Smoking Ban Opponents Organize; Remind Public to Vote No on Prop. N
 |
| Photo: Chad Garrison |
| Citizens Against Prop. N: Rev. Harold Hendrick, Fred Teutenberg, Scott Simon, Jon Rand, Bill Hannegan |
 |
| Dirt Cheap Fred Cheapo Depot |
22 comment(s) / Post a Comment
Has there ever been assembled a more disgusting looking group of people in the history of the world? They're like the Fantastic Five of hideousness. I'm going to blow up this picture and use it to frighten children on Halloween. Fittingly, Fred's mouth already looks like a Jack-o-Lantern.
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 14 2009 @ 3:05PMChad we all know you made that comment.
LMAO @ that the precious picture of 'Fred'.... hahahhaha
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 14 2009 @ 3:55PMCome on people - while restaurants and bars may be "private" businesses, the public utilizes their facilities. Why should I have to pollute my lungs to have dinner out? City after city enacting non-smoking laws have found that business actually increases in establishments that prohibit forced carcinogenic inhalants for their patrons.
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 14 2009 @ 4:26PMDramatic much?
I eat all the time, don't like being around smoke - but rarely ever have problems with smoke when in the non-smoking section.
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 14 2009 @ 4:39PMChad is too nice a guy to make a comment like that.
By the way, the overwhelming majority of bar and restaurant employees oppose smoking bans.
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 14 2009 @ 5:11PMBill is correct. I did not make the comment.
BTW, good finally meeting you today, Bill. Still disagree with you on this issue, but I'll say this: You're not quite the lunatic in person that you appear to be online. ;)
I vote that smokers can smoke anywhere they want too, except that they be forced to wear a self contained, helmetmask-like smoking apparatus. That way, they and only they can enjoy all the second hand smoke they produce. That seems fair to everyone.
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 14 2009 @ 6:54PMNice to meet you too Chad! I have to say you seem more easy going and tolerant in person than you come across on the blog. I guess the internet distorts us both!
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 14 2009 @ 8:43PMI completely agree with the post above. Until last year I lived in Louisville, KY....Kentucky - which is one of the top tobacco producing states in the US! And even THEY were able to enact a smoking ban..and you know what happened? Revenue at restaurants INCREASED! No one STOPPED going out to dinner. Smokers went outside when they needed their fix. In fact, keep in mind the majority of people do NOT smoke...even in KY - and the restaurant business did not suffer...it improved. Why should I have to inhale 2nd hand smoke because I want to go out to dinner with my family. I completely disagree with 'Anonymous' above. I have most certainly been to restaurants with a nonsmoking section that consisted of a divider where smoke just traveled over the wall right to my section. That is NOT nonsmoking.
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 14 2009 @ 8:54PMScotland Health & Safety Executive, Tobacco Control Division,
2006 circular to Inspectors and Complaint Officers,
regarding breaches of the Smoking, Health and Social Care Act 2005
Item 9
The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Inspectors are therefore urged to exercise caution in considering any formal enforcement action in relation to SHS.
For those who are scientifically 'challenged', it means SHS is NOT a Health Risk.
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 14 2009 @ 11:04PMThis letter, from a non-smoker, refers to all anti-smoking legislations.
*An open letter that was emailed to all (103) Ontario, Canada politicians MPP's in early May, 2008. No replies! This non-response reflects government without a sense of responsibility or a foundation for their actions!
Betrayal, Anti-Smoking Message is Like Fascism that Preys Upon Our Children
We must not look within ourselves. We may discover what we are becoming!
Moral judgement is the mirror, mirror, on the wall image, always lurking in our mind, like an alter-conscience, prepared to reveal the frightening truth, in our soul, such as the undeserved vengefulness, at any cost, wielded against smokers. Even betrayal, of the next generation, becomes palatable within self-betrayal.
This remorseless mental/emotional preying upon, our precious children, recklessly poisons their mind and spirit, under the government's pernicious slogan "health and safety."
By supporting anti-smoking, we endorse and promote Fascism, an historically proven scurvy upon humanity!
The inevitable shame, of our past actions, can still be averted, by rescinding this government agenda!
The most"dangerous smoke" comes not from cigarettes, instead from the government smoke screen to obscure from view, that the real issue is Capitalism and science versus Fascism and politicized environmentalism, not 'health and safety.'
Science and politicized environmentalism are colliding worlds, science being the height of pursuing truth, politicized environmentalism the depth of distorting truth. Anti-smoking is part of politicized environmentalism and the attempted foundation of Fascism!
Do we therefore side with Capitalism, science, Second World War troops and our allies-- honour; or do we side with Fascism, politicized environmentalism, our enemies of the Second World War-- disgrace? Thus far we blindly follow our enemies and disgrace!
From the mouth of Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, "It doesn't matter what is true; it only matters what people believe is true.....You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth and a myth-generating machine." We deserve truth, not half-truths and propaganda!
For any high ranking government official that lack this critical knowledge, they are in their office under false pretenses. They are unprepared to govern. Their present course of anti-smoking legislations is the proof of that statement.
In the words of Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, "I was acutely conscious of the pressure to 'adapt' and to absorb the values of the 'tribe'---family, community and culture. It seemed to me that what was asked was the surrender of my judgement and also my conviction that my life and what I made of it was of the highest possible value. I saw my contemporaries surrendering and losing their fire. Why was growing up equated with giving up?"
Philosopher/Novelist Ayn Rand wrote, "If some demagogue were to offer us, as a guiding creed, the following tenets: that statistics should be substituted for truth, vote-counting for principles, numbers for rights, and public polls for morality--that pragmatic, range-of-the-moment expediency should be the criterion of a country's interests, and that the number of its adherents should be the criterion of an idea's truth or falsehood--that any desire of any nature whatsoever should be accepted as a valid claim, provided it is held by a sufficient number of people--that a majority may do anything it pleases to a minority--in short, gang rule and mob rule--if a demagogue were to offer it, he would not get very far. Yet all of it is contained in--and camouflaged by--the notion of 'Government by Consensus."
'Rule by Consensus,' (Rule by health care pressure group) is todays' anti-ideology in government. Appeasement of these power-lusting, health care pressure groups is of higher priority than our children and all other tax payers, voters, and citizens. The permeating emotion from 'Rule by Consensus' is demoralizing, debilitating fear instead of an optimistic view of the future.
Note this recent example, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn't entertain a ban (smoking in cars with children) because it amounts to "too much intrusion into people's private lives." The logical interpretation of this statement is that the entire anti-smoking movement eliminates smoker's individual rights, and has always been an intrusion into a smoker's family dynamic. Now, the Ontario government is prepared, in predictable flip-flop fashion, to enact such a ban.
In ignobility, many people have misaligned themself with politicized environmentalism, despite the fact that 1930's, 1940's, Germany used "politicized ecology and public health" to base its rationalizations. Are we predisposed to mistakenly mirror the historic footsteps of self-loathing mass destruction? No! Everyone has an individual mind and conscience, above party politics. Be true to them, follow your courage (truth) and dethrone your fear (fallacy). Rescind this government's shameful anti-smoking agenda.
References:
Paul Watson - Environmental Overkill, (Whatever happened to common sense) - book
Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem - book
Ayn Rand - Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal - book
Large , comprehensive studies tend to agree with Bill, and those others who oppose smoking bans.
The only plausible explanation for comprehensive studies funded by truly independant parties such as the University of Wisc, or the Congressional Budget Office, (Rand Study) disagreeing with the claim that bans do not harm business, or that bans do not improve public health, --while small studies funded by antismoking groups find the opposite.........
is that claims supporting bans are cherry-picked by special interest antismoking groups.
Want a comprehensive study that proves bans hurt business? just go to http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s1023.pdf
and compare total retail sales to food and food service retail sales for 2006 for states with bans vs states without bans. The ratio is lower when states have bans. in other words, bars and restaurants do worse, compared to total consumer spending, when states have bans....and this approach controls for the ability for consumers to spend because the calculation includes total retail spending. So, we can all do our own study, and find out who is right regarding the economics issue.
So we do not have to argue about who is right,,,on the economic issue,,,anyone with a simple calculator can check this unbiased data, and see for themselves.
what remains, is that economic studies funded by antismoking groups are small, lacking controls such as comparisons to total spending or comparisons to places without bans, are severely flawed, and biased. and are only conduucted ( trend-analysis style)when the economy is on a strong upswing ( which hides an otherwise loss)
Lastly, the same can be said about the health studies of secondhand smoke.... those which claim shs is unhealthy, are small and lack adequate controls, while those which find shs safe, are large and comprehensive.
Over the last 50 years,, smoking has gone from the norm, with almost 50% of us smoking to fewer than 20% now, Yet other than a 10% decline in lung cancer...there is not one shred of evidence that we are healthier now.. In fact, other than that 10% decline in lung cancer, we are less healthy,,,,we have more age-adjusted heart attacks, and more cancer overall, today, than we did in 1970.
Since 1988, shs exposure has dropped 70%,, according to chemical analysis of nonsmokers blood by the CDC,,,yet then and now antismoking groups claim 53,000 die annualy from shs... How can that be? if a 70% exposure decline can't lead to better nonsmokers" health...HOW CAN A 100% DECLINE BE EXPECTED TO BE BENEFICIAL?
Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 15 2009 @ 9:33AM
Government Will Make Smokers, Children, Families, Sick
Government's that foster anti-smoking policies lead the real health epidemic, government interference. They are not using science as their competent guide into the future. Instead they use the deep festering envy of politicized environmentalists (those unable to compete on a level playing field) to revisit remnants of the dark ages. The profound statement of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand echoes the truth that smothers us, "Today, we live in the age of envy."
I am a life-long non-smoker, who has lost the four most precious people in my life. Cancer was the effect, a consequence, but not the cause. Yet, I will not help to propagandize health into dictatorial policy through anti-smoking. I do not wish to repeat the 1930's, 1940's. Do you?
Exactly how can our government "create a healthier society for all" when they betray the smoker's sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer-employee relationships, upheave their family life, and undermind their efficacy by alienating them from their own human nature?
This destructive mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker's to long-term emotional and mental disorders, thus leading to serious physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.
A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government's suffocating negative influence while aggressively restricting young people from making their own decisions. Government aggression will severely jeopardize each young person's struggle to form a necessary sense of self-confidence. This fragile process is usually a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.
In reality, our government lacks the knowledge of the trigger mechanism that sets off most cancers or most other major diseases to then become a critical danger for human beings. It is not smoking, nor second-hand smoke. Then why does government pathetically use smoker's as their scapegoat, perhaps they require an example in order to intimidate other industries?
Chicken Littleism is no longer a silly joke. It is now a snarling threat. Stamp out politicized environmentalism, not smokers.
I live in Louisville and have noticed, the places I eat are not as full as they used to be. I wonder where, ShsKills got the info on no damage. To the eye it doesn't look that way. WAVE-TV did an undercover report on Bars and of the 12 bars they checked, 9 were still smoking. They said if they wanted to stay open they had to allow smoking because 80% or more of their customers smoked. Of course this will never be reported in the Courier-Journal. They are too left handed to get it right. It took a grant of 6 million from the RWJF to U of L and threats from our Mayor to get the Smoking Ban pushed through. It took two years of lies about SHS and loads of funding to Tobacco Control groups to get the job done.
Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 15 2009 @ 11:23AM
A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's
((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business
does not become public property because the public is invited in.
By using that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property.
We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of
business."
The air inside a building is, in essence, “owned” by the
building owner. That means that the building owner, is in a
Position to control the amount of smoking (if any) that is
Permitted in the building.
Just because you invite someone into your home (private property), does not give them the right to tell you how to run your home.
Government has the right to collect Taxes and other fees. The Health Department is responsible for protecting the public from un-seen health threats such as cleanliness and infestation by rodents, roaches, etc, which are not seen by the general public.
Smoking/SHS is not an un-seen threat. Everyone has the right to walk out if an establishment does not suit their preferences. They control if a business survives by their right to spend or refuse to support that business.
Signage, at the entrance, is sufficient warning needed to make an informed decision. This supports free choice.
Attorney General Jack Conway Ky. Brags about MSA payments.
Thank the smokers. Those payments come from the higher cost to smokers. No loss to Tobacco Companies. Now that Federal and State Taxes have been raised and Smokers also must fund the SCHIP program, you may find the Golden Goose has been killed. Who will pay the Billions in taxes being received and the Billions that will not be received because of the thousands who can on longer afford to smoke? This greed is going to come back to haunt the Government, the Anti-Smokers and the Non-smokers. One member of the Senate stated, “we need 20 million new smokers a year to fully fund the SCHIP program or it will fail in 4 to 5 years”. Will the program be dropped? Higher Taxes and Smoking Bans will be paid for by everyone. Happy Tea Party.
The only winner in this Fraud are the Pharmaceuticals.
Kentucky has seen a drop in revenue since bans and Tobacco Taxes have passed. Its not just the economy.
To Ken Hill:
Govt health officials simply do not acknowlege that they don't know how to improve public health. So, inorder to look like they are earning their salaries, and to attract more funding to build an even bigger , more powerful bureaucracy they have to pretend they have the answers,,, or eg; are competent.
So when antismoking activists publish biased studies,, officials are all too quick to jump on these bandwagons.... and push for policies against smoking.
Example...did you know that ex-surgeon general Richard Carmonia who signed off on the 2006 Secondhand Smoke Report, graduated in 1979 with his MD from the U. of California, San Francisco where the greatest of all antismokers, Stanton Glantz, attracts all this pharmaceutical funding to promote bans?
UCSF is also home to Americans For Nonsmokers Rights..
and 1979 was back when all this was just getting started. UCSF probably produces about half of all antismokign studies. They developed the junk science protocol which allows for weak statistical and biased case-controled studies to be declared conclusive without including population studies, trend studies, and large cohort studies which deny the claim SHS is harmful. Traditional epidemiology does not allow the UCSF approach, BTW.
Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 15 2009 @ 11:52AMThe facts??? How many of you burn candles? Did you know that burning a candle for 1 hour in your home, has the same effect as smoking 1 cigarette? Hmmm....betcha didnt know that...or dont WANNA know that! This is a crock...you all are being told about things that are bad for you, by people that stand to profit from it!!! Like the American Lung Association. If not for anti-smoking campaigns, they'd be out of work!!! Wise up people. What's next? A ban on Salt??? It's bad for you too!!! Or how about a ban on too much Sun? Fatty foods...like that bacon cheeseburger from Wendy's i love so much? You know, whenever I see something on the T.V. that I don't wanna watch, I turn the channel...or hear something on the radio I don't wanna listen to, I turn the station. There are plenty of well-ventilated establishments or non-smoking establishments to go to eat, shop, sleep, or be entertained. Why, then, must you force YOUR ideas and beliefs on the rest of the population? You would be outraged if it was the other way around. Say, for instance, a ban on NON-SMOKING establishments. Remember this, whenever freedoms are taken away, it doesn't stop with one or two...there are people taking advantage of it all the time. Remember how McDonald's used to have Super Size Fries and drinks??? That changed because of a select few who got fat eating their food and complained about it...wow...talk about shifting the blame!!!
Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 22 2009 @ 9:09AMThis is America go@amm1t and if a person owns a bar and says "yeah you can smoke in here" then you should be able to. NOBODY likes smoke while eating and most people with any brains don't light up around people eating. It's really about freedom. You simply cannot have the "state" making up rules willy nilly. It is a slippery slope.
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 28 2009 @ 8:48AMto everyone who is against smoking....i take my cig and blow smoke in your face, right before i put it out in your eyeball!
How about leaving it to the actual owners whether or not there should be a ban. Wouldn't there be a natural progression to places that fit ones lifestyle anyway. As people become more aware of the consequences of smoking in the future the process will weed out those establishments and it won't take the owners' right to decide what it best for their establishment. More rules really? Don't we have enough?
Posted On: Tuesday, Nov. 3 2009 @ 1:53AM
