Anti Smoking Laws and the Reality of the Totalitarian Police State

a reply to: AlienView

I agree with you, aside from the HUD part. If you are getting free housing, you have to play by whatever rules are set. Frankly, if someone is getting free housing, how can they afford cigarettes? Cigarettes are expensive. I don't want to subsidize someones housing just so they can afford smokes. Housing assistance should be a short term solution, not a long term goal.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Could you point out where anyone said that? Thanks.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Following along in this thread, I'm agreeing with you on pretty much every point, but when I was a smoker, I would walk way away from everyone and everything, and occasionally still had people walk over to me and harass me about smoking.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I can't believe for once I kind of agree with you.

Though I do believe we're going to a police state but not based on no smoking rules.

Now let's travel to Nevada - A state that has legal gambling most everywhere and even legal prostitution in some places.

A few years ago the anti-smoking fascists managed to get 'The Nevada Clean Air Act' passed. - This outlawed smoking in many public places but specifically exempted condominiums and apartment dwellings.

So can a landlord still outlaw smoking in a HUD subsidized apartment - Can't find a lawyer, as of now, who will
answer that question - But I will find one just for my smoking friends sake.

And this law was really BAD for people in the bar and tavern business so the bar and tavern owners got themselves
exempted.

Now you who say go somewhere else if you don't like a landlords anti-smoking lease - BUT remember we are
talking about HUD subsidized apartments for low income people who can't go anywhere else for the discount
apartment that they can afford - Another words the law is particularly discriminatory against lower income
individuals and families.

But remember in today's world of tobacco nazis a cigarette [or any tobacco product for that matter] is like
what they used to think about pot head degenerates [marijuana smokers] - But to be fair I think that too
is outlawed in HUD housing as it is still a violation of federal law even if legal under state law.

But look on the bright side - these control freaks will create a new class of second class citizens.

And with so many people living to the ripe old age of senile dimentia the medical industry will be able to make up
the profits lost by tobacco.!!!

a reply to: notquiteright

I used to smoke as well, I personally never had anyone following me telling me im a horrible person for it. Im sure there people like that but I've never experienced it. I personally have no problem with someone smoking but I'd rather not have it around me and completely understand a landlord forbidding it inside their property.

a reply to: AlienView

Underworld low income housing?

LoL

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Agreed. I've never been an indoor smoker. Saying it doesn't damage property is ridiculous.

i roll my own cigarettes at 15 dollars a pound. i enjoy blowing my smoke in a nonsmokers face. your car exaust does more damage to the world than my cigarettes. if you disagree, we can test the theory. ill smoke non filtered cigarettes in a sealed garage for an hour. you sit in a sealed garage with your car running for an hour. when i come out the world will have 1 less retard

The totalitarian police state started and is maintained in the US with all the FAKE wars.

First, the War on crime, then the War on drugs, then the War on terror.

The War on drugs as you recall started or ended with the 10 grand, report to the IRS law--all to stop the drug dealers.

Before that, the War on crime started all the cameras all over the place where now we have millions of them and then the smartphones added to the constant surveillance all over.

The War on terror, of course, was the granddaddy of excuses to curtail freedom and privacy and legislate government powers never imagined by the founders.

So the Wars on crime, drugs, and terror have actually been wars on freedom.

The next and last FAKE war devised to enslave us will likely demand universal microchipping of the population and that may come through the:


War on aliens...UFO aliens

originally posted by: fightzone58
i roll my own cigarettes at 15 dollars a pound. i enjoy blowing my smoke in a nonsmokers face. your car exaust does more damage to the world than my cigarettes. if you disagree, we can test the theory. ill smoke non filtered cigarettes in a sealed garage for an hour. you sit in a sealed garage with your car running for an hour. when i come out the world will have 1 less retard

Nobody's debating that automotive exhaust will kill you substantially faster than tobacco smoke.

But as an ex-heavy smoker, you're an inexcusable dick if you actually do the bolded.

a reply to: Willtell

We're definitely moving towards a police state, but that's the nature of any country which has had this long of an uninterrupted run with their standing government. That can only lead to one of two places: totalitarian control as the government does what all of them do and pushes daily to see how far it can encroach while never yielding any ground in return or a revolution that brings the government back to heel where it belongs. This country is sorely overdue for a revolution and a massive restoration of rights, but I'm not sure the world will ever allow it.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Don't like the rules? Don't live there, find somewhere else to live. It's as simple as that. It's not "nazi- like" to enforce no smoking rules. You have two choices, find somewhere else to live or quit smoking.

I agree, smoking inside does discolor the walls and it seems like a perfectly reasonable rule to me. Although I do smoke a certain substance, I really hate the smell of cigarette smoke and cannot stand being trapped in a confined space with cigarette smoke. I don't think smokers really quite understand how suffocating the smell is. It's not that hard to step outside for a moment.

Having said that, there is an aspect to the anti-smoking agenda in Australia which does really bother me, and that's the ever increasing taxes. They made some rule that the tax on cigarettes will increase every year for some stupid number of years. I believe it's now around $30 AUD ($22 USD) for a 20 pack, and it's still rising every year. I wrote a thread back at the end of 2016 explaining why these sorts of taxes don't work: Debunking a Nanny State Notion: Social Engineering with Taxes

I know many smokers because that's the type of crowd I grew up with, and it's very clear most of these people will keep smoking despite the constant price hikes. I know one guy who needs a machine to help him breath, and he still wont stop smoking. These politicians living up in the clouds need to come down to reality and see how their actions are hurting already impoverished people by increasing the price of items they heavily use, and which they are very unlikely to stop using regardless of price increases.

If they really cared about people and wanted people to stop smoking they'd make it illegal, in reality it's all about the money and if they had any spine they'd simply admit it's about the money and not about trying to help people. It's the same thing with alcohol, the prices here are way higher compared to the U.S. yet Australians drink more alcohol, showing once again this type of social engineering is stupid and doesn't work, and imposes on our freedom and liberty, and leads to crap like sugar taxes.

I was watching an episode of Drugs, Inc on Netflix the other day which was about a place in Alaska where alcohol was illegal and treated like a narcotic. They showed people on the streets drinking mouthwash and hairspray, they talked about how it's easy for smugglers to get alcohol into the area and make large profits due to the scarcity of it, basically all the issues that arise when you try to ban a substance that is widely used, instead of providing a safe legal way to buy it they let drug lords get rich.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It is a long-range process, through stealth and using what is known as

Problem, reaction, solution

a reply to: Nyiah

nothing worse than people that quit doing something then preach to others that they should also. i would definately blow smoke in your face

a reply to: fightzone58

No one preaching that you shouldn't do something.

You're already blowing smoke.

originally posted by: fightzone58
i roll my own cigarettes at 15 dollars a pound. i enjoy blowing my smoke in a nonsmokers face. your car exaust does more damage to the world than my cigarettes. if you disagree, we can test the theory. ill smoke non filtered cigarettes in a sealed garage for an hour. you sit in a sealed garage with your car running for an hour. when i come out the world will have 1 less retard

Yup, first it was no smoking sections in restaurants and we tried to get along with the little despots but they would come sit in the smoking section and complain. Then it was at workplaces where we were fine in the smoking lounge but no that wasn't good enough as the little despots just knew we were getting away with something. Then we went outdoors and the little despots continued to harass us by their snippy snide remarks and lo we had footage limitations, were shoved out 200' and still the little despots could see us enjoying ourselves as they stewed in the cockmammy little despotic world where no one was happy unless rule making and rule forcing. Now its entire campuses - it'll never stop until they take your challenge flightzone58, alas all little despots are chickensnip at heart and would never ever step up - theres rules about that you know!

originally posted by: fightzone58
a reply to: Nyiah

nothing worse than people that quit doing something then preach to others that they should also. i would definately blow smoke in your face

If you haven't figured out the concept of manners by now, keep smoking & blowing it in faces. Thin out that gene pool a bit faster, would ya?

just thought this would be perfect for this thread

You could have cigarrets that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these #ing things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm!" Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the #ing cigarettes, OK!? They're a drug, we're addicted, OK!? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm... (wheeze) --dennis leary

m.letras.com...

lots of truth in that

originally posted by: notquiteright
a reply to: Freeborn

Shouldn't that be up to the owner of the establishment? And if it were so troublesome for so many people, a smart entrepreneur could come along and open a non-smoking pub, since there is so much demand. The smoking pub (if everyone hates it) would go out of business on it's own, without government intervention, while the non-smoking establishment would prosper.

They couldn't do it that way, however, because the truth is, the smoking bar would prosper and be the cool place hang. That's why they had to force people not to smoke.

Bingo! You win the prize for common sense today!

This was the logical solution offered up in our town. Restaurant and bar owners spent tons of money to provide smoke-free areas for their patrons and thought they had a rational solution to those who didn't want to be exposed. They build separate rooms with separate air filtration systems. They posted signs on the entrance, "Smoking is permitted in this establishment."

Did that satisfy the tobacco Nazis? Nope. About six months after these businesses had made the accommodations, the city council decided that property owners don't really have the right to control their own property. They are no longer allowed to accommodate smokers in any way. Not even in an outdoor patio unless the patio is moved at least 15 feet from the building.

I'm a smoker and I've always smoked in my house. My house doesn't smell like an ashtray. Routine cleaning and air filtration prevent that. It's much the same as having cats in the house. I have guests from time to time who are surprised that I smoke and yet my house doesn't reek of it and I have cats but my house doesn't smell like a litter box.

I respect the right of other people not to inhale my smoke. I do not respect a government that steals the rights of property owners. If I am a business owner I should have control over legal activities in my establishment.

It is this aspect of the argument that gets pushed aside with "It's for your own good." nanny stance---the refusal to compromise. Business owners in town thought they had reached a compromise with the smoking Nazis here a little over a year ago. Based on that verbal agreement, they spent a lot of money to add space and extra filtration and alterations to their buildings. Then BOOM! Suddenly all public smoking is banned. And the city has a brand new source of revenue.

I'm an old hippie. If you don't smoke---it's cool. If you don't drink---it's cool. If you don't eat meat---it's cool. I promise not to preach at you or tell you the benefits of those activities if you promise not to preach at me about the deficits of those activities. But those are societal decisions where compromise should be possible. Authoritarians don't believe in compromise. They believe the Nanny State is what we deserve. I disagree.

Seven to ten times a day I light up. Those nicotine receptors in my brain light up and bring thoughts of happiness and comfort. My positive feelings are heightened and my negative feelings are subdued. It is a sensation sought out by humans since we began controlling fire.

Abuse of any substance has consequences. Use of a substance doesn't equate to abuse. Some people refuse to accept this idea. Maybe it's the fluoride in the water.