Anti Smoking Laws and the Reality of the Totalitarian Police State

a reply to: markovian

Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it!

Don't we remember "Reefer Madness" that was proven by scientific studies that supported the need to ban Marijuana. How many people went to jail for years for possessing the weed. How much harm was done to society?

and yet and yet

When the government funds a few "scientifice" studies (epidimiology is not a science) and proves that smoking causes diseases - you all fall for it just as hard as you fell for Reefer Madness.

Would someone like to point out which disease has rates that fell with the anti-smoking campaign?

Lung cancer rates among non-smokers are increasing

www.jwatch.org...

Results were as follows: The percentage of NSCLC patients who never smoked increased from 8.0% to 14.9% from the years 1990–1995 to 2011–2013 (P

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Lumenari

You are Missing the POINT . It is a Denial of Freedom . Smokers Have the Same Rights in America as Non Smokers do . It's Discrimination Pure and Simple .

I know the point... I think you are missing it.

Someone has an addiction that is a health hazard to them and the people in their immediate vicinity when they are getting their fix. They also want to devalue the property that they live in, the cars they drive and push up our health care costs.

It isn't discrimination.

It's common sense.

Look, I don't care really if you smoke crack either.

Just don't cook it in the house I am renting to you, don't smoke it there and please don't do it in a public area.

Be an adult, buy your own house, cook your meth in your own house and smoke it there.

An addiction is an addiction, after all.

This one just happens to be legal because there is a lot of money involved in it and a history that goes back to our founding.

Smoked 35 years, btw. Stopped about 10 years ago. So I have some skin in the game here.

Smoking isn't a right.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So you are saying that smoking is in no way related to a decreased life span?

Just... wow

originally posted by: markovian
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

We've had this packaging in Australia for years and it hasn't stopped many people:

Well, here you cannot smoke tobacco in restaurants and taverns and many other public places. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer they say. Cannabis smoke can increase risk of cancer too. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: Lumenari


Funny how the oldest people on earth have been heavy smokers, Not to mention Churchill Stalin and Chairman Mao.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

I guess banning pets at a rental is authoritarian too. Landlords should have no say in what happens on their property. Gotcha.

So I'm guessing that you support throwing all 22 million illegals out of the country as well, and also turning all the people in the caravan away as well, correct? I mean, you want to be consistent don't you?

a reply to: Lumenari

please provide your proof

a reply to: anonentity

"Funny how the oldest people on earth have been heavy smokers, Not to mention Churchill Stalin and Chairman Mao".

And don't forget such notables as Albet Einstein 'The theory of relativiy E=MC2" a noteworthy pipe smoker [yes tobacco].

I used to be a used book dealer and went through thousands of books - On many book dustjackets were pictures of
the author, very often depicted hodiing a pipe, cigar, or cigarette in his hand.

Tobacco is not only relaxing but a mental stimulnst - But not like marijuana which may be more prone to distort
perceptions of reality then enhance thinking ability like tobacco.

OK conspiracy nuts here's the agenda - To demonize all tobacco products [they're now desperate because the vape products have yet to be proven harmful at all] - And legalize marijuana [already totally legal in many US states, and now in Canada] - Eventually using more and more draconian rules, regulations, and laws to stop people from using all
tobacco products.

Then to get as many people as possible 'stoned' so they can be manipulated for whatever the agenda of the PTB
[sometimes known as the New World Order]. And of course prescription drugs [heard about the opiate epidemic]
will fill in for those who still might be thinking, and whose thinking doesn't jive with the agendas.

Remember a stoned pot head is much easier to manipulate and exploit then a thinking nicotine addict

- AND THAT IS THE REAL DANGER OF NICOTINE - IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO THINK

I work at an outdoor bar with a kitchen. We literally have ash trays on every table and all over the bar. Most folks from anti-smoking area love the freedom to be able to smoke. However occasionally we will get some complainers, I just tell them there are over 200 other bars to go to in Key West.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: anonentity

OK conspiracy nuts here's the agenda - To demonize all tobacco products [they're now desperate because the vape products have yet to be proven harmful at all] - And legalize marijuana [already totally legal in many US states, and now in Canada] - Eventually using more and more draconian rules, regulations, and laws to stop people from using all
tobacco products.

Then to get as many people as possible 'stoned' so they can be manipulated for whatever the agenda of the PTB
[sometimes known as the New World Order]. And of course prescription drugs [heard about the opiate epidemic]
will fill in for those who still might be thinking, and whose thinking doesn't jive with the agendas.

Remember a stoned pot head is much easier to manipulate and exploit then a thinking nicotine addict

- AND THAT IS THE REAL DANGER OF NICOTINE - IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO THINK

You might be on to something.

I do believe light doses of cannabis can help one think also, however now days almost all the herb available is super potent which can levitate even a heavy smoker after a couple of hits.

Just remember when my friend started smoking back in the early '60s maybe 50-80% of the adult population smoked,

Cigarette ads were continuous on the mass media and cigarettes were promoted by big tobacco like candy
- with cigarette companies actually claiming health benefits to smoking cigarettes.

We now know they lied - tobacco may be relaxing and/or stimulating to some people - but statistically it is one of the
worst health habits you can have - even though for reasons not fully understood some smokers live very long lives.

Today you have to face these facts and the 'tobacco nazis are on an agenda to make life hell on earth for smokers.
Sometimes I believe these prohibitionists are actually instrumental in shortening the lives of smokers
- what is sometimes called mental poisoning.

Vape devices came out and these control freaks are currently desperate - Vape devices apparently are much less
dangerous than lit tobacco and they are desperate to find reasons to restrict or outlaw them.

Now the FDA is trying to limit availability of vape products on the retail market on the grounds that kids are
getting them and then developing an early addiction to nicotine - which admittedly is addictive.

So I would not suggest anyone smoke if they don't as of now and if they can live without tobacco might be
better off.

Otherwise the second hand smoke danger is ridiculously over exaggerated to suit the agenda of the Prohibitionists.

And my main point is these Prohibitionists, the tobacco nazis, will never stop with tobacco.

100 years ago it was alcohol, then drugs and marijuana, and now tobacco.

Meantime the second leading cause of preventable death according to rheir own statistics is obesity.

- Soon they will be coming for your 'Big Macs' and pizzas - Not even Ronald McDonald is immune from 'them' !

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.

You made me so angry with this statement I stopped reading and had to say a few choice words.
You are not from the UK or you'd know that if you are down and out, lost your job or fell ill and need social housing, you can't just 'chose to live somewhere else'.
First of all, it takes years to get a flat or a home and secondly, the rules are the same everywhere else.

I can hear you now saying 'then get a job and rent privately'. Sure, yeah easy peasy, or not. In certain areas in Brotain there are no jobs, especially in more rural places, where 'they' stock more and more of the 'undesirables'.

Now I can hear you clearly say: 'Then give up smoking and OBEY their orders'.

And that is exactly why I am fuming about your infantile post. I don't knwo if I actually, really have to explain but tobacco smoking is an addiction. Ever heard of that word?
It means that it ain't easy to just give up for most people. But that isn't even the problem.

Smoking is also a private choice, some people LIKE smoking. Just like some people like sky diving, swimming or eating burgers. Some people will die of it, they know that and they chose to continue. So flaming what?

To force humans to stop something that isn't actually illegal [!!!!!!!] and then threatening them with homelessness if they don't OBEY their owners [sorry masters, no sorry some idiots who think they know best] is actually a breach of human rights.
You can't chuck someone out of their home for something that isn't illegal.
Plus often smoking is a treat for the very poor. Which is sad but true.

Now I hear you say: But the flat stinks of smoke if someone else want's to move in.

Nope, I lived through chain smoking parents in the 70s, through flats that belonged to smokers in the 80s and 90s and 2000s and guess what? A lick of paint and an open window and ....all is fine.

So what exactly are you saying? It seems to me that in a gist you believe that:

- The government is always right
- The government has the right to throw people in need out if they don't obey any silly law they make
- The government can escalate anything they don't like and make your life a misery because of righteousness

So what's to stop them to:

- Make fatty foods illegal and if you eat bacon, you can get chucked out [after all it's unhealthy and smells]
- Throw anyone out for any nefarious reason
- Make you a criminal for non illegal offences


You don't seem to be able to compare utopian wishful thinking with the reality of human nature and you'd completely and utterly will always OBEY your masters even if we slowly have less rights than N-Koreans.

I never like your opinions anyway but this is absurd, you lack experience mate. I hope you never fall into despair and are at the mercy of the government and I really hope everything you do and like will not ever be demonised [ I don't know your interests, food likes and hobbies but they aren't safe either with your attitude].

First they came for the Jews...scenario. You could be next, that'll teach you.

Some time after the smoking ban was passed in my state, I visited a state without the ban. I found that, even though I was a smoker at the time, I preferred to smoke outside. I still smoked in my apartment, but that ended when I moved out and didn't get my deposit back due to smoke damage.

The discoloration and smell aren't the only things in a structure that can be damaged by cigarette smoke. Electrical fixtures, ceiling fans, and built in appliances may need to be replaced due to smoke damage. A landlord could be stuck with a bill upwards of $10,000 US when trying to flip a unit previously occupied by a heavy smoker.

Take this into consideration. You thoroughly enjoy the feeling of crapping your pants and spreading it all over the place. Do you have the right to crap your pants and spread it all over the person next to you on public transportation? Could you crap your pants and spread it on the walls of your rental? Would you support someone who likes to crap their pants and spread it all over the place?

I know it's a crude analogy, but it works.

a reply to: Hecate666

You are missing the simple fact, if you are renting a place then you do not own it and the owner of the property can damn well put any stipulation in the lease.
You can do what ever you want when you OWN the property. But trying to tell a owner you are going to do something to feed your addiction on their property is ridiculous.

originally posted by: mus8472
a reply to: DBCowboy

Your smoke causes cancer in other people and literally kills them. Why should someone else have to die because of your poor choices?

bold is mine.

Based on that statement you must be anti-abortion. Wonder why that argument hasn't furthered their cause?

I'm anti-nanny state, don't like too many rules or busy body do-gooders. Guess that's why I live in the middle of nowhere.

Smokers don't bother me in the least. We should be respectful of others in public, curb anti-social behavior no matter what that might be.

Back in the old days, when people still had common sense, apartments/hotels offered accommodations for smokers. If one wasn't available, smokers had to wait for an opening, refrain from smoking or make other arrangements.

If landlords/business owners turned away good paying customers, smokers or otherwise, they had the option of letting the market decide. The nanny state takes all options off the table and can intrude on all aspects of life. Who decides what's offensive? Where would it end?

Be careful what you wish for or the nanny state might outlaw you/your behavior. Basing policy/laws on the mood swings of a self-righteous public can be a slippery slope.

a reply to: HolydarknessVA

oh my goodness

Will everybody look at this.....an anti-smoker who supports the right of the property owner to say what legal activities will or will not take place on their property (disregarding the very fact that when you rent it....you have rights.

Well anti-smoker - where were you when the government passed laws to force bars and restaurants to ban smoking??? Did the bar owners and the restaurant owners not have the RIGHT to decide what legal activities were allowed on their property then???? Did the government and the anti-smokers have a stake in success or failure of the enterprise?

How is it that smokers are intelligent enough to read a sign that says "no smoking allowed" and decide to patronise or not patronise the establishment but anti-smokers and the public are too stupid to read a sign that says "smoking allowed" and decide to patronise and establishment or not????

Just for the record, since 2006, when most of Canada banned smoking in bars, approximately half the bars in all of Canada have closed their doors permanently and other bars have not opened to replace them.

Funny how anti-smokers have the ability to talk out of both sides of their mouths on every issue!!

Ostracism is a muscle that if not exercised will fade away. We have ostracized smokers for this reason. Smokers are an easy target and keeps that muscle strong in the populace. Because of that, at any point, we can treat any people the way we treat smokers; and eventually we will. No smokers allowed can quickly become no Mexicans allowed, or no white men allowed, or no black women allowed, all in the name of "Safe Places". We can do this because we've already been doing this to smokers.

The smell of coffee, and the caffeine in it's steam coming off the mug, is no different than vaporized nicotine; plus far more kids get burned by hot water on a stove than exploding batteries in vaporizers. Therefore, so we are not a society of hypocrites, I say we start treating coffee drinkers the same way we treat those that vape.

Additionally, car exhaust is by far worse than any of the above. Plus, car accidents kill and maim more kids than any of the above as well. Therefore, so we are not a society of hypocrites, I say we start treating commuters in cars the same way we treat smokers and should be treating coffee drinkers.

a reply to: AlienView

I actually like the smell of smoke when smoking or around smokers - however it does stink up everything, especially if you smoke indoors. It causes damage - both olfactorally and visually - to pretty much everything in a closed space. I can understand this being a rule when receiving financial assistance for a place you do not own and are not fully responsible for.
I own a house, so could theoretically smoke inside all day long if I wished - however I don't want to damage my property or possessions, nor my lungs. Not to mention my wife would murder me if I did that... So its' really a life-threatening scenario were I to do it.

I switched to vaping years ago, so no stink and better lungs - can vape in my house all day long without consequence.

I think, if you are relying on the state or anyone else for housing..You just have to take what you are given. It seems odd though that the same people moaning about tobacco smoke are all for weed..I know which smell I find more offensive and it isn't tobacco.


ETA when I smoked I only ever did it in the wife's car, never my jag Between her and the kids the inside of her motor looked like someone emptied a skip in it anyway.