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 Laws and the Reality of the Totalitarian Police State

page: 11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 06:35 PM
And finally courtesy of HUD [government agency called Housing and Urban Development - aka- The Communist Party, USA]

"89-Year-Old Kicked Out of HUD Housing for Smoking Cigarettes"

"Beulah Toombs, an 89-year-old resident of Ohio, is being forced out of her home for refusing to quit smoking. Toombs lives in Cincinnati's AHEPA 127 Apartments, a building for low-income seniors whose rent is subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, building residents were given one year to quit smoking when the building went totally smoke-free in 2013. Toombs refused. "I don’t think so," she told the Enquirer. "This is my home, and I think you can do whatever you want to in your home." Clearly, Beulah is a badass (and a healthy one at that—the Enquirer reports that despite her lifelong cigarette habit, Toombs is in remarkably good health). But badassery is frowned on by building management, who deemed Toombs "non-compliant" after maintenance workers spotted ashtrays and cigarette butts in her apartment and another resident reported seeing a lighter and cigarette inside. Toombs is now being forced to evacuate by the end of April. "My mom is getting older, and this is causing her so much stress,” her daughter, Mary Ann Burgoyne, told the Enquirer. "She kept telling me that she was paying her rent. She was a little confused. She thought they might put her in a debtors prison." Burgoyne approached a senior-advocacy group for help, but said they declined, saying her mom should quit smoking. The group probably couldn't have done much anyway—and that's somewhat as it should be. Toombs' apartment building is private property, and owners are free to impose whatever rules they like on tenants who choose to live there. If tenants don't like the rules, they're free to move somewhere else, as Toombs is doing. "This is the free market at its best," one commenter on the Enquirer article wrote. I wouldn't go that far. Private properties subsidized by the government aren't exactly "free market." Toombs' building is part of a national network of HUD-subsidized AHEPA apartment buildings for low-income seniors. HUD doesn't have the authority to force subsidized but privately-owned apartments buildings to go smoke-free. But it has been encouraging them to do so. Since 2010, HUD has been sending notices to property owners pressuring them to implement smoke-free housing policies. When the folks in charge of your financing strongly suggest something, that's a strong incentive to do it. I'd wager many low-income buildings wouldn't be instituting no-smoking policies if it weren't for HUD butting in. At Toombs' building, it doesn't seem like residents were calling for the change. "I have been in this apartment bulding many times as my Mother lived there before she passed away a year ago this March," Trisha Dufresne commented on the Enquirer article. "It is very clean and you can't smell the smoke from inside the tenants apartments, so no one is really getting second hand smoke." Good thing HUD was around to stop the menace of an old lady unobtrusively smoking within the confines of her apartment! More proof that government will use any particular power you grant it (in Toombs' case, by living in subsidized housing) as an excuse to reach into totally unrelated areas of your life. But hey, I mean, people should quit smoking anyway, right? I'm sure Toombs will be comforted through her stressful move knowing HUD was just trying to help her".
See whole article here:

"The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933–45"

"Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to explore the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest antismoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s, encompassing bans on smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising, restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the world's most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti-tobacco campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity, which also motivated many other public health efforts of the era."
Tobacco in the Reich: One topic that has only recently begun to attract attention is the Nazi anti-tobacco movement.4 5 6 Germany had the world's strongest antismoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s, supported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race.1 4 Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking. Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe—Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco—were all non-smokers.7 Hitler was the most adamant, characterising tobacco as “the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor.”
See whole article here:

As stated I was once a used book dealer
- A popular bood from back then was "IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE"

Wake up people - IT IS HAPPENING HERE

edit on 24-11-2018 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:59 PM

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: amazing

so which restaurant, business, home, elevator do you own?

where is your "right" not to be infringed upon by cigarette smoke enshrined? Is it one of those new fangled social warrier antifa rights.

I have the right not to be infringed upon by your car exhaust. Quit driving - take a bus

Tired of Control Freaks

I don't think you get it. If we're in a closed space, inside, It's common courtesy not to fill it with smoke or vape clouds. I would never do that to someone. if I have to fart, I excuse myself and go outside.

There's lot's of things that aren't in the constitution...We're not talking about social warriors or owning buildings.

If I'm in a restarant eating, You don't have the right to come in and ruin my dinner. If i'm in an elevator, you don't have the right to pollute my air with your fruity vape or smoke, If I pay for a airline ticket, you don't have the right to blow smoke in my face.

If you can't control yourself enough to do that away from me, you've got a problem. Maybe you need help. Try blowing smoke in my face and see what happens though bro. It won't go well for you.

If the owner of that space is fine with smoking in that space, then sadly you do not get a say.

Ha. I do if you're blowing smoke or vape clouds in my face. In fact that's so disrespectful, that's like spitting on someone. AT risk of being arrested, I would smack that right out of your mouth or hand.

Never have I stated I blow smoke at someone or act disrespectfully in general.
If you voluntarily enter a space that allows smoking, you need to accept you will be exposed to it.
That does include public spaces. A smoker's right in outdoor spaces equal your own.
You can always move upwind or cross the street.

But that's why the ban in restaurants was so good. In the old days...20 years ago? There was no such thing as a non smoking restaurant. Now I can actually eat out without coughing and having my eyes water and enduring the smell.

You guys can eat at your own house if you want to smoke and eat at the same time. These bans are a good thing.

Because lack of control of your own business model is good why?
I remember those days. I'm not a fan of tobacco smoke while I am eating.
You think the lack of freedom is good, because you agree with it. I agree with it's results, but I am against the lack of freedom.

I get what you're saying. Without that ban there would never be smokeless restaurants. or smokeless airplanes.

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 11:53 PM
a reply to: amazing

But with the ban there is no, smoking flights or smoking dinners. So freedom is diminished. Actually finished.
Think of the money an individual could have made for smokeless flights or restaurants.
Think of the niche that could have been made from smokeless bars.

Laws killed the entrepreneur.

posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 03:26 AM
What we have been discussing is a lot more far reaching than tobacco - The prohibitionists new substance to demonize
since they lost the war on alcohol and marijuana - And cost how many lives? - And caused how much misery?
in their war on freedom - More misery than the side effects of whatever they are tryng to control ??? - You bet they have!!!

Socialists may not be all bad - But these tobacco Nazis are not Socialists - they are defacto Fascists and Communists

They'll help the people do what they say whether they like it or not

- Even if they have to prescribe a lethal prescription to do it!

edit on 29-11-2018 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

top topics
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in