It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Anti-smoking stimulus for ATS and the economy?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:41 PM
Nothing ever happens without a reason... that I am sure of. Another thing I am sure of is that no medium of control of the American people will be ignored in the desperate attempt to control them. Unfortunately, that includes ATS.

Throughout the past few days, I have found myself unable to restrain from delving into the vain topic of smoker vs. anti-smoker. I have been so unable because 1) I am a smoker, and have been for a very long time, 2) I have absolutely no ill health and no reason to stop something I enjoy so much, and 3) I believe the individual should take responsibility for their own actions and choices, rather than demand others cater to their sensibilities or lobby for more laws to further control the lives of others.

Specifically, here are the threads I have spoken of:

My question is: why? Why, why, why, all of a sudden, with no warning, smoking is the big issue? Most of these threads drug on for 10-20 pages.

The answer I saw today on CNN, and I looked it up for those poor souls who don't have access to that mind-numbing disinformation device we affectionately call 'TV'...

Smoking cessation programs make up $75 million of the economic stimulus bill making its way through the Senate, according to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who sponsored the funding.

Harkin said the programs were an attempt to bolster the economy by lowering the soaring health-care costs smoking causes each year.



Too much spending on health care. OK...


Too little spending in the economy. OK...

We want to increase spending to stimulate the economy. OK...

To do that, we're going to decrease the amount spent on health. OK...

Is it just me, or does this make absolutely no sense at all?!?

I find it eerily coincidental that this is exposed just after a rash of sudden debate on ATS. I find it eerily illogical that this part of the bill expects to increase spending by decreasing spending.

If I were the conspiratorial type (
) I might even say that this stimulus bill was full of pork-barrel spending, and that certain individuals posting on ATS are in the loop on what the public opinion should be towards the issue du jour... today, smoking.

If I were the conspiratorial type (
) I might say that certain people were posting opinions that were maybe not their own, but rather designed to provoke responses from the other members of ATS.

If I were the conspiratorial type (
) I might say that even our beloved ATS is not outside the sphere of influence of those who seek to control the destiny of the population at large.

I guess it's a good thing I am not the conspiratorial type.

(in other words... you with the agendas, I see you. Peek-a-boo)


[edit on 2-2-2009 by TheRedneck]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:08 PM
Im a smoker too (5years).

I take responsibility for the choices I have made. I have quit twice, and will do it again when the time is right (stress levels through the roof right now.)
I did make the choice to quit smoking freely. But I did emplore about getting some pills to aid quitting and my insurance refuses to help with the coverages on 200$ for a one month supply. You'd think they'd save money by helping...

Edit: It just goes to show that no company will invest in longterm savings because they are so focused on the greed on money now.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by n1zzzn]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

I went to Golden Corral last week, in Alton Il, and thought of you, and your post about not being able to smoke in the one you frequent.

We have had discussion over this, with me listing several sites to back up why people shouldn't smoke, and how bad it is for you, and the people around you.

Mind you, I am a smoker.

Obviously, smoking is a great pleasure to you, but I often wonder if you recall how life was before you picking up the habit, and I wonder if you would have a different attitude as a non-smoker or ex-smoker.

I guess the point is to go ahead and subject yourself to your passion, but be considerate while doing so.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:33 PM
I get so annoyed at these ads that say second-hand smoke killed fifty thousand people last year (or whatever number they're claiming now).

I don't say that second-hand smoke is a GOOD thing, however in the big picture it's really small potatoes.

Does anyone realize the amount of carcinogens they take in at each and every traffic intersection where they sit for approximately one minute inhaling the exhaust of 100 cars? The air quality at an intersection is about 1000 times more lethal than 100 cartons of second-hand smoke. You don't hear the govt. lauding the ill effects of intersection air pollution because there is nothing they can do about it, besides it doesn't give them the millions of dollars in cigarette taxation which is all they care about anyway.

How many people did intersection air pollution kill last year?

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Bombeni]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Oh no you didn't!!!!

Well let's play with some figures here. So the government are willing to put $75 million into the stimulus package for smoke cessation? And the tobacco industry revenue is a couple of billion per annum, what percent of this vast amount goes to taxes again? Hmmm, so by putting in place a smoke cessation programme the country would LOSE revenue? Am I right so far, but as this is a stimulus package, I am assuming that the government realize that although they would have a reduction of tobacco revenue, they would be making up for it by needing less health care expense for the government far in in excess of this tobacco revenue? Sounds like good fiscal sense to me.

There is only one thing more than smoking in public places, and that is threads about smoking that go on and on and on.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Mynaeris]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:51 PM
Redneck I noticed the same thing.

But I've seen it before with other subjects. Someone will make a thread and 10 other people will feed off that one thread and make threads of their own concerning the same subject but with a different slant.

Don't touch your keyboard.........Don't be alarmed.........

You are now watching a personal commercial and gratuitous post.

33 days ago I quit smoking for about the 7th time since I started smoking in 1962. You could not give me 1 million dollars to start to smoke again. And I do know what having 1 millions dollars feels like.

But......I'm here to tell you that I quit smoking so I could be in better physical shape in a sitx and to generally enjoy life more.

IT WORKED. I feel so much better and can actually walk without coughing my lungs up (eww). It was killing me.

I made up my mind I was in control of my life and would no longer pay the tobacco companies to kill me.

I am beside myself with pride. If I can quit cigarettes I can do anything.

I will now return you to your regular post. Enjoy.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by dizziedame]
edit again because I am making mistakes because my energy level has increased since I quit smoking I'm typing too fast.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by dizziedame]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:52 PM
another potential reality as opposed to ATS being conspirators, is the fact that a majority of the threads posted on ATS are posted somewhere else.

It's trickle down discussion, which centers alot in the recent years on matters of personal rights and/or the lack thereof, where posts on that very subject matter are almost always stories published elsewhere, and then we have discussion on it.

This would point to the growth of smoking-related stories have it's source outside of the ATS 'sphere of influence', it's presence here, being a reflection of it's existence in the mainstream media.

If the mainstream media is pumping out more anti-smoking stories, in cooperation with that stimulus portion by design, then that's where the real origin lies.

Any rise in ATS-related stories in the MSM, you'll see a rise in ATS threads.

It's just a matter of internet mechanics.


posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by dizziedame

Congrats Dizziedame!!! You go !!!

I have been doing some research into the field of what turns men off the most when selecting a date - guess what won - "SMOKING"

The thing about any addiction is that people will never admit to having an addiction - any 12 step program will tell you then can't be help-ed until you admit that you are an addict.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by Mynaeris

Oh, yes I did.

This thread is not about smoking per se. I think we've beaten the hooves off that dead horse. You hate smokers, and I hate people who try to run my life instead of their own. We'll never agree. The best we can hope for is that we also never meet.

This thread is about subterfuge. If you want the government to spend $75M on a smoking cessation program, how about passing a smoking cessation bill for $75M? Why hide it deep inside this stimulus package?

And why is it that the firestorm erupted here mere days before this information became public about the 'smoking pork' (pun intended)?

Your response to my post is very interesting.


posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:10 PM
It's also interesting to note that our current President is a smoker supposedly trying to quit. You make a very interesting point and I agree with you when it comes to questioning the motives as to why this is part of the stimulus package being offered.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by worldwatcher
It's also interesting to note that our current President is a smoker supposedly trying to quit. You make a very interesting point and I agree with you when it comes to questioning the motives as to why this is part of the stimulus package being offered.

Ahh he's not going to quit smoking, count on it. He won't smoke in public but he likes smoking so there you go. I also fully believe, 100 percent, that he is an occasional crack smoker, just like Oprah and countless other black celebs.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by prevenge

That very well could be so, prevenge. But that in itself would simply make ATS members unwitting participants in the moves to shape public opinion.

Let me be clear: I do not believe the majority of those here are operating under any deep dark secret agenda. I'm not that paranoid (yet, I'm working on it
). However, this past election cycle was pretty horrendous with the innuendo and false assertions, even to the point of SO implementing new rules for posting and alleging political influence being projected into ATS on an institutional level.

ATS is growing fast. It would only make sense that if an attempt to control the thoughts of the masses were under way (as the MSM continues to indicate on a daily basis), then any source of alternate news such as ATS would also be a target. Exactly how difficult would it be for an operative to create an identity here and then post strategically based on the spin desired?

The timing of the 'smoking pork' (I like that pun!
) announcement also seems strangely coincidental. Now, what else is in there that needs to be 'sold' to the public?

Thanks for understanding the subject of the thread, btw.


posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

You seem a brilliant person to me. I really enjoy your posts, but I find it disturbing you feel a need to really talk about this.

What else are your passions? Do you have children, and do you encourage them to smoke as means of just personal rights?

Yes, having somebody telling you what to do is upsetting, when you find smoking to be such a pleasure, but, what about the general population?

Sometimes majority has to rule, and we, smokers are on the outs now about that.

There are several reasons, that I have pointed out to you.

I just sort of think you are being hard headed about this, and that you enjoy it so much, nobody could ever change your mind.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:25 PM
reply to post by dizziedame

way to go dizzie. I'm with you on the wagon. same new year's day start date and not a single craving. 22 years of smoking a pack or more a day.

I see no problem with the gov't trying to get other people to quit. I am of the belief that people should be allowed to do as they wish when it comes to their own bodies but, when these people know the risks and then sue the companies who made or sold the smokes, well, now, you have a problem. when they rely on the gov't for medical help, you have a problem.

if a junkie over doses, should he be allowed to sue the dealer, the owner of the building where the dealer dealt out of, the needle maker etc?


so, the smoker should not be allowed to sue the makes and sellers of the smokes.

the medical issue is not quite as cut and dry but, if the gov't is going to be stuck holding the tab on smoke related sicknesses, they deserve the right to promote the cessation of smoking whenever possible. no matter how annoying we all might find it.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by Enthralled Fan

As I said above, Enthralled, I did not write this about smoking. I wrote this about a possible spin surrounding the current stimulus package. The issue of smoking is incidental due to the extent to which it was hotly debated, the suddenness that it surfaced, and the announcement of a coincidental rider to the stimulus package. That just struck a chord in my conspiratorial lobe.

If you want to talk about smoking and how bad it is, any of the links above will do. I'm trying to monitor them occasionally, because it is a hot button for me.

But I do think beyond that one issue. Ironic that most of the posts here have been about smoking itself, not the topic of coercive/subversive influence to pass a pork item, and yet you think I can't get off the subject of smoking?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Well, what else is the stimulus package supposed to do? It's a joke, really, just like all the bailouts.

People are going to smoke whether or not there is a stimulous package or not, and I know you know this.

I'ts like burning a wad of cash to light a cigarrete with, Pointless. So yes, I apologize for putting your thread onto us smokers, rather than your issue.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

I say if the government wants to spend money to fund "stop smoking" programs, then they can. But, they should be up-front about it and not bury it in a pork-filled bill that is posing as a stimulus plan.

I smoke. I am courteous to non-smokers, even in my own home. I personally think that the "anti-smokers" are way too aggressive and nasty in their attitudes, but that is my opinion. I also feel that they have an agenda that has very little to do with smoking. But, again, just my opinion.

The government works for us. We should be able to see what they are spending funds on and not have to dig through hundreds of pages of BS in order to find where this million is going and where that million is going.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:19 PM
They're just in here trying to forage some pro arguments from real thinkers after the senate kicks their little pet project out of the stimulus package.

Now that there's no real threat of a veto, it's like Christmas for the Dems.

Unfortunately, instead of making sure that nothing will be in the package that wont stimulate the economy, they'll just throw a bone or two to the Republicans to push it through, all at the cost of the taxpayers.

Here's today's CNN poll numbers

Should the economic stimulus bill contain items not directly related to strengthening the economy or creating jobs?

Yes 10% 13684
No 90% 126794
Total Votes: 140478

At this point, even if we're on to their little game, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

Does anyone really think this has anything to do with getting things moving again?

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:42 PM
I find it odd as well. What seems real wierd to me though, is if the goverment could get everyone to quit(not likely) many states would go into the red finacially because they get such large tax revenue from cigarette sales.

The federal cigarette tax raised $7.7 billion in the year ending June 2005

Michigan collected $993 million in tobacco tax revenues in 2004, compared to $892 million in 2003.

There are no plans to lower the tax, used primarily to help fund public education and Medicaid. The state predicted that about 15 percent of smokers would quit when it increased the tax. In fact, in announcing the increase, the state issued smokers a challenge.

Read the what I bolded there? education and medicaid. Can anti-smokers really afford people quiting?

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Hi Red...Interesting points you've raised.

To think that we (ATS) were not part of some kind of study would be naive. With all the government agencies who employ staff to post here and read THIS, it must be like taking candy from a baby sometimes.

Just one thread would start it off to bring responses and more often than not, further threads on the same subject. The information gathered from a Global arena helps provide advanced info for the plans and manipulation to come.

A lot of the studies are probably from a U.S. perspective and with the majority of ATS members being American, the target subjects (people) are easily reached...but the rest of the membership from other global locations provides additional opinions to work into their studies. Part of the very useful "unpredictable" factor.

We add a nice "quantum" to the calculation.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are full-time employees who's job it is to visit ATS daily (among others) to continue their agenda.

To them I say...get a life, get a real job!

Nice one Red, I wonder what the next issue is on their white-boards. What will they get us to predict for them after this smoking issue?

Can we do alcohol next please mr sad FBI man?


ps...I like the new avatar!

[edit on 2/2/2009 by nerbot]

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in