Friday, June 26, 2009

Random Thoughts

The only smoking ban dat makes remote sense to me is a restaurant smoking ban, provided there are smoking sections in there. Othawise, banning smoking everywhere in a restaurant and every otha place is flat out bogus.

I can kinda see no smoking in a clothes store. You don't want accidental fires to happen with the clothes coming in contact with the cigs.

I probably said this online in the past. But just cause times have changed for smokers doesn't mean I have to accept the changes. I pretend to be used to the changes. But I still hate the changes.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

One small positive from FDA regulation

If there's anythang positive from this news, it's menthols not being banned. But otha flavored cigs and cloves will be.

Dat's good news in theory. It would be even more betta for me to enjoy menthols if my right to buy em online ain't abused.

I guess the black antismokers didn't get their wish of "Saving the Afro-American community" by banning menthols. I neva said this to a fellow bro or sista. But FU if you think not having menthols can save our community.

Just like politicians and antis online, you guys refuse to admit there are MORE serious issues within our community than people smoking mainly Newports and Swisher Sweet cigars. I guess these people who use coke and drink too darn much in our community can take a back seat to blacks who smoke menthols. If even a 10 year old black kid smoking menthols is not right for our community, what does dat make a prostitute or a homeless sis? It's perfectly normal for em to get money for sex? LOL!!!

Your guys' priorities ain't as straight as otha antismokers' priorities.

Monday, June 22, 2009

The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter

The United Pro Choice
Smokers Rights Newsletter

June 19, 2009 - Issue #530

"Government efforts to fight cigarette smoking over the past 40 years amount to more than a victory for public health. They are also, as Ted Kings new book makes clear, a cautionary tale of how the state can bully, and ultimately crush, members of a momentarily-unfashionable minority group. Just because you don't smoke doesn't mean you shouldn't be afraid."
- Tucker Carlson
Velvet Glove, Iron Fist. By Christopher Snowdon. Book review by Michael J. McFadden, Mid-Atlantic Regional Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc. His approach embodies a strong neutrality that will win him friends and enemies on both sides of the issue, but I believe that overall, that neutrality only serves to underscore the damning facts that will eventually bring judgment against what historian Jeremy Richards has called "America's Second Great Prohibition Experiment."

MA: Reaches Tipping Point Says IPCPR and State Tobacconists... public opinion has been reached against legislated deprivation of their individual rights.

VA: Smiles Outlawed: DMV Makes Life Even More Miserable. This week the Virginia DMV announced that it's going to outlaw smiling in driver's license photos. Thought life at the DMV couldn't get any worse? Wrong again, America.

Watch the video! We The People Stimulus Package. Bob Basso author of "Common Sense" plays the role of Thomas Paine to ignite the fire of change in America. Patriotism and Pride for America lead Thomas Paine to help take back America!

FDA Will Regulate Cigarettes ... And Cause An Increase In Smoking! By Andrew Lawrence, an expert smoker with decades of actual experience. He is also the author of 5 books including "Glimmers Of Hope."
Michael Siegel FDA Updates: Constitutionality of FDA Tobacco Legislation is Already Being Challenged; First Amendment Lawsuit Almost Certain.
Join FREE - Home - Events - Forum - Videos - Please Help - ©

Obama set to sign anti-smoking bill

http://news. s/ap/20090622/ ap_on_go_ pr_wh/us_ obama_tobacco

"Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings."

Oh, so this means when me sees a Newport carton in the future, there will be pics of guns and bloody bodies on the carton? Dat would be a perfect carton for selling Newports in the Windy City. Afta all, antis make smoking cigs sound like a loaded gun anyway. Might as well put graphic images on cartons dat fit the atmosphere I live in.

"The law won't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency will be able to regulate what goes into tobacco products, make public the ingredients and prohibit marketing campaigns...."

I'd like to think this idea would put an end to FSCs, since it would be theoratically illegal for BT to add ingredients to cigs dat are potentially dangerous to smokers. Less nic means people will be buying more cigs. But smokers online say they smoking more anyway afta smoking the FSC version of their favorite BT brands.


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is set to sign into law an anti-smoking bill that will give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco.

Obama is scheduled to sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act during an event Monday in the Rose Garden. The law allows the FDA to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.

The law won't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency will be able to regulate what goes into tobacco products, make public the ingredients and prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

Anti-smoking advocates looked forward to the bill after years of attempts to control an industry so fundamental to the U.S. that carved tobacco leaves adorn some parts of the Capitol.

Opponents from tobacco-growing states like top-producing North Carolina argued that the FDA has proved through a series of food safety failures that it's not up to the job. They also said that instead of unrealistically trying to get smokers to quit or to prevent others from starting, lawmakers should ensure that people have other options, like smokeless tobacco.

As president, George W. Bush opposed the legislation and threatened a veto after it passed the House last year. The Obama administration, by contrast, issued a statement declaring strong support for the measure.

Obama has spoken publicly of his own struggles to quit cigarettes.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Outlaw Tobacco or not from Coburn?

http://www.tulsawor article.aspx? subjectid= 261&articleid=20090621_ 261_G1_SenTom290 436

Relax smokers, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn doesn't want to ban tobacco.

But as former Interior Secretary James Watts once said, "A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots on."

This lie seems to be working on its second lap.

The dangers of irony:

It all started when the U.S. Senate was debating a bill that would put regulation of tobacco under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Advocates say tobacco is a means of introducing the drug nicotine into the body and should be regulated by the FDA like any other drug.

Coburn opposed the measure and voted against it.

But during the debate — and really this should be a great lesson for us all about the dangers of irony in public speaking — Coburn said something like this: "What we should be doing is banning tobacco. ... Nobody up here has the courage to do that. It is a big business. There are millions of Americans who are addicted to nicotine. And even if they are not addicted to the nicotine, they are addicted to the habit."

At least that is how he was quoted in The Hill, a congressional newspaper that publishes daily when Congress is in session.

That set off some great online headlines that are still out there on the Internet.

"Republican senator seeks to outlaw tobacco," was the Hill's headline.

"Sen. Tom Coburn Is
Unlikely Supporter Of Tobacco Ban," says the Huffington Post.

"Outlaw Tobacco? Tom Coburn (R-OK) Thinks So,' says Sean Hannity's Web site.

What he meant, what they want: Actually, Coburn doesn't think so.

"Various news reports took statements I recently made on the floor out of context and suggested that I wanted to ban tobacco products," Coburn says in a statement he issued. "That is not my goal or intent. I was arguing that the bill now being debated by the Senate to place tobacco products under the regulation of the Food and Drug Administration, an agency charged with ensuring the safety of food and medicine, is a clever attempt to stop tobacco use altogether either through government regulation or trial attorney lawsuits. I was suggesting that those who oppose tobacco should simply have the courage to propose a total ban, which is their ultimate goal.

"We already have several government agencies that are focused on regulating tobacco products and educating the public about the dangers of tobacco use," the statement continues. "As a physician, I agree that it is in the best interest of public health that tobacco use be discouraged, prevented, and treated, but I do not believe that new regulations or taxes imposed by the federal government are the answer. I also do not believe that tobacco use by adults should be banned."

That's pretty clear, but the lie keeps running.

The Wikipedia entry on Coburn says flatly, "Coburn favors making tobacco illegal."

Coburn, one of two physicians in the Senate, is well aware of the dangers of smoking and doesn't encourage anyone to use tobacco, said John Hart, a spokesman for the senator.

But Coburn believes in the free market and not in the government telling people whether they can smoke or not.

He has made a lot of people angry over the years by blocking legislation that might seem like a good idea, but which isn't specifically allowed by the Constitution.

Certainly, the Constitution never specifically says Congress can regulate tobacco.

Coburn and I could have a good debate about this Constitutional purity. The Constitution doesn't specifically authorize presidents to acquire new territory, but that doesn't mean we should strike the Louisiana Purchase and give everything drained by the Mississippi River back to the French. The Constitution is a living, evolving document with a lot of broad places in its language.

But that debate is a side issue. The question here is one of truth.

Tom Coburn is consistent in his free market philosophy and in his strict reading of what Congress can and can't do.

He's never wanted to ban tobacco.

And anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

Arguably, at least some of those spreading the story are being intentionally wrong, or incredibly obtuse.

Beyond the fact that a federal ban on tobacco would go against Coburn's basic philosophy, is the fact that he was debating against the bill in the first place.

If you put the regulation of tobacco under the control of the FDA, which is charged with regulating the safe and efficacious use of drugs, you could well be setting up a ban of tobacco.

There is no safe, efficacious use of tobacco after all. That was part of Coburn's point: The backers of the proposal were trying to effect a ban but didn't have the courage to say so. He opposed their legislation, and the implication there should have been clear.

Get your boots on

: The Tulsa World never reported the quote, but we're still getting letters to the editor from people who genuinely believe Coburn wants a federal tobacco ban.

The fact that he doesn't isn't as sexy as the story about the conservative physician in the Senate who wants the nanny state to ban tobacco sales.

So the lie keeps running around the world, while the truth is working on getting on that second boot.