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.

 

Disgusting anti smoking ads and a liberal agenda

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
Why is it ok to put lung cancer and anti smoking ads on tv that make the people look like disgusting losers, but it is not ok to do anti-aids commercials like that. Is it because the liberal media agenda is promote drugs and sex, while condemning smoking? One important fact to remember....even non-smokers can get lung cancer. More money goes to AIDS research than lung cancer research. AIDS, except in the case of rape or force, is preventable. But it is not pc to put horrible ads with loser IV drug users and promiscuous people on tv....???? Why do we continue to take this brainwashing?


What an incredibly weird world view.




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


How is it weird? What is weird is picking one group of people to pick on, even though there are equal or worse groups out there. Who decides who is worthy of compassion and who is worthy of contempt?



The liberal media....that's who.....and people fall for it.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by revmoofoo
Smoking is a disgusting habit and I'm all for making those who smoke look like "disgusting loosers" I wouldn't mind so much if I didn't constantly have to walk through clouds of smoke while I'm out and about.


I assume you have the same hatred for people that wear too much cologne or perfume?

Putting up with things you don't like is a part of life.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by revmoofoo
reply to post by ajay59
 


Did I mention how nasty smokers smell to non-smokers? Not only their clothing, but their breath too?


Rev


That is your problem that you should learn to deal with. After all, I believe breath and clothes can smell without having to interact with cigarette smoke.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by spyder550
 


How is it weird? What is weird is picking one group of people to pick on, even though there are equal or worse groups out there. Who decides who is worthy of compassion and who is worthy of contempt?



The liberal media....that's who.....and people fall for it.



You conflate several things that are not analogous at all and then develop a paranoia based on that. Not being critical just saying it is weird. I am a very active liberal -- trust me there is no agenda -- if any thing we are like a herd of cats.
edit on 31-1-2012 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by aaron2209
 


Well said aaron2209! I have to admit my weakness is a defensive response to " Holier Than Thou" individuals who unknowingly bend to the will of our would be masters and believe it is their own. The whole idea is to break away from the "sheeple" and realize that we are individuals with the ability to reach a common ground!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 

Wow...talk about a weird world view.....you have no clue what you are involved in by belonging to that group.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com...

Social Stigma Created by Anti-Smoker Policies Found to Negatively Impact Health Care for Smokers




Finding out how public health practitioners feel about an anti-smoking policy is tragic if it reveals that the policy is widely opposed. I am trying to provide those who oppose the WHO's policy with instructions on what to say if someone asks you how you feel about the policy. Rather than telling them that you oppose the policy, instead you must avoid the question and focus only on how terrible the tobacco industry is. Don't let on that you oppose any anti-smoking measure; simply repeat the dogma about how awful Big Tobacco is and move on. "The fact is the WHO has adopted this policy at the highest levels. There are more productive things to do than fight with them." We should not speak out against any anti-smoking policies that any group or organization promotes or adopts, even if we think that the policy is completely unjustified, discriminatory, and unduly intrusive and inappropriate from a public health perspective. Dissent interferes with the agenda and the movement and is therefore not productive. The rest of the story is that there is a concerted effort in the tobacco control movement to promote policies that stigmatize smokers and to quell any dissent from those who disagree with this approach. The combination of these actions has led to a measurable negative impact on health care for smokers, in the form of a reluctance on the part of about six million smokers to disclose to their physicians that they smoke.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

In my last post of 2011, I suggested that the anti-smoking movement has recently changed from a focus on fighting tobacco smoke exposure to a near obsession with fighting smokers themselves. This is evidenced by policies such as those which ban smoking in large, wide-open outdoor areas such as Central Park or entire areas of a downtown and by policies which ban smokers, rather than just tobacco smoke, from the workplace. I argued that: "These policies are instead intended to punish smokers by either: (1) making it more difficult for them to smoke outdoors; or (2) making it more difficult for them to find employment. The latter effect can be quite significant in communities in which a single hospital system is the major employer. If that hospital system refuses to consider applications from smokers, it truly does make it much more difficult for smokers to find employment. This is especially true with the job shortages we are facing today. The implications of this development for public health is that we are now using employment discrimination as a strategy for health promotion."
reply to post by spyder550
 



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

In my last post of 2011, I suggested that the anti-smoking movement has recently changed from a focus on fighting tobacco smoke exposure to a near obsession with fighting smokers themselves. This is evidenced by policies such as those which ban smoking in large, wide-open outdoor areas such as Central Park or entire areas of a downtown and by policies which ban smokers, rather than just tobacco smoke, from the workplace. I argued that: "These policies are instead intended to punish smokers by either: (1) making it more difficult for them to smoke outdoors; or (2) making it more difficult for them to find employment. The latter effect can be quite significant in communities in which a single hospital system is the major employer. If that hospital system refuses to consider applications from smokers, it truly does make it much more difficult for smokers to find employment. This is especially true with the job shortages we are facing today. The implications of this development for public health is that we are now using employment discrimination as a strategy for health promotion."
reply to post by timetothink

 


tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com...


"If a poll is taken on the WHO policy, we should anticipate its results (which will be a split, regardless of the outcome) are likely to become grist for a blog and websites of FORCES and Forest, amid editorials espousing a right-to-smoke that is under attack by the anti smoker cabal. And if a majority polled oppose the WHO policy, we should anticipate significant media coverage pitching the story as a conflict between the WHO and some anti smoking advocates. Meanwhile, tobacco industry executives would have a good laugh as they send more checks to Lewis Maltby, dust off their right-to-smoke legislation from 15 years ago, and consider coalition building and lobbying budgets in more states and nations. Although I agree that further debate on XXX over the WHO policy probably won't be productive, the larger public policy issue regarding [smoker-free employment policies] and right-to-smoke legislation is unlikely to go away, and could further divide tobacco control advocates. ... I'd prefer debating our differences here on XXX [rather] than in state legislatures or in the news media." Let's not find out how much dissent there is in the anti-smoking movement about these policies because if we do, it's going to harm our efforts to advance these policies. Knowledge of the internal dissent will become public, as it will appear on Mike Siegel's blog as well as the FORCES and other smokers' rights websites. We shouldn't ever expose to the public that we disagree about anything. It's important that any disagreement with the prevailing dogma and agenda of the movement remain hidden from the public so that it doesn't interfere with the advancement of this agenda through legislative policy enactment. Any dissent must only be expressed internally; dissenters cannot publicly state their views or they are helping the tobacco industry advance their cause. Even though we know that the movement is split on this issue, those who are taking the stronger anti-smoking position which penalizes smokers more must prevail and those who oppose the stronger position should keep their thoughts to themselves or share them only with other anti-smoking advocates. "A XXX vote on the WHO hiring policy will help only the tobacco cartel. Sorry, I just had to yell that, I am so worried about a possible vote. If one happens, I will not vote, and I will urge all WHO policy supporters to not vote as well. It will not help tobacco control people in any way. We already know a small number of us are very vocal and on opposite sides of this issue. I do not want to fight new legislation on this issue again. I have much more important issues to work on. A XXX vote may lead to the tobacco cartel introducing more smokers' rights bills throughout the world. Those who promote a vote should be required to tell us if they or their close family members smoke or use tobacco, and if their company has or will take money from a tobacco company. XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX and others [most of whom had spoken out against the WHO's policy], when was the last time you had a smoke or spit tobacco? Have or will you and/or your companies take money from any tobacco company - including Kraft and all of their other subsidiaries?"



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


I can show proof there is an agenda to demonize smokers....you on the other hand cannot prove there isn't. Saying "I am a liberal and there is no agenda" is ridiculous.
edit on 11-2-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join