as in "I need a GD cig RIGHT NOW, sh!t!"
He certainly doesn't support smokers rights. And he definitely ain't no urban smoker. I neva saw him raise his voice and let a few urban words outta his mouth (when asked about his smoking). That's the part of his personality that doesn't make him a bro who used to live in Chicago. Cause if someone asked me personal Qs like that, I wouldn't be afraid to be honest on TV.
At least I met one sista who confessed herself he ain't all bro...but she still supports him a lot.
So I guess smokers need to do exactly what the subject title says in order to convince the new President to not support SCHIP and raise fed tobacco taxes.
Good luck. Cause unlike Bush, this President is more of an anti than him. And don't be fooled by Obama being a secret smoker. Even I'm more closer to being a real smoker than him.
----- Original Message -----From: Philip Morris USASent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:13 PMSubject: SAY NO TO UNFAIR FEDERAL TAX INCREASES ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS
TAKE ACTION – SAY “NO” TO UNFAIR FEDERAL TAX INCREASES ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS!
Once again Congress is talking about raising federal cigarette taxes. Last year Congress tried for a $6.10 a carton increase to fund a multi-billion dollar expansion of the SCHIP Health Program. This year it could be more!
But as smokers know, cigarettes are already one of the most highly taxed products in the country today. In fact, since the year 2000, state and federal cigarette excise taxes have been increased over 92 times-driving up the average price of cigarettes 109%.
In the midst of a recession, Americans are forced to make tough choices on spending every day. Congress should be no different and raising taxes is not the answer. It doesn’t make sense for Congress to consider a multi-billion economic stimulus package to create jobs and at the same time pass a tax increase that will result in lost jobs.
We strongly encourage you to express your opposition to your federal elected officials.
Please take moment to Take Action by visiting
to send an e-mail to your legislators or by calling (866) 527-4494 to get patched directly to your legislator’s office.
Thank you for your support! Making your voice heard in Washington can make a difference!
Paid for by Altria Client Services on behalf of Philip Morris USA
Please do not respond to this email. I do not wish to receive communication about this issue from PM USA.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
MEDFORD, Ore. (AP) — Medford police said a man set a "No Smoking" sign on fire after being told he could not light up inside a nightclub. The man was charged with reckless burning and disorderly conduct. The Web site for the Jackson County Jail said the 44-year-old remains behind bars on $6,000 bail.
Detective Sgt. Mike Budreau said witnesses told officers that the man tried to smoke inside The Office nightclub early Tuesday, but was told he couldn't because of Oregon's new anti-smoking law.
He became argumentative, then went into the club's bathroom and started to smoke. A bouncer went in to stop him and the man allegedly responded by holding his lighter to the paper sign.
Budreau said the fire destroyed the sign, but did little other damage.
The United Pro Choice January 9, 2009 - Issue #511
| Click here to read Third-hand Smoke: |
... Back in the news again! The aim is... total tobacco prohibition. "When you smoke – any place – toxic particulate matter from tobacco smoke gets into your hair and clothing," said Dr Jonathan Winickoff, from MassGeneral Hospital for Children, in Boston, and an assistant professor of paediatrics at Harvard Medical School, who led the study.
... Third Hand Smoke. By Dave Hitt. There is no end to the fictions nicotine nannies will create to justify their venomous hatred of smokers. This is their latest one, but, but we can be sure there are more to come. Smokers who politely smoke outside, often in inclement weather, to avoid annoying people with second hand smoke, are now horrible evil bags of toxins that will kill your children. And while the idiocy of this will be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell, we can be sure that plenty of stupid people will swallow this lie and use it as an excuse to harass smokers even more.
... New Study Warns of Dangers of "Thirdhand" Tobacco Smoke. By Michael Siegel, MD, MPH. I question the accuracy and the scientific support behind such a health claim. It's not clear to me that if a smoker is careful never to smoke inside the home, that merely hanging up their coat on a hook inside the home will cause harm to his children from toxins that offgas from the coat. I just am not aware of any evidence that this represents a significant health risk.
IL: Area establishments defy indoor smoking ban.
IL: Smoking ban hurts state's casinos, cities.
NY: Woman charged with tax evasion for buying cigarettes.
OH: State puts expanded prison smoking ban on hold.
USA: New laws in 5 states call for fire-safe cigarettes.
USA: Please let the Obama team know your story.
USA: Smokeasies defy smoking bans across the country.
The Canadian Smokers Rights Newsletter, read all the news.
Canada: Andrew Stephen Frang, stabbing victim, killed over cigs.
UK: Freedom To Choose, Success Comes To Those Who Wait.
UK: Jersey, the law has forced smokers out onto the street.
Yeah, I can see a normal kid being turned off by smoking FSCs when he/she sees mom and dad get peed off while smoking em.
I can't see fewer urban kids becoming smokers though. Cause the negativity I heard on FSCs are based on Marlboro brands, and nearly every otha brand made by PM and RJR, Most urban kids aint interested in smoking those cigs. The brand they want may be FSC. But it also doesn't cause the same effects a Marlboro smoker would get while trying to smoke.
Seems like nobody in this town seems to care if Newports are FSCs. A lotta people still smoke em (including underage folks) as if that brand was a non-FSC brand in Illinois.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
LINK TO PAGE
Although this page is old (and long), the page comments on there ain't as old as when this page was written. I see several pages of comments on there, with page 1 dating back to just 2 months ago.
If Big Tobacco thought years ago smokers won't buy FSCs, then the companies were darn right.
If these online smokers ain't playing on their lawsuit threats against Big Tobacco, good luck is all I can say. My motto is "F suing Big Tobacco. They will still lose my money since I'm getting more into the habit of enjoying non-FSCs for a change."
I guess some smokers don't wanna quit or switch to non-FSC brands. They would ratha fight to get the old version of their favorite commercial brands back.
I guess I should be quiet about fighting to get old versions of commercial brands back, since I still smoke one of those brands myself. Well, I actually feel betta as a smoker ever since I've been smoking more of the Native cigs. That commercial brand I smoke from time to time is more like a "social brand" for me now. And I honestly don't see the same thangs that otha FSC smokers see.
Maybe a FSC Newport is made differently from Marlboros and Camels. Cause the FSC Newport even tastes more like an old Newport to me.
Maybe heart attacks have dropped cause some people are now eating healthier. I bet eating too much fast food can increase the nonsmoker's chances of getting a heart attack.
As an urban person, I can think of a few thangs that can make up for that decrease in heart attacks. Can a smoking ban prevent fewer drunk drivers from killing pedestrians? Can a smoking ban protect a smoking chick not just from the cold but from a person approaching her, while he has his face hidden from her?
Oh yea, don't forget about the FSC cigs I heard about. A smoking ban can't stop ashes from falling off while a smoker is driving a car. An increase in traffic accidents thanks to people smoking FSCs while driving will make up for that decrease in heart attacks.
I dunno how this research on smoking bans is done. But it ain't research I trust.
This article shows why even nonsmokers shouldn't put too much stock into surveys. In order to find out the truth on smoking bans, you gotta visit every business in Lake County. I'm sure the ones near the IL/WI border are suffering the most with the smoking ban. A survey ain't gonna tell the whole truth. A survey could even be rigged in the same way Bush rigged the 2004 election. If a survey is messed up, how can anyone trust the results?
Lake County bar owners are disputing a new study which indicates that bar and restaurant business has not been hurt by the statewide smoking ban.
The Lake County Health Department released a report which showed a slight increase in bar and restaurant sales tax revenue in Illinois and the county during the first half of 2008, according to state Department of Revenue data. Illinois' smoking ban went into effect on Jan. 1, 2008.
Comparing the first six months of 2008 with the first six months of 2007, the health department report found that sales tax revenue in Lake County increased by 2.6 percent overall and 6.7 percent for drinking and eating establishments. Data was not yet available for the last six months of 2008.
Barbara de Nekker, a community health specialist the health department's Tobacco Free Lake County program, believes the study shows the smoking ban has not had the negative impact on business that some bar owners had feared.
"Overall, it seems like it's been good for health and good for business," she said. "Despite the fact that our economy wasn't doing well in the first half of 2008, it still shows our sales tax revenues were up."
But some local bar owners say the statistics don't match reality.
Donna Stewart, owner of Bootlegger's Bar and Grill in unincorporated Antioch, estimates her business was down about 50 percent last year, which she blames on the smoking ban and the economy. She said she may have to lay off some of her cooks and bartenders because business is so bad.
"I'd love to know where revenue is up, but here on the (Illinois-Wisconsin) border we're dying," she said.
Stewart said she knows of many of her customers who carpool and drive across the Wisconsin border, where smoking is allowed in bars and restaurants.
When you got people carpooling to go across the border, it's not just the economy, it's the smoking ban," she said.
Corky Anderson, president of the Tavern Owners Association of Lake County, which represents about 50 bar owners in the county, said many bar owners have complained to him that their business is way down since the smoking ban took effect.
"I don't know where they (the health department) got their numbers," he said.
Anderson said one bar on Illinois Route 173 in Antioch just closed a couple weeks ago and others are struggling to survive.
"You can't blame it all on the smoking ban. The economy is a big issue too, but we've got a lot of customers that are driving over the border to Wisconsin so they can smoke," he said.
Joe Gosepy, owner of the Firehouse Pub in Gages Lake, said the smoking ban has hurt his business somewhat but he thinks the poor economy may be a bigger issue.
"My revenue is down, but I know a lot of people have lost their jobs," he said. "I cannot say whether it's the smoking ban that's affected my business or the bad economy."
"I can't quite believe that I can't enjoy a cigarette with my beer. . . . It just seems un-American. "
A smoking chick from the article said the cited quote, and I agree with her. A cig goes hand in hand with a beer, but the idea of forcing you outside to smoke that cig will always be discriminatory to me. And what really flips me is discrimination towards smokers is STILL portrayed as perfectly normal. I guess while it's illegal for someone to torture me based on my race, there's no law in America that says it's wrong to torture smokers or obese folks. But there NEEDS to be a law to protect smokers and the obese.
Forcing smokers outside in the cold without giving a F about the smokers' safety is indirect "torture" to me. Just like someone pushing me out of a place without giving a F on my own safety.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
I'm sure owners "adapted to the ban" all right. How the heck is a casino business supposed to be happy about smoke-free air when the IL smokers are taking their chips and money to Missouri casinos indeed.
I hope the ACS is aware I see no significant improvement in my health a year lata. I feel just about as fine before even Chicago had a smoking ban. Not going out at all is how most smokers "adapt to bans."
I'm "used to tbe ban" all right too. I'm used to hiding myself from sick smoke authorities and sick antis who wave their Fkin hands as they walk past me. But I ain't new to hiding period from goodies in society eitha.
A year ago, smokers were inhaling their last puffs of tobacco in their favorite watering holes and restaurants.
Eateries, bars and casinos were crying foul, bracing for the drop in revenues they expected as a result when smokers were forced outside.
Non-smokers were counting the days until the statewide ban on the habit was in place.
Today, those with a penchant for butts haul themselves into court to contest smoking tickets. Or they brave winter winds for the toasted taste.
Casinos say they're losing money, especially near borders with neighboring states, where customers have moved across the state line to gamble because they can smoke there.
And the Legislature is still working to clear up enforcement of the ban that prohibits smoking in and within 15 feet of public places.
Yet, by most accounts, it appears the Southland has adjusted to a smoke-free lifestyle, despite a rocky start, with disgruntled smokers pushed outdoors during January cold.
"They weathered the storm," said David Seaman, a Tinley Park Village trustee who is on the American Cancer Society's national board of directors. "Not all smokers are surly people. I just don't think it was quite the issue that people feared early on."
Seaman and anti-smoking advocates insist the ban will reduce lung cancer cases and the number addicted. Some point to , a pioneer in anti-smoking efforts from where studies are proving those theories.
Just last week, a study out of Pueblo, Colo., showed workplace bans led to a 41 percent drop in heart attack hospitalizations three years later. It is considered the best such research linking smoking to heart attacks and also suggests the same link for.
"You ride by local establishments and you see people standing outside having their cigarette," said state Sen. Terry Link (D-Waukegan) , a ban sponsor. "I have yet to walk into a place where somebody's smoking inside. You're always going to have the naysayers."
Casinos say smoke breaks are costly
But the gambling industry says its customers aren't quitting, they're moving their chips across the border to Missouri, Indiana and Iowa, where they can puff on a smoke while placing their bets.
In fact, the Illinois Casino Gaming Association estimates revenues for the state's nine casinos were down more than 20 percent from January to November 2008 compared with that time period in 2007, before the act was implemented.
While the economy undoubtedly has contributed to this, said its executive director Tom Swoik, Indiana casino revenues are up 1.5 percent, Missouri's increased 5.7 percent and Iowa's 5.6 percent.
That comparison - for casinos in the same markets with mirrored economies and weather - shows that "it's got to be because of (smoking)," Swoik said.
Gamblers who do stick arund Illinois casinos spent less time gambling because they had to step outside for smoke breaks.
"In this industry ... time is money," Swoik said.
Industry lobbyists hope to push lawmakers in Springfield for an exemption to allow smoking on casino floors. Proponents of the ban contend revenue declines cannot solely be attributed to the smoking restrictions.
"Every time we have an opportunity, we will attempt to do something to try and get some kind of relief for this," Swoik said.
Also on the Legislature' s agenda: Issues related to enforcing the smoking ban still need to be cleared up.
A state commission implementing and regulating administrative rules that was to address those details did not because of a separate legal battle with the governor. Instead, ban supporters have introduced a measure that includes, among other details, a process for people to contest citations and specific rules about who regulates the citations. They hope for passage this spring.
"Throughout the state, enforcement varies widely," said Daniel Clausner, executive director of the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association. "Our association still holds the opinion that independent businesses should be able to decide if theirs is a smoke-free or smoke-friendly business."
Because local law enforcement agencies and county health departments can regulate the ban with no one clearinghouse overseeing it, it is unclear exactly how many citations have been issued since enactment.
The state department of public health reports 17 citations issued throughout Illinois and more than 5,200 complaints lodged.
In Cook County, the health department said five citations were doled out and nearly 650 complaints called in, said Amy Poore, its spokeswoman.
The Will County Health Department, which partners local police departments on the issue, said it has issued 10 tickets. Through November, more than 200 complaints were received there as well, said Vic Reato, department media services manager.
"Overall, it has gone about as good as it could go," said Steve Tilton,assistant village manager. "After about two months, it really wasn't an issue at all. "
'We've accommodated it as best we can'
The success of the smoke-free act is measured by many Southland agencies in its equality.
Smokers can't take a five minute ride to a neighboring city to light up, which had been a concern of restaurants and other service industries when municipalities - Orland Park, Tinley Park and Oak Forest - went smoke-free on their own in 2007. The bans were lifted weeks later when establishments complained of customers doing just that. Orland Park reinstated the ban in March of that year.
"It totally leveled the playing field," said Orland Park Police Chief Timothy McCarthy. "I give them credit because they complied."
Popular Tinley Park pizzeria Ed 'N Joe's has been smoke-free for nearly two years, continuing the ban even when the village reneged on it. Some bar regulars haven't returned since, but the pizzeria sees more restaurant patrons because they no longer had to wait for a table near a smoke-filled bar, said Michael Clark, who owns the eatery with his wife, Ellen.
"By the time the state enacted it, we were already established as a non-smoking place so, we didn't have to take that hit in January," he said. "Our customers were already used to it."
The Clarks did add on a smoking shelter - dubbed "the penalty box" - as did Sam Maguire's in Orland Park, to draw smokers. Maguire's shelter can usually be found jammed on popular nights there.
"They're definitely coming here for that," said Jane Wilke, a restaurant partner. "We've accommodated it as best we can within the law."
A handful of smokers huddled at Ed 'N Joe's for post-work drinks onesaid they've adjusted since going smoke free.
"It actually helps," said Kevin Elitzer, 25, of Tinley Park. "I won't go outside. I smoke less."
But friend Steven Burch, also 25 and of Tinley Park, said the law steps on his right to light up.
"It's just another right they take away," he said. "If I didn't smoke, I just wouldn't go there."