So what's next?

[vote-libertarian]

Given that colognes and perfumes also contain carcinogens, isn't the next logical step to ban their use in the same places?

Anyone remember when America was free and individual rights outweighed community standards?

[sunny]

A turn of a favorite Lib Bumper Sticker-----Those who would trade FREEDOM for HEALTH deserves neither.

[cdoud137]

In the government's never ending attempt to socially engineer the entire country they have actually put people's health in danger. As a child my dad wrestled with his addiction to cigarettes. But he always smoked outside of the house, so that he would not expose us to his habit. So now they are telling people to smoke only inside there house!

[Nicola]

Let's all start farting in public, especially elevators.

[Brannon]

To the "leaders" of Belmont who passed the city wide smoking ban:

Who the heck do you think you are? I am a tax paying citizen who smokes. What makes you think you have the right to tell me I can't smoke outside? I understand and accept the rules inside bars and restaurants, but telling me I can't go outside to smoke a cigarrette? RIDICULOUS!! Does that also mean that all the stores selling cigarrettes in Belmont will have to stop selling? Great way to hurt their business.

so....what's next? Banning red meat? That's bad for your health too. How about liquor? Let's rewind to the 1920's and start prohibition again!! Let's ban sex while you're at it.

How are the cops going to enforce this smoking ban? Shouldn't they be worried about crime and drugs?

People smoke. Deal with it. Don't make honest citizens suffer because YOU'RE A TREE HUGGIN' HIPPY.

I shall be one of the first protesters to blow smoke straight into the faces of our retarded leaders!!

Angry Smoker

[doawnhog]

Angry Smoker,

Your anger is good but your comment is a little telling:

"Shouldn't they be worried about crime and drugs?"

Now you should be careful trying to redirect the law-dogs' attention. They have just made smoking a crime, tobacco a drug, and YOU a criminal. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with why all drug laws are harmful. Maybe when all American's have their favorite tonic prohibited, they will wake up and stop discriminating against other’s drugs they dislike. Drug laws harm and kill more than all drugs ever have. Vote libertarian!

-Mark

[2smart4u]

[QUOTE=vote-libertarian]Given that colognes and perfumes also contain carcinogens, isn't the next logical step to ban their use in the same places?QUOTE]

I sure hope so!!!

[2smart4u]

A turn of a favorite Lib Bumper Sticker-----Those who would trade FREEDOM for HEALTH deserves neither.

What freedom are you referring to?

[2smart4u]

In the government's never ending attempt to socially engineer the entire country they have actually put people's health in danger. As a child my dad wrestled with his addiction to cigarettes. But he always smoked outside of the house, so that he would not expose us to his habit. So now they are telling people to smoke only inside there house!

How ignorant. The ban saves the lives of those outside the house. Or do you think you and your family are more important? If the smoker in the house cares about his/her family, he/she won't smoke.

[2smart4u]

Let's all start farting in public, especially elevators.

I get the feeling you already do.

[2smart4u]

To the "leaders" of Belmont who passed the city wide smoking ban:

Who the heck do you think you are? I am a tax paying citizen who smokes. What makes you think you have the right to tell me I can't smoke outside? I understand and accept the rules inside bars and restaurants, but telling me I can't go outside to smoke a cigarrette? RIDICULOUS!! Does that also mean that all the stores selling cigarrettes in Belmont will have to stop selling? Great way to hurt their business.

so....what's next? Banning red meat? That's bad for your health too. How about liquor? Let's rewind to the 1920's and start prohibition again!! Let's ban sex while you're at it.

How are the cops going to enforce this smoking ban? Shouldn't they be worried about crime and drugs?

People smoke. Deal with it. Don't make honest citizens suffer because YOU'RE A TREE HUGGIN' HIPPY.

I shall be one of the first protesters to blow smoke straight into the faces of our retarded leaders!!

Angry Smoker

If you don't like it, move! Or quit smoking. Rather easy solution, really. Why would all the stores have to stop selling cigarettes? It'd be a good thing, but Belmont has not banned cigarettes.

Um, how does my eating red meat hurt you or anyone else? Liquor? That didn't work. And again, how would one person's drinking hurt anyone else's health? Sex? That's not worry of a response.

Yes, the cops should be enforcing this law. It is a crime now. Deal with it.

Don't make honest citizens suffer because YOU'RE A chain-smokin' social reject.

[2smart4u]

I read with amusement the letters from out-of-towners about the Belmont smoking ban. Rather sad how ignorant some people can be.
Two readers said that you're more likely to be killed by a drunken driver than a smoker. Debatable, but that's why we have laws against drunk driving. Marijuana is safer than either for both the user and those around them, but it is illegal, and they aren't. We already tried the alcohol ban, and it didn't work. I'd much rather be in a room full of drinkers than in a room with even one smoker.
Another whines about what will happen to violators. Why do they care, when they are thousands of miles away? The landlords will do just fine. Smokers do not keep their places clean. Not if they smoke inside. That smell is impossible to get rid of, and the walls are yellowed. And they are extremely likely to cause fires. That happens quite a bit. And the claim that "Belmont's entire tax base will erode" is laughable. I wonder how they came to that conclusion? In no way is the smoking ban discrimination of any kind. If any smokers try to sue, their suits should be immediately thrown out of court, and they should be fined for wasting the court's time.
I've read the constitution, and nowhere does it say that anyone has the right to kill themselves and take those around them along. What about my right to breathe? You have the right to do whatever you want with your body, but when what you does directly affects my body, then a line has to be drawn.
With the mountain of evidence on secondhand smoke, it's hard to believe anyone could still think the way these writers do. Maybe they all work for tobacco companies. Of course smoking in a car should be illegal. It's a dangerous and unnecessary distraction.

[jonvn]

I read with amusement the letters from out-of-towners about the Belmont smoking ban. Rather sad how ignorant some people can be.

Isn't it funny how all of a sudden there is a ton of activity on here from these folks, some of whom are trying to make the ridiculous assertion that smoking is not harmful.

Either they work for Phillip Morris, own stock in it, or are just stupid beyond measure. Given some of the posts they have put here, I'm voting for number three.

Most of them don't even know where Belmont is, and I've seen one person on here mention "San Francisco values," which is a phrase that is utterly meaningless, and used only by those who know nothing of the area and the people who live in it.

Who do they think they are kidding? And who cares what someone in North Carolina thinks about what the Belmont City Council does? I live in the next town over, and I think it's a good idea. You don't? Then don't live here. Smokers are not only not the majority of people who live here, they are a small minority.

Given all the information about smoking being harmful, it is simply astonishing to me that people will continue to go out of their way to spend money to purchase cigarettes. They do nothing for you but cause your internal organs to rot, and they stink.

Defense of such behavior is absolutely hopeless, as far as I'm concerned.

[2smart4u]

Amen to that, jonvn.

[doawnhog]

2smart and jovn,

Smoking outdoors presents no more of a danger or risk to others than a whole host of other activities that I imagine both of you do regularly, including driving internal combustion vehicles and enjoying backyard barbeques. Would you have them prohibited also? Or maybe you would just rather turn yourselves in as criminals.

And even less risk comes from smoking in cars, for anyone outside the car. If you assert it does and advocate its continued prohibition, then you should immediately start pushing for a city-wide ban on all stove-top vents that push carcinogenic cooking fumes directly into your neighbor’s lungs (who is having his backyard barbeque).

We needn’t even mention such obvious affronts to other’s health as campfires, fireplaces and woodstoves. And if smoking in apartment subjects anyone in the building to an unfair health risk, then frying food in the kitchen should go next. And after that, burning incense. And god forbid anyone researches the toxicity of all the indoor air pollution that comes from burning candles, let alone the scented ones.

If you two think that living in society requires such eliminations of all non-risky elements, then you should start looking much closer at all the products YOU purchase to make sure their manufacture did not create risks of similar severity.

You can dismiss the elevator fart, but not without also dismissing science. Since you are holding the standard of danger to a ridiculous degree, your standard is exposed as being nothing but a disguise for prejudice, fear, hatred and aggression. Your only hint of honesty came when you complained of the stink and the minority status of local smokers, how dirty their homes look, and the values of your community. You should stick to those types of defenses that are typical for such bigotry and convey its real bases: things that hurt no one, like unpleasant appearances and odors. You are simply promoting that the govt inflict real harm on a minority, simply because you don’t like them. You can not possibly get more un-American than that. You hate letting others whom you dislike to have individual rights, and claim your own distorted puritan morality as an excuse.

2smart, you committed the ultimate contradiction when you said the ban on alcohol didn’t work, and tried to use it as your basis. HA! The failure of alcohol prohibition AND the failure of all drug prohibition is the best basis for the opposite of your position! Yet, I’m sure any prohibitionist like your self (speaking of dirty – I heard about YOUR house) will HAVE to disagree, even though a brief look around will reveal that prohibition is what is destroying the country – NOT the drugs it claims to prohibit.

Few argue that second-hand smoke is a real risk in context of intra-vehicle and intra-room environments. But to deduce the same risk for the great outdoors is to commit a logical fallacy on the order of thinking all liquids should be banned because one is an explosive. (Why the airlines didn’t previously ban all solids and powders is entirely inconsistent with its most recent fallacious reasoning.)

-Mark

[2smart4u]

2smart and jovn,

Smoking outdoors presents no more of a danger or risk to others than a whole host of other activities that I imagine both of you do regularly, including driving internal combustion vehicles and enjoying backyard barbeques. Would you have them prohibited also? Or maybe you would just rather turn yourselves in as criminals.

And even less risk comes from smoking in cars, for anyone outside the car. If you assert it does and advocate its continued prohibition, then you should immediately start pushing for a city-wide ban on all stove-top vents that push carcinogenic cooking fumes directly into your neighbor’s lungs (who is having his backyard barbeque).

We needn’t even mention such obvious affronts to other’s health as campfires, fireplaces and woodstoves. And if smoking in apartment subjects anyone in the building to an unfair health risk, then frying food in the kitchen should go next. And after that, burning incense. And god forbid anyone researches the toxicity of all the indoor air pollution that comes from burning candles, let alone the scented ones.

If you two think that living in society requires such eliminations of all non-risky elements, then you should start looking much closer at all the products YOU purchase to make sure their manufacture did not create risks of similar severity.

You can dismiss the elevator fart, but not without also dismissing science. Since you are holding the standard of danger to a ridiculous degree, your standard is exposed as being nothing but a disguise for prejudice, fear, hatred and aggression. Your only hint of honesty came when you complained of the stink and the minority status of local smokers, how dirty their homes look, and the values of your community. You should stick to those types of defenses that are typical for such bigotry and convey its real bases: things that hurt no one, like unpleasant appearances and odors. You are simply promoting that the govt inflict real harm on a minority, simply because you don’t like them. You can not possibly get more un-American than that. You hate letting others whom you dislike to have individual rights, and claim your own distorted puritan morality as an excuse.

2smart, you committed the ultimate contradiction when you said the ban on alcohol didn’t work, and tried to use it as your basis. HA! The failure of alcohol prohibition AND the failure of all drug prohibition is the best basis for the opposite of your position! Yet, I’m sure any prohibitionist like your self (speaking of dirty – I heard about YOUR house) will HAVE to disagree, even though a brief look around will reveal that prohibition is what is destroying the country – NOT the drugs it claims to prohibit.

Few argue that second-hand smoke is a real risk in context of intra-vehicle and intra-room environments. But to deduce the same risk for the great outdoors is to commit a logical fallacy on the order of thinking all liquids should be banned because one is an explosive. (Why the airlines didn’t previously ban all solids and powders is entirely inconsistent with its most recent fallacious reasoning.)

-Mark

Ok, the smoking to cars comparison is ignorant as heck, so I won't even address that one again. I never BBQ at bus stops, shopping centers, outside of businesses, on trails, etc, so there's goes that argument.

The main risk for others outside the car of a smoker is that the smoker is distracted. And of course, when they open their door, all that smoke comes out.

Food? People need that to live. No one needs cigarettes. Never seen a campfire in the city. Chimneys don't blow smoke in my face. You people really need to come up with some better arguments. Apartments fires caused by smokers falling asleep with a burning cigarette are all too common.

Cigarette smoke does indeed hurt others. And if the smoker does not own their residence, it hurts the owner of that residence financially, because of the odor and yellowing of walls and ceilings. And dirty homes hurt property values for others in the area. There is nothing bigoted or Un-American about any of this.

Explain how the failed alcohol prohibition is the best basis for the opposite of your position. Don't toss your opinions around w/o backing them up. Cigarettes are not being prohibited. GW Bush is what is destroying the country.

Amazing how stubborn and ignorant the cigarette people are.

[ladyteal]

Cigarette smoke does indeed hurt others. And if the smoker does not own their residence, it hurts the owner of that residence financially, because of the odor and yellowing of walls and ceilings. And dirty homes hurt property values for others in the area. There is nothing bigoted or Un-American about any of this.

Explain how the failed alcohol prohibition is the best basis for the opposite of your position..

Parrot Sheeple is this one's new name. Doesn't have a mind of it's own. Can only parrot what it's been brainwashed to think.

Amazing how stubborn and ignorant the cigarette people are..

If only this one could hear itself talk. Think, Pot, Kettle, Black! ROFLMAO

:D

[jonvn]

Smoking outdoors presents no more of a danger or risk to others than a whole host of other activities that I imagine both of you do regularly, including driving internal combustion vehicles and enjoying backyard barbeques.


Thank you Dr. Phillip Morris.

In any case it will be one less harmful agent in our lives.

Do you even live in this area? Or are you just some paid flack for the tobacco companies?

[doawnhog]

2smart,

Instead of just calling my claim ignorant, how about explaining why you think it’s ignorant. Do you think cars exhaust fewer toxins than smokers, or that they don’t spew it at bus stops or shopping centers??

Are you actually trying to claim the real reason the city banned smoking in cars is because it is distractive? I guess radios, cell phones, heater knobs and passengers will be banned soon. Or maybe it is your second reason: the smoke that comes out when the car door is opened. I must have missed that study. And I must have missed hearing anyone other than yourself ever complain about such nonsense. Where are the studies that showed a health risk to people on the street from exposure to second-hand smoke from inside cars? Is it more of a risk than the car’s exhaust, which pumps out the equivalent of 50 CFM at idle (3 liter engine)??

Now you fabricate a third reason for banning smoking: because people don’t need it to live. How many things do you do that you don’t need to live, and that might bother someone else? We need to ban them all and send you to prison.

Your bigotry is quite apparent from your selective reasoning. You dismiss the bigger sources of air pollution like chimneys, and choose the much smaller source to discriminate against.

And now ladies and gentlemen, we have a fourth option which you can choose as the EXCUSE for the smoking ban: because smokers might accidentally burn themselves or their property. Boy if 2smart were the mayor, just about everything would be banned sooner or later. Now it’s everything with which others can possibly hurt themselves. By golly I believe that’s just about everything!

Oh, we’re still not done with excuses for the ban. Now it’s to keep renters from damaging landlords’ properties. Aren’t there already tort laws and civil courts and rent deposits for that?

And to be thorough, we must address 2smart’s excuse number SIX: to keep from hurting other’s property values. Hey, if one excuse doesn’t work, just pick another. That’s the ticket!

NO. The failure of alcohol prohibition (and all drug prohibition) is evidence against YOUR position! Here’s the backup: You advocate the prohibition of smoking for all the same phony reasons. You are a prohibitionist.

All your ridiculous examples of harm incurred by second-hand smoke reveal that your concern is only for your own sensibilities and not for health.

[doawnhog]

jovn,

If you want to remove all harmful agents in our lives, you will remove all freedom. And if you think prohibiting smoking will reduce harm, you are misinformed. Prohibition CAUSES MORE harm than what it tries to prohibit. (See alcohol and drug prohibition.)

I live close enough. To live in the same country as you is to be ashamed of such bigoted communities like yours who thinks of rights and freedoms like GW thinks of orange jump suits.

[jonvn]

If you want to remove all harmful agents in our lives

I didn't say that. Did I say that? Where exactly did I say that?

Oh, that's right, I didn't.

What I did say, though, was that this removes one harmful item out of our lives.

And guess what? If we can do that, then that's good.

And if you think prohibiting smoking will reduce harm, you are misinformed.

Gee, I didn't say that either. SO, I guess your comment really is meaningless.

I live close enough.

You obviously don't live anywhere near here, you don't know who does live here, and you obviously are speaking out of ignorance about the region and what bigotry is.

You claim to speak of "freedom" and yet you seem to only want it for people who smoke, and not to be "free" from the smoke. Your freedom argument is yet another fatuous dead end.

Hey, did you know that Las Vegas is banning smoking in restaurants now, too? Perhaps they are another bigoted community. Yes, perhaps the whole country is bigoted against people who engage in behavior that can damage the comfort and health of those around them.

Imagine that.

But don't let me stop you from smoking. I think that for you, it's a perfectly good thing to do. Smoke four packs a day. Take long deep drags on every puff. Hold it in, and let the smoke settle to the very bottom of your lungs.

I think that would be the very best thing for you to do.

[happysmoker]

Hey, did you know that Las Vegas is banning smoking in restaurants now, too? Perhaps they are another bigoted community. Yes, perhaps the whole country is bigoted against people who engage in behavior that can damage the comfort and health of those around them.

Politicians and physicians are in the back pockets of the "health" groups (American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, etc.) and the "health" groups are in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson, maker of Nicoderm and other nicotine replacement therapy products. The anti-tobacco groups and the "health" groups mentioned above are heavily funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, whose founder also founded Johnson & Johnson.

When smoking bans are passed, many smokers give up and quit smoking. If smokers really want to quit smoking, they would quit. All it takes it deciding to do it. Those who give in don't really want to quit, so they need help. They buy and use smoking cessation products, making money for J&J. This means billions for J&J.

Bigotry comes in when those non-smokers who just don't like the smell of smoke and the busybodies who just like telling other people how to live jump on the "ban"wagon. Most non-smokers couldn't care less, but those who are paranoid and have been duped by the junk science of the anti-tobacco groups whine and complain the loudest. Why would any non-smoker care that smokers have their own room/area or their own smoking establishments especially in places they wouldn't patronize anyway?

It's not about smoking and it's not about health. It's about power and control, but mostly it's about money. Follow the money trail.


In 2003, a North Dakota legislator introduced a law that would make it a crime to sell or smoke tobacco.

"the House Finance and Taxation Committee voted 9 to 4 in favor of tobacco prohibition, a line up of anti-tobacco special interest groups denounced the bill in no uncertain terms. Given the chance to support their goal of a smoke-free society The American Lung Association, American Heart Association, North Dakota Medical Association and North Dakota Public Health Association all spoke out against the ban..."

http://www.forces.org/fparch/011703.htm
http://www.data-yard.net/10y/nd-ban.htm

Prohibition would stop the gravy train. It's all about the money.

[happysmoker]

Ok, the smoking to cars comparison is ignorant as heck,

Really?

Put yourself in a sealed garage with an idling car for 30 minutes.

I'll go into a sealed garage with a hundred smokers actively smoking and I'll even smoke as well for 30 minutes.

The one who comes out alive wins! :D

[jonvn]

Politicians and physicians are in the back pockets of the "health" groups

Are you really that deluded to think that smoking is not harmful?

Takes all kinds, I guess. But that pretty much eliminates you as any sort of reasonable person to discuss this with.

It's not "all about the money." It's all about public health. You either are completely malinformed, are are working for a tobacco company.

Have another puff.

[Colonist]

Quote:
Politicians and physicians are in the back pockets of the "health" groups

Quote:
Are you really that deluded to think that smoking is not harmful?

Follow the money, all forms of smoke have carcinogens, as everything has carcinogens (Your Thanksgiving dinner was riddled with carcingoens), however if the smoke activity does not have a cache of funds to drain, it is not taxed and regulated.

If the city council will not enforce higher taxation for homes and businesses with fireplaces and begin to enact ordinances to rid the city of fireplaces in homes and establishments, they are regulating and banning a specific product and their users and not preceived harm. They are discriminating.

Follow the money

[happysmoker]

Are you really that deluded to think that smoking is not harmful?

http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html

(emphasis mine)

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!

[jonvn]

Follow the money,

Follow the research. You're deluded if you think smoking is not harmful.

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

Of course. I'm going to believe Joe Vialis (whoever he is) over every single piece of independent medical literature over the last 50+ years.

Where did you scrape this guy up from? He is plainly deranged.

Hey, did you know there are people out there who believe the world is flat? You one of them, too? Or how about those who still insist that Galileo was wrong, and that the Sun does Revolve around the Earth?

Keep puffing. Long, deep, hard. Puff puff puff.

[happysmoker]

Follow the money. Here's a good explanation of the process:

http://www.nycclash.com/OperationTakeBack.html#details


It says, in part:

They accomplished this by conjuring up studies that concluded ETS caused cancer, heart disease and a myriad of other ailments in previously healthy non-smokers. One of several anti-smoking operatives, James Repace, held a position in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) let open the floodgates of the anti-smoking movement with his involvement that led to the 1993 EPA Report <a href="http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html">"Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders."</a>

In 1998 large sections of this report were invalidated and then vacated [<a href="http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm">view decision</a>] by Federal Court Judge William Osteen, previously known to be anti-tobacco in his rulings. Judge Osteen sat with scientists for four years going over the EPA's study and he determined:

“In this case the EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the [Radon] Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and <b>to influence public opinion</b>.” (emphasis added).

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), an arm of Congress, independently arrived at the same conclusions. <a href="http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/secondhnd-smk.htm">The U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee</a> summed up the CRS's investigation into the EPA report:

"In response to requests by Congress to review the literature associated with secondhand smoke, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in testimony before the Senate concluded that the <b>'statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.'</b> And, CRS in a written report for Congress found that 'even at the greatest (exposure) levels, the <b>measured risks are still subject to uncertainty</b>' ["<a href="http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm">CRS Report for Congress: Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk," 11/14/95</a>]."

<b>There are NO studies to date on ETS that conclusively link your cigarette smoke with more than some irritation to others. That is NOT enough reason to condemn a group of people engaging in a legal behavior, using a legal product, to the discrimination, stigmatization, social engineering and persecution that has been heaped upon them by the anti-smokers.</b>


Read it or not, believe it or not. You're a hard-nosed anti, whether you really believe the lies or just don't like the smell or just want people to live the way you want them to. Whatever. I'm providing the information and links for open-minded people who read this board and see what a dangerous precedent this will set. The links I've provided in this thread and <a href="http://www.smdailyjournal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=793&postcount=39">here</a> and <a href="http://www.smdailyjournal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=794&postcount=40">here</a> contain enough information to get them started on arming themselves with facts to stop the ban.

[jonvn]

http://www.nycclash.com

Oh, good. Another whacko website.

You don't need to "follow the money." You simply need to see who is being quoted here and follow the insanity. Filled with conspiracy theories and paranoia, these websites do nothing but demonstrate how anyone can put up a webpage and make themselves look respectable.

Before, people like this were forced to stand on street corners wearing sandwich boards and bellowing to passers by about the end of the world or whatever thing their dementia had conjured up.

whether you really believe the lies

There are no lies in what I'm saying. I'm simply relaying what medical science has to say on the subject. You, on the other hand, are reduced to quoting deranged and off-kilter websites who have no scientific backing for their statements.

There are many of them on the web. Most people are able to discern one when they see it. That you can not is not a good indicator of your ability to see reason.

Your statements are not only falling on deaf ears, but the websites you are quoting make you look even worse.

Furthermore, most people here simply don't care about your "rights." You don't have any right to smoke, or make others around you suffer the effects from your smoke.

Belmont is not the only city passing anti-smoking laws. It's just the latest, and because of that, it's stronger than previous ones. You might as well get used to the fact that people don't want to smell your noxious smoke, nor be made physically uncomfortable by your behavior.

And you can either figure that out or not. But your opinion on the matter, particularly when you don't even live here, is of absolutely no importance here at all. And your quoting of whacked out websites is not exactly persuasive.

[2smart4u]

Parrot Sheeple is this one's new name. Doesn't have a mind of it's own. Can only parrot what it's been brainwashed to think.



If only this one could hear itself talk. Think, Pot, Kettle, Black! ROFLMAO

:D

Whatever you say, Parrot Sheeple.

[2smart4u]

Really?

Put yourself in a sealed garage with an idling car for 30 minutes.

I'll go into a sealed garage with a hundred smokers actively smoking and I'll even smoke as well for 30 minutes.

The one who comes out alive wins! :D

Again, ignorant as hell.

[2smart4u]

[QUOTE=doawnhog]2smart,

"Instead of just calling my claim ignorant, how about explaining why you think it’s ignorant. Do you think cars exhaust fewer toxins than smokers, or that they don’t spew it at bus stops or shopping centers??"

It's an ignorant argument. Anyone with a brain would see that. I have explained why. Find my explanation.

"Are you actually trying to claim the real reason the city banned smoking in cars is because it is distractive?"

No, I never said that.

"I guess radios, cell phones, heater knobs and passengers will be banned soon."

Ignorant. Cell phones should definitely be banned while driving, though.

"Or maybe it is your second reason: the smoke that comes out when the car door is opened. I must have missed that study."

Must have missed out when they were handing out common sense, too.

"And I must have missed hearing anyone other than yourself ever complain about such nonsense. Where are the studies that showed a health risk to people on the street from exposure to second-hand smoke from inside cars? Is it more of a risk than the car’s exhaust, which pumps out the equivalent of 50 CFM at idle (3 liter engine)??"

Ignorant.

"Now you fabricate a third reason for banning smoking: because people don’t need it to live."

Perfectly good reason. Explain why it isn't a good reason. It kills, and no one needs it.

"How many things do you do that you don’t need to live, and that might bother someone else? We need to ban them all and send you to prison."

I can't think of any.

"Your bigotry is quite apparent from your selective reasoning. You dismiss the bigger sources of air pollution like chimneys, and choose the much smaller source to discriminate against."

Your ignorance is quite apparent from your post.

"And now ladies and gentlemen, we have a fourth option which you can choose as the EXCUSE for the smoking ban: because smokers might accidentally burn themselves or their property."

Or the property they are renting/leasing, thereby causing harm, death, and financil loss to others. Another excellent reason.


"Boy if 2smart were the mayor, just about everything would be banned sooner or later. Now it’s everything with which others can possibly hurt themselves. By golly I believe that’s just about everything!"

By golly, I believe you are very ignorant.

"Oh, we’re still not done with excuses for the ban. Now it’s to keep renters from damaging landlords’ properties. Aren’t there already tort laws and civil courts and rent deposits for that?"

That's a very poor after-the-fact solution.

"And to be thorough, we must address 2smart’s excuse number SIX: to keep from hurting other’s property values. Hey, if one excuse doesn’t work, just pick another. That’s the ticket! "

Another great reason. Tell me, what are your excuses FOR smoking?

"NO. The failure of alcohol prohibition (and all drug prohibition) is evidence against YOUR position! Here’s the backup: You advocate the prohibition of smoking for all the same phony reasons. You are a prohibitionist. "

I didn;t list one single phony reason. Every single one of them is very legitimate, and has nothing to do with the alcohol prohibition. Educate yourself!

"All your ridiculous examples of harm incurred by second-hand smoke reveal that your concern is only for your own sensibilities and not for health."

All you care about is yourself. That much is obvious.

[2smart4u]

jovn,

If you want to remove all harmful agents in our lives, you will remove all freedom. And if you think prohibiting smoking will reduce harm, you are misinformed. Prohibition CAUSES MORE harm than what it tries to prohibit. (See alcohol and drug prohibition.)

I live close enough. To live in the same country as you is to be ashamed of such bigoted communities like yours who thinks of rights and freedoms like GW thinks of orange jump suits.

Wow. Ignorance is in abundance among the smokers.

[2smart4u]

Politicians and physicians are in the back pockets of the "health" groups (American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, etc.) and the "health" groups are in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson, maker of Nicoderm and other nicotine replacement therapy products. The anti-tobacco groups and the "health" groups mentioned above are heavily funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, whose founder also founded Johnson & Johnson.

When smoking bans are passed, many smokers give up and quit smoking. If smokers really want to quit smoking, they would quit. All it takes it deciding to do it. Those who give in don't really want to quit, so they need help. They buy and use smoking cessation products, making money for J&J. This means billions for J&J.

Bigotry comes in when those non-smokers who just don't like the smell of smoke and the busybodies who just like telling other people how to live jump on the "ban"wagon. Most non-smokers couldn't care less, but those who are paranoid and have been duped by the junk science of the anti-tobacco groups whine and complain the loudest. Why would any non-smoker care that smokers have their own room/area or their own smoking establishments especially in places they wouldn't patronize anyway?

It's not about smoking and it's not about health. It's about power and control, but mostly it's about money. Follow the money trail.


In 2003, a North Dakota legislator introduced a law that would make it a crime to sell or smoke tobacco.

"the House Finance and Taxation Committee voted 9 to 4 in favor of tobacco prohibition, a line up of anti-tobacco special interest groups denounced the bill in no uncertain terms. Given the chance to support their goal of a smoke-free society The American Lung Association, American Heart Association, North Dakota Medical Association and North Dakota Public Health Association all spoke out against the ban..."

http://www.forces.org/fparch/011703.htm
http://www.data-yard.net/10y/nd-ban.htm

Prohibition would stop the gravy train. It's all about the money.

Wow, is that IGNORANT!!!

[2smart4u]

Quote:
Politicians and physicians are in the back pockets of the "health" groups

Quote:
Are you really that deluded to think that smoking is not harmful?

Follow the money, all forms of smoke have carcinogens, as everything has carcinogens (Your Thanksgiving dinner was riddled with carcingoens), however if the smoke activity does not have a cache of funds to drain, it is not taxed and regulated.

If the city council will not enforce higher taxation for homes and businesses with fireplaces and begin to enact ordinances to rid the city of fireplaces in homes and establishments, they are regulating and banning a specific product and their users and not preceived harm. They are discriminating.

Follow the money

Thanks for the unbiased opinion, Mr RJ Reynolds.

[2smart4u]

http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html

(emphasis mine)

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!

LOL!! Do you REALLY believe that? Smoking CAUSES lung cancer!

[2smart4u]

Happysmoker,

Please try to provide valid links, rather than the extremist pro-smoking links you have provided thus far.

No one is taking you seriously.

[Colonist]

Thanks for the unbiased opinion, Mr RJ Reynolds.

You've got to be kidding me....

Prove to me one smoke source is different and more/less harmful than another.....
I double dare you.

And it's Mrs.

Next City Council meeting is tomorrow night

See you there 2SmartForYourBritches

Will your Mom let you go out?
It is a school night, and those meetings run long.

[2smart4u]

You've got to be kidding me....

Prove to me one smoke source is different and more/less harmful than another.....
I double dare you.

And it's Mrs.

Next City Council meeting is tomorrow night

See you there 2SmartForYourBritches

Will your Mom let you go out?
It is a school night, and those meetings run long.

You've got to be kidding!
Are you saying cigarette smoke is NOT harmful? Are you saying that doctors and medical scientists are only saying smoking is bad to make a profit? Do you realize how extremely ignorant that is?
The people who are only out for the money are the tobacco companies. They lie to you, and you believe it. How sad.
How many businesses have fireplaces? When was the last time a chimney blew smoke in your face? When was the last time you had to walk past a bunch of smoking chimneys to get in or out of a business?
Will they let you out of the asylum long enough to attend that meeting?

[Colonist]

The Belmont City Council needs to regulate or ban wood smoke from the city

To not do so, they are discriminating against people and not smoke

http://www.des.state.nh.us/ard/smoke.htm

Wood Smoke vs. Cigarette Smoke

Although many people associate tobacco smoke with certain health risks, research indicates that second hand wood smoke has potentially even greater ability to damage health. A comparison between tobacco smoke and wood smoke using electron spin resonance revealed quite startling results (Rozenberg 2001, Wood Smoke is More Damaging than Tobacco Smoke). Tobacco smoke causes damage in the body for approximately 30 seconds after it is inhaled. Wood smoke, however, continues to be chemically active and cause damage to cells in the body for up to 20 minutes, or 40 times longer.

Some of the components in wood smoke are free radicals, which steal electrons from the body, leaving cells unstable or injured. Some of these cells may die, while others may be altered and take on different functions. These changes lead to inflammation, which causes stress on the body. EPA researchers suggest that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove emissions may be 12 times greater than the lifetime cancer risk from exposure to an equal amount of cigarette smoke. (Rozenberg 2001, What's in Wood Smoke and Other Emissions).

[2smart4u]

The Belmont City Council needs to regulate or ban wood smoke from the city

To not do so, they are discriminating against people and not smoke

http://www.des.state.nh.us/ard/smoke.htm

Wood Smoke vs. Cigarette Smoke

Although many people associate tobacco smoke with certain health risks, research indicates that second hand wood smoke has potentially even greater ability to damage health. A comparison between tobacco smoke and wood smoke using electron spin resonance revealed quite startling results (Rozenberg 2001, Wood Smoke is More Damaging than Tobacco Smoke). Tobacco smoke causes damage in the body for approximately 30 seconds after it is inhaled. Wood smoke, however, continues to be chemically active and cause damage to cells in the body for up to 20 minutes, or 40 times longer.

Some of the components in wood smoke are free radicals, which steal electrons from the body, leaving cells unstable or injured. Some of these cells may die, while others may be altered and take on different functions. These changes lead to inflammation, which causes stress on the body. EPA researchers suggest that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove emissions may be 12 times greater than the lifetime cancer risk from exposure to an equal amount of cigarette smoke. (Rozenberg 2001, What's in Wood Smoke and Other Emissions).

Ridiculous. Who uses a wood stove anymore? When has a chimney ever blown smoke in your face? See many chimneys in bars or restaurants? Standing next to doorways? Throwing burning butts out a car window? This is really a ridiculous, desperate argument from Big Tobacco and the people who support them.

But fine, we'll go after the wood stoves and woodburning fireplaces next. Cigarettes are a great place to start however, don't you agree?

[Colonist]

Ridiculous. Who uses a wood stove anymore? When has a chimney ever blown smoke in your face? See many chimneys in bars or restaurants? Standing next to doorways? Throwing burning butts out a car window? This is really a ridiculous, desperate argument from Big Tobacco and the people who support them.

But fine, we'll go after the wood stoves and woodburning fireplaces next. Cigarettes are a great place to start however, don't you agree?

Amazing, truly amazing.

Thank you for your response.

There are at least 50 homes for sale in Belmont right now that have fireplaces.
Looking forward to further legislation, promoted by 2Smart4U, to ban the fireplaces in these homes.
http://www.interorealestate.com/Search/Results.aspx?searchID=360231

It's refreshing to hear that someone so adamently opposed to smoking knows that smoke is smoke.

All smoke - in whatever form - should be regulated.
To the same standards

Thanks for Clearing the Air

[2smart4u]

Amazing, truly amazing.

Thank you for your response.

There are at least 50 homes for sale in Belmont right now that have fireplaces.
Looking forward to further legislation, promoted by 2Smart4U, to ban the fireplaces in these homes.
http://www.interorealestate.com/Search/Results.aspx?searchID=360231

It's refreshing to hear that someone so adamently opposed to smoking knows that smoke is smoke.

All smoke - in whatever form - should be regulated.
To the same standards

Thanks for Clearing the Air

At least you agree that cigarettes are a good start. Now, I don't see a chimney use ban getting as far as a smoking ban, because people actually enjoy the smell of fireplaces, but good luck with that. And of course you neglect the fact that using a fireplace means not having to use other forms of energy to heat your house, whereas there are absolutely no benefits from smoking a cigarette. But anyway, good luck with that.
So you have no problem with the smoking proposal, as long as there is an equal one for wood burning, right?