Comments on: Smoking bans not about health of non-smokers

By: Morgan W. Dibbs

Morgan W. Dibbs — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:41:03 +0000

This whole “smoke free” thing troubles me, I believe it goes much deeper than that. I think it is a test to see how far we can be pushed, how many rights we will allow to be taken away before we revolt. I could be wrong and I hope I am…But I am not.

By: “Ridiculous” Washington smoking ban may be scaled back - Homeland Stupidity

Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:04:28 +0000

[...] The legislators said it was likely they would only be able to achieve the two-thirds supermajority for an exemption for religious purposes, but they would try to eliminate the 25-foot rule and the prohibition on smoking in bars, private clubs, and cigar lounges. After two years, an amendment would require only a simple majority, which would be much more likely to pass. [...]

By: Michael Hampton

Michael Hampton — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:12:14 +0000

It’s good to hear people are fighting for freedom in Canada, as well, where it’s even more urgently needed.

The answer to why, of course, was given away by the anti-smoking bureaucrat: They want everyone to quit smoking, for their own good.

While it is certainly good to quit smoking, the problem with it is that it opens a dangerous Pandora’s box of government intervention in every aspect of human life, ultimately allowing government the power to dictate every decision a person might want to make, on the basis that the bureaucrats believe that one choice is “better” than another.

By: Joel Demers

Joel Demers — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:54:30 +0000

Denormalisation in public health
It becomes more obvious as time passes that smoking bans and the whole antitobacco movement has twisted the truth about protection of non-smokers, for one thing. Once we understand, as we must, that there will always be a minimum of approximately 17% of smokers and that the actual victims of smoking are the smokers, according to the prohibitionists’ own data, it becomes obvious that they are not aimed at progress in public health either. What are they after then ? Awaiting for their answer, I submit that they are pushing for their version of the American freedom of choice: quit or die or be a miserable outcast.

JoÃ«l Demers
Public and media relations
C.A.G.E.
(Citizens Against Government Encroachment)
http://www.cagecanada.ca
jdemers@cagecanada.ca

â€œDanger increases with ignorance and apathyâ€ visit: http://www.cagecanada.ca

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:57:02 +0000

Patrick,

I am an avid non-smoker myself, but a smoking ban is not the answer. Cities and states pushing smoking bans in all public places is a violation of civil right s and free enterprise.

I can’t believe that in the city of Chicago, soon all the bars are going to be smoke free. Bars for chrissakes. So the ‘health experts’ are going to preach the evils of tobacco and save me from getting second-hand smoke in my lungs while I rot my liver with alcohol. Well done indeed. Ass backward thinking and pseudo-reasoning like that are almost as bad as political correctness.

By: Mark Greco

Mark Greco — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:33:45 +0000

I don’t recognize the Government’s abilities to hand down rights to me. That only means that I would also be letting them decide which rights I do and do not have tomorrow.

Let the drugs kill people. There are far too much of us anyways. They want to give 16 year old girls the day after pill, 12 year olds condoms, and the Candie’s Foundation telling girls to dress up like little sluts, but not to give it up.

Why is it okay to kill somebodie’s chance at a life, but somebody is going to pass their version of morality via legislation over my head and I can’t enjoy a goddamned cigarette. Don’t do me any favors. Screw your drug free families. You probably already do…. metaphorically and/or literally.

By: Surgeon General clouds tobacco smoke issue - Homeland Stupidity

Surgeon General clouds tobacco smoke issue - Homeland Stupidity — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:44:57 +0000

[...] Siegel doesn’t seem quite ready to come right out and say that the anti-tobacco groups are deliberately lying about it, but it’s pretty clear from the evidence that they have a long history of distorting the facts about smoking and secondhand smoke in order to achieve a very frightening agenda. [...]

By: Minn., Calif. tests prove secondhand smoke not a health hazard - Homeland Stupidity

Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:38:25 +0000

[...] Thanks to Marcus Aurelius of Clearing the Air for the heads-up. He went on to suggest that smoking bans might just be about increasing sales and profits for certain companies at our expense. Filed under: Politics, Economy [...]

By: The news just keeps breaking - Homeland Stupidity

The news just keeps breaking - Homeland Stupidity — Sat, 20 May 2006 08:32:00 +0000

[...] And as previously reported, anti-tobacco groups will do anything possible to push through smoking bans, including misleading and outright lying about the science involved. They don’t truly care about non-smokers’ health, as it turns out; their true purpose is something more sinister. Michael Siegel has now exposed an American Cancer Society document which encouraged anti-tobacco groups to lie about the effects of secondhand smoke. (Hat tip: Hit and Run) Filed under: Politics, Homeland Security, Internet, Telecommunications, Terrorism, Law Enforcement, Military, Medicine [...]

By: Bill Hannegan

Bill Hannegan — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:13:52 +0000

How dangerous is ETS? My group, KEEP ST. LOUIS FREE!, helped beat the smoking ban in St. Louis by pushing this reasonable estimate by antismoking expert Elisabeth Whelan: http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.215/news_detail.asp
You have to challenge the junk science to defeat smoking bans. But it can be done. If I can help fight a smoking ban in your town contact me at:
hanneganlounge@safeplace.net