Saturday, February 7, 2009

Smoke and Allergies: Children

{base article from Lynda Farley...}
===
Of special note from below: "Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves
(OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after
adjusting for confounders. "
I'm not dead certain of the math, but I believe that translates into something like, "Children who were denied exposure to smoking in the home and who avoided smoking themselves as teens suffered a significant increase of over 400% in future and potentially deadly allergic reactions to 11 common inhaled allergens when tested at ages 13 and 32."
===
http://tinyurl. com/2mtlkl

By David Holmes21
January 2008J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008; 121: 38-42MedWire News:
Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in
teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic
sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to
the results of a study from New Zealand.

Writing in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Robert
Hancox (University of Otago, Dunedin) and colleagues explain
that "the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the immune-
suppressant effects of cigarette smoke protect against atopy."

Avoiding exposure to cigarette smoke is often recommended to reduce
the risk for allergic sensitization, particularly for children with a
family history of atopic disease, the authors explain. But evidence
for an effect of smoking on allergic sensitization is mixed.

Hancox and colleagues investigated the effect of passive smoking in
childhood and active smoking in adolescence and adulthood on allergic
sensitization in 972 participants in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary
Health and Development Study
, in which a prospective longitudinal
population-based birth cohort was followed-up to age 32 years.

The authors obtained histories of parental atopic disease and
smoking, and monitored personal smoking at multiple assessments
between birth and age 32 years. Atopy was assessed by skin-prick
tests (SPTs) for 11 common inhaled allergens at ages 13 and 32 years.

The team found that the children of atopic parents were less likely
to have positive SPTs at 13 years if either parent smoked (odds ratio
[OR]= 0.55), although the significance of the association was lost
after adjusting for confounders.

Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have
positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves
(OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after
adjusting for confounders.

The authors write: "We found that children who were exposed to
parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves
had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.

"These associations were found only in those with a parental history
of asthma or hay fever."

They conclude: "The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well
known, and there are many reasons to avoid it.

"Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not
one of them."

Obama signs SCHIP-related bill

I won't botha boring smokers in here by pasting a negative article to me. But if you wanna botha, you can view the article through THIS LINK HERE.

I did hear the tobacco tax increase goes into effect April 1. I guess this means in less than 2 months, a pack of cigs will go up to at least 9 bucks in Chicago. Or maybe I'll see double digits in the price for one MFkin Newport pack. Not that I buy my cigs offline anyway.

I'm appalled that a pack of cigs around here costs more than buying 6 beer cans.

Oh yeah, this article makes it official on Obama being a phat-A liar when he said he wouldn't raise ANY taxes.

Ammonia the key to Marlboro's success

Ammonia key to Marlboro's success

ST. PAUL, Minn. - They called it "the secret of Marlboro."

R.J. Reynolds was desperate in the mid-1970s to learn why its leading brand, Winston, was losing market share to Philip Morris' Marlboro. So were other tobacco companies that were losing out in a ruthlessly competitive business.

"We couldn't figure out what the success of Marlboro was," said David Bernick, an attorney for Brown & Williamson. "We couldn't figure out why it was that Marlboro was taking off in sales."

The reason, as it turned out, was ammonia, a chemical that boosted Marlboro's nicotine "kick" and improved the taste at the same time, according to documents and testimony emerging from Minnesota's lawsuit against the tobacco industry.

"The secret of Marlboro is ammonia," according to a 1989 Brown & Williamson document. "Ammonia does many good things."

Two expert witnesses for the state told the jury in detail how tobacco companies use various ammonia compounds to alter the chemistry of cigarette smoke to give smokers a stronger nicotine dose.

The way ammonia works, they said, is that it makes the smoke less acidic. That changes a portion of its nicotine into "free nicotine," a form that is more readily absorbed in the lungs. Free nicotine's effects are felt in the brain within seconds.

The experts - a Mayo Clinic authority on nicotine addiction and a Stanford University chemical engineering professor - said boosting free nicotine also ensured that cigarettes would remain addictive even though the companies were bringing out low-tar, low-nicotine brands.

"What the industry was concerned with, in the face of lowering tar, is the problem they would face if nicotine levels dropped" below the level needed to keep smokers hooked, testified Channing Robertson of Stanford. "They didn't want to go out of business."

Marlboro was the first major brand to really capitalize on ammonia, jurors learned.

Documents showed that Reynolds, maker of the competing Winston brand, began experimenting with the chemical in the 1950s but didn't incorporate it into its products until the mid-1970s.

Reynolds' scientists learned that Philip Morris had begun using an ammoniated form of tobacco in 1965 and used more and more of it from 1965 to 1974. "This time period corresponds to the dramatic sales increase Philip Morris made from 1965 to 1974," one document said.

A 1973 Reynolds report shown to jurors said Marlboro's and Winston's overall tar and nicotine levels had dropped by two-thirds over the years, but Marlboro's free-nicotine level stayed about the same while Winston's free nicotine fell by two-thirds.

The report advocated copying Marlboro's approach.

Reynolds didn't get the technology into the marketplace until the mid-1970s when it started putting ammoniated tobacco in its Camel Filter cigarettes, the documents showed. "Better market performance was indicated in the subsequent years," one said. After Reynolds started adding ammoniated tobacco to Winston in 1979, "market tests indicated significant product improvement."

Robertson said learning how to boost levels of free nicotine was one of the companies' highest priorities - and one of their deepest secrets.

"They never told anyone outside the walls of their research citadels that they were doing this," he said.

And the order in which companies entered the ammonia race corresponds with their market shares today, Robertson said.

Bernick has played down the state's contention that the main reason for ammonia is to boost free nicotine levels to keep smokers hooked. He has played up the industry's position that ammonia results in a better-tasting, smoother smoke.

"Where do the companies compete?" Bernick asked at the start of the trial. "They compete for that great-tasting cigarette that people will like."

He suggested while cross-examining Robertson that ammonia reacts with sugars in the tobacco to give Marlboro a "roasty, toasty" flavor, and that this was a main reason other companies pursued the technology.

Bernick, who has done most of the talking for the industry in front of the jury so far, also suggested that a host of other factors besides ammonia affect smoke pH - a measure of acidity versus alkalinity. When added sugars burn, he contended, they make the smoke more acidic.

And he suggested that ammonia doesn't fully explain who's winning and who's losing in the tobacco marketplace. He said The American Tobacco Co. (now part of Brown & Williamson) used ammonia in the 1960s, stopped, started again, but never stopped its market share from falling.

By The Associated Press

Friday, February 6, 2009

The Smokers Rights Newsletter Issue

The United Pro Choice
Smokers Rights Newsletter

February 6, 2009 - Issue #515

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
- Patrick Henry


Send a tea bag today!

21st CENTURY TEA PARTY
TO DUMP ILLEGAL TAX
MINORITY CITIZENS TARGETED
FOR SCHIP EXPANSION COSTS


TICAP Speech Content. Read all the "Forbidden to Think" speeches and see the media coverage. Attempt To Silence Freedom Of Speech In The Heart Of The EU. For decades the anti smoking industry has grossly perverted science for their own ideology; it comes as no surprise to us whatsoever that they are now perverting democracy and freedom in the very heart of the EU.
From The Mailbag
AR: Arkansas' anti-smoking nut, Dan Hawkins gets attention.
CA: Long Beach may allow indoor smoking in cigar lounges.
SD: IPCPR Challenges South Dakota Move to Tighten State Ban.
WY: Fire goes out of smoking ban bill. By Jared Miller.
USA: Daschle withdraws as nominee for HHS secretary.
USA: Obama signs bill to raise cigarette taxes on Americans.
The Canadian Smokers Rights Newsletter, read all the news.
Canada: C.A.G.E, "The Right Thing To Do" NSRA style.
Defiance And Ban Damage Hurts Everyone
Economic fears snuff out smoking bans. In this economy, lawmakers are more willing to let people smoke 'em if they got 'em. As recently as last year, many states and major cities seemed ready to adopt complete indoor smoking bans. But the movement to kick all smokers outdoors has stalled as the recession worsens and lawmakers fear hurting business at bars, restaurants and casinos.
The Slippery Slope After Tobacco
The Next Big Stink. By P.J. O'Rourke. The killjoys are back. What do they have in store for us? My guess is that the next great government crusade will be against soap. The president will appoint a Blue Ribbon Commission, which will determine that soap releases polluting grime into the ecosystem, leads to aquifer depletion, and contains fatty acids that laboratory studies have shown to be acidic and not fat-free. Soap encourages teenage pregnancy as well as adult sexual activity with multiple partners, driving America's divorce rate higher, causing more children to live under the poverty line in single-parent households. Soap is a factor in many cases of child abuse, according to small boys in bathtubs. Soap bubbles may contain methane, especially if rising to the surface of bath water containing small boys. Soap marketing sends the wrong message about the Ivory trade and also about Irish Spring, which is being altered by climate change. Soap degrades the flame-resistant properties of children's pajamas. And soap makes whales foam when they spout.

Post at the Forums and Chat

Join FREE - Home - Events - Forum - Videos - Please Help - ©

How did discrimination against smokers start?

I think it all started with a group of people who can't stand smelling smoke from innocent Americans' cigs. Eitha the ACS or the ALA has been totally against smoking dating back to the 60s when smoking was socially acceptable.

I also read the topic of making cigs fire-safes came up was early as 1972. But BT back then thought fire-safes would hurt their sales, and they didn't know how to make fire-safes back then as well.

I guess BT in the 21st century gave into political pressure from antismokers.

The FSC topic is making more smokers realize that America is the land of the nannies now. And the politicians are not only trying to make smokers die sooner with the FSCs. They're trying to make all smokers look like criminals.

I don't think this discrimination against smokers is a case of someone telling me "First it was you guys. Now, the govt is switching their attention to smokers. Once they're done with getting rid of smokers, they'll switch to a new group of people."

Well, like I said, discrimination against smokers dated back to the 60's albeit the antismoking level was low back then across the nation. If the govt stopped focusing on me as a person, then I dunno why people keep saying negative thangs about "us." Attention will be given to smokers forever, in the same way negative attention towards my race will neva end.

(Oh, I have one idea on why people keep saying negative thangs about "us." I can understand doing what the F it takes to make it out here. But the way those bros and sis try living out here, a lotta em do it in stupid fashion. At least an innocent smoker is a "smart criminal" compared to several real criminals out here)

PS: I guess Obama IS a liar since he's gonna raise taxes. But I'm sure a lotta new Presidents in the past were liars too.

Smoking ban hits home, truly



Smoking Ban Hits Home. Truly.

By Jesse McKinley
January 26, 2009


Belmont, Calif. — During her 50 years of smoking, Edith Frederickson says, she has lit up in restaurants and bars, airplanes and trains, and indoors and out, all as part of a two-pack-a-day habit that she regrets not a bit. But as of two weeks ago, Ms. Frederickson can no longer smoke in the one place she loves the most: her home.

Ms. Frederickson lives in an apartment in Belmont, Calif., a quiet Silicon Valley city that is now home to perhaps the nation’s strictest antismoking law, effectively outlawing lighting up in all apartment buildings.

“I’m absolutely outraged,” said Ms. Frederickson, 72, pulling on a Winston as she sat on a concrete slab outside her single-room apartment. “They’re telling you how to live and what to do, and they’re doing it right here in America.”



Edith Frederickson in a visit to her building’s smoking area.


And that the ban should have originated in her very building — a sleepy government-subsidized retirement complex called Bonnie Brae Terrace — is even more galling. Indeed, according to city officials, a driving force behind the passage of the law was a group of retirees from the complex who lobbied the city to stop secondhand smoke from drifting into their apartments from the neighbors’ places.

“They took it upon themselves to do something about it,” said Valerie Harnish, the city’s information services manager. “And they did.”

Public health advocates are closely watching to see what happens with Belmont, seeing it as a new front in their national battle against tobacco, one that seeks to place limits on smoking in buildings where tenants share walls, ceilings and — by their logic — air. Not surprisingly, habitually health-conscious California has been ahead of the curve on the issue, with several other cities passing bans on smoking in most units in privately owned apartment buildings, but none has gone as far as Belmont, which prohibits smoking in any apartment that shares a floor or ceiling with another, including condominiums.

“I think Belmont broke through this invisible barrier in the sense that it addressed drifting smoke in housing as a public health issue,” said Serena Chen, the regional director of policy and tobacco programs for the American Lung Association of California. “They simply said that secondhand smoke is no less dangerous when it’s in your bedroom than in your workplace.”

At a local level, the debate over the law has divided the residents of the Bonnie Brae into two camps, with the likes of Ms. Frederickson, a hardy German émigré, on one side, and Ray Goodrich, a slim 84-year-old with a pulmonary disease and a lifelong allergy problem, on the other.



Ray Goodrich helped lead a successful campaign to ban
smoking in many apartment units.




And, as with all combatants, there is a mix of respect and animosity.

“She is one tough old woman,” Mr. Goodrich said.

Ms. Frederickson is less loving.

“I would not acknowledge that man for anything in the world,” she said. “He started this as a vendetta against other residents.”

A soft-spoken North Carolinian who grew up playing in tobacco warehouses as a child, Mr. Goodrich hardly seems the vendetta type, but he did say he noticed smoke drifting in from neighbors’ rooms soon after he moved into Bonnie Brae in 1998.

“It gave me an instant headache, kind of like an iron band around the head,” Mr. Goodrich said. “I could be sitting and have the air filters going, which eliminated the visible smoke, but the smoke was still there.”

He finally decided he had had enough after a fire broke out in a smoker’s room in the complex in 2003, a blaze that was fed by the tenant’s oxygen tank.

“I came around the corner, and there was just a giant puff of black smoke, and I knew I wasn’t going to last five seconds in that,” Mr. Goodrich said. “It was like Dante’s inferno up there.”

Determined to root out smokers, Mr. Goodrich began a letter-writing campaign, petitioning everyone from local officials to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, which helps finance the privately managed Bonnie Brae, which serves low- and middle-income seniors.

“We need your help,” read one of Mr. Goodrich’s letters in July 2006. “A barking dog disturbs our sleep but will not kill us. Secondhand smoke is killing us.”

That letter caught the attention of several members of the Belmont City Council, including Dave Warden, a Belmont native and software consultant who served on the council until 2007. Mr. Warden said council members were particularly moved when Mr. Goodrich followed up with repeated visits to council meetings, often joined by other Bonnie Brae tenants — using walkers, wheelchairs and oxygen tanks — and telling harrowing tales of life surrounded by secondhand smoke.

“I think that they didn’t have a grand strategy, I think they just wanted some change, and they didn’t know how to get it,” he said. “And once it got discussed seriously, they got very encouraged.”

But as word spread, council members also started to receive complaints — including threatening e-mail messages — implying that Belmont, about 20 miles south of the liberal climes of San Francisco, had become a “nanny state.” Mr. Goodrich was also feeling the hate, he said, getting “cold stares and dead silence” from smokers at the complex.

“The worst place you can be is between an addict and their fix,” he said. It did not help, he said, that most of the smokers were younger — “they don’t live as long,” he said — and more vocal.

But finally, after more than a year of deliberation, the Council passed the law in October 2007, barring smoking anywhere in the city of about 25,000 except in detached homes and yards, streets and some sidewalks, and designated smoking areas outside.

The law took effect on Jan. 9, after a 14-month grace period that allowed apartment buildings time to comply with the new rules — like rewriting lease agreements to ban smoking — and tenants who objected to the changes to move. The law brings with it the threat of $100 fines, though city officials say no penalties have been levied yet.

Mr. Goodrich says his days in politics are over.

“I’m working on my second retirement,” he said. “The smoking stuff was my last hurrah.”

He says he suspects that some residents still smoke secretly late at night, while others crowd the small outdoor areas where smoking is still allowed.

Ms. Frederickson is one of those, at least for the time being; after all, she says, she is looking to move out of Belmont if she can find something cheap enough.

Until then, however, she seems defiant, despite feeling like a criminal in Belmont.

“And I’m going to keep being a criminal, let me tell you that,” she said.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Mike M. Comment

Gran
To Michael J. McFadden
wrote on Feb 5, 2009 7:56 AM:

" Nice try, but calling an argument "silly" or attempting to give a
chemical and statistical breakdown of swimming pools vs. restaurants
that allow smoking doesn't defeat that argument in this case.

Regardless of how often the water or air is turned around in
restaurants and swimming pools, your position has one fatal flaw people
actually go to restaurants and can smell the smoke coming from the
smoking section. Telling them how often the air is filtered isn't going
to convince them to deny what their own senses pick up.
............ ..
Her argument also has a fatal flaw.
She seems to be stupid enough to be able to not know or believe that
people(especially kids) do pee in public swimming pools.

When she takes her grandkids to a public pool,they are playing around
in what may be several weeks worth of ther peoples pee.

That is like letting them play in a toilet that has not been flushed
for days.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Bill signed to clear air over IL smoking ban

ARTICLE LINK

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. —

Gov. Pat Quinn used his first bill signing Wednesday to try to clear the haze surrounding enforcement of Illinois’ year-old statewide smoking ban.

Quinn signed Senate Bill 2757 into law as he met with the four legislative leaders at his Statehouse office. The measure, which takes effect immediately, spells out how violations and violators of the smoking ban in public places should be handled.

Local enforcement efforts have been stymied by confusion over such details, but smoking-ban proponents hope the new measure will change that.

“It seems like the state’s attorneys in the larger counties enforced the law, but the ones in the smaller counties didn’t feel comfortable with enforcement without the rules really spelled out,” said Kathy Drea, public policy director for the American Lung Association of Illinois.

Violations now will be civil matters and will be directed to regional offices of the state Department of Public Health, instead of criminal matters handled in the court system.

The new law also clarifies exactly what must be included in a citation — information such as how much the fine will be, where and when the fine can be paid and how to contest the citation.

The measure also requires approval of rules by a legislative panel, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, to end confusion that caused enforcement hang-ups. It exempts universities and government facilities that conduct smoking-related research from the ban.

Local lawmakers were split on whether the new law will reduce controversy over the smoking ban.

Rep. Raymond Poe, R-Springfield, said he’s skeptical that the legislation will improve enforcement of the ban, even though he supports removing such cases from the court system.

“Anywhere from restaurants, to bars, to the state Capitol -- there’s so many facilities, it’ll always be hard to monitor and make that work,” he said.

But Rep. Rich Brauer, R-Petersburg, said he originally voted against the smoking ban, in part, because of its lack of clarity regarding enforcement.

“There is no enforcement there, there is no penalty there, and it is just a very poorly written law,” Brauer said. “So it’s important they add that clarification.”

Also Wednesday, a House committee endorsed reaffirmation of the powers and duties of the General Assembly’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.

House Bill 398 tries to make clear in state law that state agencies can’t ignore the wishes of JCAR when they put forward administrative rules to implement or change programs and services.

JCAR was at the heart of disputes with the administration of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich over a significant expansion of the FamilyCare health insurance program. The administration went forward with the expansion despite opposition from the full legislature and JCAR.

The measure now heads to the full House, where it’s expected to be considered Thursday.

Economic woes making some think twice on banning smoking

This article shows indeed that the ecomomy plays a role in hurting businesses. And when you include a smoking ban that makes lifr for the owners and workers a living he!!.

Sounds like more are thinking twice about banning smoking thanks to the economy issue. I even like hearing about CO easing up on their smoking ban a lil bit.

That antismoking Btch at the end of the article doesn't understand why CO is going back to the drawing board so to speak? Sounds like she has deaf ears on smoking bans kiling businesses in CO.

BTW, don't worry about "protecting my health," ma'am. You oughta worry about protecting your OWN health! And while you at it, you might wanna protect your own SAFETY too if you ever meet a smoking activist or an outraged smoker in the Rockies.

********************
ARTICLE LINK

DENVER -- As recently as last year, many U.S. states and major cities seemed ready to adopt complete indoor smoking bans. But the movement to kick all smokers outdoors has stalled as the recession worsens and lawmakers fear hurting business at bars, restaurants and casinos.

"This economy, it creates a little more sympathy for the business person. So when we say this is going to put us out of business, believe me, they're listening," said Mike Moser, executive director of the Wyoming State Liquor Association.

Twenty-three states, as well as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, have indoor smoking bans covering bars and restaurants. No one else has adopted a ban in the early weeks of this year's legislative sessions.

In Colorado, lawmakers are considering easing the rules after they banned smoking in most bars, restaurants and casinos.

New Jersey put off a smoking ban for Atlantic City casinos after five of 11 casinos warned they could file for bankruptcy by year's end. In Virginia, a proposed statewide ban stalled this year after lawmakers expressed concern about the economy.

Moser's group opposes an indoor smoking ban that has been offered in Wyoming. After businesses raised objections, state lawmakers last month exempted bars from the legislation.

In cities that have banned smoking in bars, "it's just killing them," said Mike Reid, owner of a wine bar in Casper, Wyoming. Reid voluntarily banned smoking in his bar, but opposes the forced ban as president of the liquor association.

"When someone builds a business with a clientele that smokes, they should be able to go in there and smoke," Reid said.

Health advocates are citing the economy to argue their side, too. With state budgets burdened by rising health care costs, banning smoking saves the government money in the long run, they say.

In Kansas, which has no statewide ban, advocates are circulating a new state health report predicting Kansas would save $20 million in health care costs the first year smoking is banned in bars and restaurants.

"This whole economic argument is hogwash, scientifically, but that doesn't mean it's not politically useful," said Dr. Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco.

Glantz says reputable studies show indoor smoking bans do not hurt businesses, and he urged politicians to ignore complaints from bar owners that smoking bans will ruin them.

"There's a growing realization that tobacco control is good for business -- all businesses except for the tobacco companies," Glantz said.

Virginia lawmakers also rejected two tobacco tax increases this year, in part because of hesitancy to raise taxes in a recession.

In Colorado, a bill expected to be introduced this session would make it easier for taverns and casinos to seek exemptions to the ban by being classified as cigar-tobacco bars.

The bill would undo a requirement that a business must have been in place since 2005 to get an exemption.

That change would mean all bars, bowling alleys and casinos in Colorado could set aside 25 percent of their space as smoking areas as long as they derive 5 percent of their annual income or $50,000 a year from tobacco sales. Patrons would have to buy tobacco products in-house before smoking.

Anti-smoking activists thought their yearslong effort to pass Colorado's ban was over.

"We thought we had moved on," said Stephanie Steinberg, chairwoman of a suburban Denver group called Smoke-Free Gaming. "Why are we going back in time and talking about reversing what we we're done to protect the health of so many people?"

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Cigs under the counter in Ireland?

ARTICLE LINK

I bet it won't be a very long time before you see this idea happen in the US...whetha the folks in Ireland approve of keeping cigs under the counter or not in stores.

In order to get people to stop smoking, we gotta hide the packs and cartons UNDER counters so nobody won't see the cigs. Makes sense to me. I just hope an Ireland smoker doesn't leap over the counter and grab the pack himself if the clerk can't find the brand the smoker is looking for.

Hiding cigs under the counter is NOT gonna help cut down on smoking in ANY country.

Updated link list

I deleted all of the smokers rights-related links on here. And as you can see for yourself, I placed all of those links on their own page under "Smokers Rights Links" on my blog's link list.

You get the pic. If you see links on my blog link's list go up in smoke eventually, that likely means I moved them onto a separate page as their own "category" so to speak. This can help the blog's link list look a lot more smaller and easier to read.

If anyone is interested in adding a link on here, you can find my email address on the homepage of my IL Smokers Alliance group. You can guess which link category that group falls under on the blog's link list. Anyone can view my group's home page. Including non-members of the group.

Small link update

I just posted a link on here of a page with a few links to smoking fetish sites, including a link to my online friend's smoking ladies site of her own.

While this blog is mainly a smokers rights blog, I believe in being friendly to all prosmokers on here, including nonsmokers who at least find female smokers attractive. And one way I can be friendly to those nonsmokers is point them to a few smoking fetish sites I know about already.

But if you wanna view my small page for those in search for sites related to the smoking fetish, then just view my blog's links or CLICK THIS.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Hawaii might ban "purse-pack" cigs

ARTICLE LINK

I've seen a "purse-pack" of Va Slims cigs before. They're like a super slim version of the Virginia Slims brand, and the pack is designed to fit perfectly in a chick's purse. Hawaii wants to ban these purse pack cigs cause the antis over there think the pack is meant to attract teen girls to smoking.

The pack I saw from my mother, BTW, was pink-colored too.

I dunno how banning purse packs is gonna prevent more teen girls in Hawaii from smoking. Those young ladies can just buy a cig brand made in normal packs instead. It's also a wonder why that state just won't ban slim cigs period. Since a teen girl can still get her hands on a pack of VS 120's in the normal packs.

I agree fully with this quote from the cited article:

>>>"Our economy is tanking and tourism is down, and we're worried about thin cigarettes? Give me a break," Crowley said.

My thoughts on Kick Cigarettes, and small news in smoking cyberspace

Kick cigarettes is a brand that tastes like a premium brand at an affordable price. I tried the Kick FF's and the Kick Lights. I wouldn't know which Big Tobacco brands both of these brands come close to tasting like. Although Kick FF tastes a lil bit like a non-FSC Winston.

Kick Lights taste plesant to me. They feel like a premium regular light although they don't have the Marlboro Light taste. I wouldn't even compare these to the taste of Winston Lights, anotha regular light Big Tobacco brand I smoked for a while in the past. But Kick Lights have a unique taste that's good enough for me since I find it easy to chainsmoke at least 5 of these in a row. And yes, I taste actual smoke instead of fresh air when I smoke Kick Lights.

I already have a link to this brand on my blog on how you can buy Kick cigarette cartons online. But here's anotha link if you don't wanna search down a long list of links. This brand can be bought online at the Oklahoma Outlet Smoke Shop.

Interested in trying Kick cigarettes? CLICK THIS LINK.

Also, cigreviews.com has re-launched and the site and forum both have a totally new look on there.

I might break up that long list of blog links on here into different categories in the near future, now that I can upload text documents on my blog and publish them as webpages that anyone can view on the net. I'm sure I can upload images and publish them as public webpages, but I gotta learn the uploading feature on here.

If anyone's interested in looking into how to add a link to my blog, just leave a comment on here. While comments are still moderated even for anon comments, I can still read the moderated comments myself of course.