It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking Bans - Where will it end?

page: 30
33
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

I fully and completely support ending the war on drugs - this is the second time I have posted this information

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

Please do your own googling - its really not that hard for any reasonable person.

Lucille Gaston Page

en.wikipedia.org...




She founded the Chicago Anti-Cigarette League in 1899, the first group of its kind in the United States. The group quickly went nationwide and beyond, establishing chapters around the United States and Canada, and renaming itself the Anti-Cigarette League of America, which claimed as many as 300,000 members. The Anti-Cigarette league had considerable success in the early years of the 20th century, and was instrumental in having cigarette bans passed in 12 states between 1899 and 1909. Gaston's method included publication of anti-cigarette materials, lobbying legislatures as well as personally appealing to people to stay away from cigarettes. She sponsored dances, sports leagues, and writing contests to promote the message. Her anti-smoking magazine The Boy often contained anecdotes of destructive behavior due to cigarette smoking.[5]

There is nothing new under the sun

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

You really are not contributing anything worth while to this thread.

Are you incapable of doing your own googling?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Rofl. First off bruh, you made the claim so the onus is on you to prove it not on me to look it up. Period, that is how adult arguments work. Second wikipedia is not a valid source to make your argument. You do know that anyone can write anything they want on there don't you? Third, assuming you can find a source that has the same info, all it says is the anti-cigarette league has some early success by banning cigarettes in 12 states. To expand on that, cigarettes is a type of tobacco not all tobacco which you claimed. They didn't mind chewing tobacco, or snuff, how about cigars?; what 12 states, what does this ban include, Is it from selling them, buying them, possessing them, smoking them?

Now my ego isn't too big to admit you may be partially correct somewhere in there. I will be the first to admit if you teach me something, but you gotta do a little bit better than that. Oh and alcohol prohibition was 1920 to 1933 so it wasn't during the same time period, you are 11 years off. Assuming you are right (big assumption with the track record) to compare alcohol prohibition to ciggies being banned in some form we don't know for sure is really really stretching the limits.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   
My neighbor's incense hurts my health, it makes me cough until I vomit, wheeze for hours, and have a cough for days if I breath just one tiny whiff of it in the hall. The grease in the smoke from my neighbor grilling on the balcony hurts my health, it makes me cough for hours. My neighbor's perfume when we pass in the hall hurts my health, it makes me wheeze. But damnit, I do what I like in my home and I expect my neighbor to be able to do the same.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine
It's called an electronic cigarette. No needle needed.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's only discrimination if it's state-sponsored? So if I refuse to hire you because you're a woman, or gay, or Hispanic, or short, or old, it's not discrimination, right? Because it's not state-sanctioned.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: InfinityandBeyond

But the original post had nothing to do with that. The question was can we legislate whether people can smoke IN THEIR OWN HOMES.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

First off - I am not now, nor will I ever be you "bruh", whatever that is. You are trying to imply that I am wrong in everything I say based on errors in small details (was it tobacco prohibition or cigarette prohibition. Does this even matter? The point I was making is that smoking has been the subject of prohibition attempts for the last 400 years.

As for timeline - no you are mistaken! Check out 1922.



Here is a link from Tobacco.org Who are they?

archive.tobacco.org...


Sunlight is the best disinfectant" -- Justice Brandeis Tobacco.org is a free resource center focusing on tobacco and smoking issues. It features tobacco news, information, assistance for smokers trying to quit, alerts on tobacco control issues, and open consideration of all aspects of the spectrum of issues concerning tobacco, nicotine, cigarettes and cigars. It began in 1988 with Gene Borio's news-posting service on Compuserve (where Borio was a forum leader), Prodigy, and later AOL. A BBS (Electronic Bulletim Board Service) began in 1993, and the website began in 1996. Since 2000 it has been run by Gene Borio and Michael Tacelosky.





919: Lucy Payne Gaston's tactics are attracting lawsuits; she is asked to resign from Anti-Cigarettel League of the World. 1919: BUSINESS: The Philip Morris coronet logo is introduced. 1919: BUSINESS: George Whelan Tobacco Products picks up tiny US Philip Morris Company, including PM's brands Cambridge, Oxford Blues, English Ovals, Players, and Marlboro. The new Philip Morris & Company, Ltd. Inc, is incorporated in Richmond, VA. 1919: BUSINESS: Manufactured cigarettes surpass smoking tobacco in poundage of tobacco consumed. (RK) 1919: BUSINESS: ADVERTINSING: Lorillard unsuccessfully targets women with its Helmar and Murad brands. (RK) 1920: CONSUMPTION: US has a per capita smoking rate of 477 cigarettes (The Tax Burden on Tobacco, Historical Compilation Volume 35, 2000) 1920: CONSUMPTION: Per capita cigarette consumption: 419/year. Per capita cigar consumption: 80/year. (International Smoking Statistics) 1920: ATC's Richmond Research Laboratory conducts a "continuing study of the components of tobacco and tobacco smoke." 1920-06-11: Republican party leaders, meeting in the "smoke-filled room" (Suite 408-10 of Chicago's Blackstone Hotel) engineered the presidential nomination of Warren G. Harding. 1920-10: OPINION: "" in Atlantic Monthly says, "scientific truth" has found "that the claims of those who inveigh aginst tobacco are wholy without foundation has been proved time and again by famous chemists, physicians, toxicologists, physiologists, and experts of every nation and clime." (RK) 1920-06: The phrase "smoke-filled room" --meaning politiking and deal-making hidden from public view-- is engendered, after senators and others in Suite 404 in the Chicago's Blackstone Hotel decide that Warren G. Harding should be the Republican nominee for president. 1921: BUSINESS: RJR spends $8 million in advertising, mostly on Camel; inaugurates the "I'd Walk a Mile for a Camel" slogan. (RK) 1921: BUSINESS: KOREA: Korea Tobacco and Ginseng (KTG)'s monopoly is expanded to include tobacco. 1921-04-11: TAXES: State tobacco taxation begins. Iowa is the first state to add its own cigarette tax (2 cents a pack) onto the federal excise levy (6 cents).(RK) 1922: REGULATION: 15 states have banned the sale, manufacture, possession, advertising and/or use of cigarettes.


you will note that in 1922 cigarettes are ban in 15 states.

You may also feel free to take your insults against my integrity and intelligence and do with them what you will. You are simply trolling and trying to find some way of stopping me from bringing the truth to the people who follow this site.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: riiver

NO the question of this thread is "smoking bans - where will it end?

That title does not limit our discussion to smoking in private homes.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

As to your point whether the 1920s Prohibition included only cigarettes (you may be right about that time period - God knows I wasn't there) however you are mistaken to believe that smokeless tobacco is not banned in the current round of Prohibition

www.wjtv.com...

Many smoking bans include smokeless tobacco of any kind

www.cancer.org...

Laws that affect tobacco marketing




Laws that affect tobacco marketing The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act went into effect in October 2009. This law gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) power to regulate tobacco products in the US. One of the goals of the law is to restrict the marketing and advertising of tobacco products – including smokeless tobacco products. Colorful ads and store displays are no longer permitted. Only black and white text ads are allowed. Since 2010, all outdoor tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds have been illegal. Under the law, new smokeless tobacco and other products claiming to have lower health risks must be approved by the FDA. Such claims are only allowed if makers can show that the product would not encourage many non-smokers or would-be quitters to try them, rather than not using tobacco at all.


Swedish snus are banned in United States and Europe (its a small teabag of tobacco that you hold in your mouth)

They are working like feverish dogs to ban e-cigarettes which hold not tobacco at all but does cut into the sale of alternative nicotene delivery system made by Big Pharma

uk.reuters.com...




(Reuters) - GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) is feeling the heat from the rapid growth in electronic cigarettes, with enthusiasm for the nicotine delivery devices dampening sales of the British drugmaker's patches and gum, its chief executive said.


Since its Big Pharma that funds alot of anti-smoker groups, we can't have them losing an interest in funding Prohibition, now can we.

And if your local ban does not yet include smokeless tobacco.....stay tuned

cancercontrol.cancer.gov...




In the face of an impending new epidemic of tobacco-related dis- eases, and following reports on the health hazards of smokeless tobacco (IARC, 1986; US DHHS, 1986), the World Health Organization called to- gether an international group of experts to review the evidence and propose strategies for national and international control of smokeless tobacco. The recommendations of that group are summarized here. According to the WHO expert group, the major objectives of any national smokeless tobacco control program should be the following (WHO, 1988): • In countries where smokeless tobacco is not known yet, prevent its introduction, with special emphasis on preventing its use by children. • In countries where smokeless tobacco is already in use, prevent any increase, and reduce the prevalence of its use in the population. • In all countries, establish and maintain a social climate unfavorable to smokeless tobacco use. The most effective means of preventing the emergence of new tobacco- related problems in any country is to prevent the introduction of new tobacco products rather than to allow them to be introduced and take action only after the resultant health problems have become apparent.


So even though smokeless tobacco affects no-one but the user, its on the list for prohibition.

Which kind of lets you know that smoking bans were never about protecting the health of others. It was an excuse to commence the harassment and demonization of smokers. The "scientific evidence" of the harm of second hand smoke was entirely created by "activist scientists" using statistics, out of whole cloth, after the decision was made to convince the public that smoking harmed not just the smoker but others as well. Hard science, the kind conducted in labororaties has never supported this second-hand smoke theory.

legacy.library.ucsf.edu...




First i t . .inn ve mu :r ask ourselves whether our society is one in which the major influences exercised on public opinion are such as would convey the impression that smoking is a dirty, anti-social practice, spoiling the enjoyment of youth and accelerating the onset of the deteriorations of age . The answer to that is very easy .


Well, from the only knowledge that second-smoke may cause an increase of CO in the blood (which is NOT harmful) and the increases of cotinan (which is a harmless by-product of nicotene), those "activist scientists" produced the "evidence' that smokers were killing non-smokers.

and also




Many of the smokers young and old are social smokers and could give up the habit without a great deal of difficulty if they chose . They would s not suffer deprivation symptoms thuugh they would suffer a material chatge in their social lives . Every smoker is a promoter of other smokers . The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non- smoker in ordinary social intercourse ; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise .


Godber knew that he would be hurting smokers and the evidence that second-hand smoke harmed non-smokers was non-existent. But in this speech, he laid out the anti-smoking program for the next 40 years with the singular goal of achieving prohibiton.

Lies were not problem. It was all lies told for a good cause! (or so he thought) But the harm has been far greater then he envisioned.

And with all this harm, has any good been achieved? There has been no material drop in lung cancer or any cancer. Asthma and respiratory disease has increased 800 % since the 1960s (Asthma is one of the main disease that comprise the syndrome of COPD).

In the end, after billions and billions of dollars spent, exactly what has tobacco prohibition achieved.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

oooo - and another smoking ban overturned. This time in the State of Washington

Of course - now the arguement will be that allowing smoking at cigar bars and casinos is unconstitutional and provides an uneven playing ground for bars.

See how this all works!

The erosion is underway and it will continue until Prohibition is repealed! In all states and in Canada and the UK and Europe - heck the world

It was never going to work anyway because it was a cultural movement forced on the people and not supported by the majority (no matter what polls the anti-smokers rigged up).

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

sorry forgot the link for the Washington smoking ban

www.yakimaherald.com...

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I think you are so heated you aren't able to comprehend what I was saying. You must have missed the part where I said I would be willing to say you were right if you sourced something better than wikipedia. I am not trying to diminish your argument on semantics or small points, I was trying to get more concise information from you. You stated tobacco was banned during the prohibition of alcohol. You were wrong in that according to your own source which stated it ended 9 years before alcohol prohibition started. Your source said cigarettes were banned, not all tobacco so I asked questions about the other forms of tobacco and what did the ban include. Relax, I am not calling you names I am asking for better sources and more information, I was hoping to actually learn something instead of just going back and forth arguing.

To resort to just calling me a troll is sad bruh. If we are at that point I will just leave so you can just discuss this with yourself and other people that agree with you after you ask anyone that disagrees with you to leave your thread, which is probably forthcoming.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

And I ask again - I am not your "bruh"

Are you now satisfied that cigarette prohition was still ongoing during the 1920s

Tired fo Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
They are working like feverish dogs to ban e-cigarettes which hold not tobacco at all but does cut into the sale of alternative nicotene delivery system made by Big Pharma

uk.reuters.com...




(Reuters) - GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) is feeling the heat from the rapid growth in electronic cigarettes, with enthusiasm for the nicotine delivery devices dampening sales of the British drugmaker's patches and gum, its chief executive said.


Since its Big Pharma that funds alot of anti-smoker groups, we can't have them losing an interest in funding Prohibition, now can we.


Just a short post to say that GlaxoSmithKline are the makers of the inhaler I (and, from what I have seen in the Internet, most asthmatics) use, so they always win.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

I had not thought of that. If there is something about second-hand smoke that stimulates the respiratory system of children, then GSK would win if smoking was prohibited.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You are now. Seriously though, you need to relax. I am your mortal enemy because we have opposing view points about smoking in apartments and condos? You are taking this way too seriously.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: ArMaP

I had not thought of that. If there is something about second-hand smoke that stimulates the respiratory system of children, then GSK would win if smoking was prohibited.

That's a very big "if".

As things are now they gain more by having people smoking.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Its not smokers that use inhalers - its asthmatics.

The only inhaler made for smokers is a quit smoking inhaler - and it doesn't stand a chance against e-cigarettes.

Tired of Control Freaks



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join