72% of St. Louis County Voters Favor Stronger Smoking Ban, Says American Cancer Society

• There's more than one base to be covered here, Bill.  You've got one covered and I've opted to cover another.  Though, if you think about it, even with question skewing, taking ANY poll like this one at face value for the sake of argument, the skewing takes a back seat.  All they're attempting to do is show support.  But how is this taking any temperature of support when it always comes out exactly like the smoking prevelance figures.  It's not a conclusion of support.  It's really ONLY telling anyone how many people smoke and how many don't.  Of course then the non-smokers will support a ban. That they have the nerve to call this -- a prevalence stat disguised as a poll -- taking the temperature of "support" and publicizing it as such is what I find even more despicable.

• Thanks Jimmy! I do enjoy the fight and I am glad you are starting to pull for me.

• You got that right Hoss! 

• Oh Well, at least's it's much better than having your head up Relifords hiney, I suppose. Keep on tokin' that wacky tobacy, keep on tokin'.

• You're not just a whiner, you are obviously a whiner with a reading comprehension problem.

• Well, HJ, while you and the church ladies do your superior dance touting your victory 'on all fronts' you might want pick up the phone and ask your RINO Blevins on how he's doing in getting legislation passed.  Most likely as well as in TX & LA but the High Plains ACS wouldn't find that newsworthy on their ACS-ACN Pravda clone. As far as Bill, he's clueless to the stimulus money flushed opposition to his arguments of rational compromise. He has no idea of the Berkeley, CA inspired blind ideology he's up against: http://tiny.cc/ANR_MAN Maybe you should lite a dobie up and really chill after the orgasm of banasterbation still glows because the politicians backing this 'take no prisioners' policy seem to find themselves a well deserved return to private life. Hibbler, Gatton, Fraser, etc. and soon to join them, the RINO Cronin.

• Not following you bro but whatever. Maybe your reading comprehension is off kilter or something but did you not read the last sentence that I replied to Hannegan?  I have almost come full circle and am now sorta silently rooting for the nicotine addicts to pull out a victory from the jaws of defeat. Go burn one and chill the fuck out before the anal retentive church ladies catch on.

• I hope for your sake you do not drink as well as abstaining from smoking.  I also hope for your sake that your BMI meets current or future government standards to qualify you as an "acceptable, responsible citizen".  Setting standards of behavior like these is what it takes to improve the race. For your information, the next big thing on the public health agenda is selling the public on the health horrors of "Passive Drinking".  Based on the fact that it took the public health establishment 30 years to diffuse enough disinformation to the public on the effects of passive smoking to make smoking "offensive" and "obnoxious", I have no doubt that having a glass of wine or a beer in a public gathering place will be  just as socially obnoxious in 30 years as smoking has become today.  Smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes, neither of which produce passive smoke, are under the same level of attack as cigarettes, cigars and pipes, proving that the war on tobacco (and eventually, the war on alcohol) has absolutely nothing to do with public health, but everything to do with control. Control freaks always support temperance and eugenics movements; and they always support them on the basis that it "purifies the race."

• Bill, I wouldn't waste your time on providing rational links to Handsome Jimmy and his minions of anal retentive 'Church Ladies'. Their ACS-ACN filters return a 404 error when clicking on anything not approved by their handlers including: http://www.lvrj.com/news/bill-to-allow-smoking-in-bars-that-serve-food-signed-124092204.html To bad for HJ, but what happens in Vegas may not stay in Vegas.

• Bill, I still think that you are surely fighting a losing battle, but hey, more power to you. Lord knows that no one tries harder than you to put up a good fight in the face of overwhelming odds. I used to ridicule your attempts but now I am sorta pulling for you, always liked the underdog.

• Most County residents, and Americans in general, don't favor a total ban on smoking in bars. http://health.mo.gov/data/mica/County_level_study/header.php?cnty=929&profile_type=2&chkBox=C http://www.gallup.com/poll/141809/Americans-Smoking-Off-Menu-Restaurants.aspx

• Looks like the smokers are losing on all fronts. I hate it for you yellow-tipped finger folks but it may be about time to start thinking of giving up the fight. 72% is not just a small majority. I know ya'll are going to keep fighting for smokers rights and all, and that is cool...but all of you smokers very well know that you cannot win in the long run.  Good luck going forward with your fight.

• I think the question is here is the results.  They designed the questions and picked who they would call and thats all they could get.  You mean to tell me that this is the very best they could do a survery they paid for.  I for one think they didn't get what they paid for. 

• Audrey, who did they call and what did they ask? That is what needs to be told. Most surveys show a majority support for smoking in adult venues. Why did this one turn out different?

• Whoops, that's seventy-TWO percent in favor.  Well then, there's your news.  Three percent of non-smokers are against it!

• I'm shocked!  Shocked I tell you!  That when 75% of the population doesn't smoke that 75% would opt for a smoking ban.  What a reportable epiphany!  It must surely scream support instead of a report on the smoking prevalence rate that finds this way to be repackaged. This must be a milestone in the science of polling.   Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment

• I am also disappointed that the Mellman group was chosen to conduct your phone survey. In its website self-description, the Mellman group reveals itself to be more of a PR/advocacy firm than a neutral research group!   They make this promise to paying clients like the American Cancer Society:  "Whether winning for you means getting more votes than your opponent, selling more product, changing public policy, raising more money or generating more activism, The Mellman Group transforms data into winning strategies." http://www.mellmangroup.com/ I have to wonder if the "win at all costs" philosophy of the Mellman group led to some bias in the questions asked or the selection of those called. Perhaps you could release the survey in order to resolve any doubt.

• 100% of those I polled are in favor of the American Cancer Society spending its money researching cures for cancer instead of spending its money on polls and political lobbying.  We already KNOW that smokers don't deserve to be cured of cancer, and cancer science is showing that drinkers don't deserve to be cured of cancer, either. One would think that, with 80% of the population being non-smokers, the American Cancer Society should be focusing their efforts on helping those who are already complying with their political agenda and got cancer anyway.  Here's what a health activist for the Lung Cancer Alliance had to say on this subject: http://www.babwnews.com/article.php?id=644 Now that the cancer experts are telling us that there is a link between alcohol consumption and cancer and that there are "no safe levels of alcohol consumption" either, I assume that the next full bans the ACS will be calling for will also bar non-smokers from having a drink in a bar.  From a smoker's perspective, this would be the only legitimate way to "level the playing field." You think I'm kidding? The following LA Times article entitled "Alcohol and cancer: Is any amount of drinking really safe?" outlines one of the very valuable studies cancer research is performing these days now that it's running out of smokers to blame cancer on: http://discussions.latimes.com/20/lanews/la-heb-alcohol-cancer-risk-20110711/10

• 9 out of 10 foxes agree: fences around chicken coops suck.

• C'mon Chad, the Mellman group? Now there's a paradise for for every left-wing nut job to pay to have their agenda sanitized as legitimate. Need proof?, just look at their website: http://www.mellmangroup.com/ Commissioned? how about 'paid for with tax-exempt panhandled donations' wheedled from the victims and survivors during their song and dance relays. How about asking the ACS why their undeserved, ill-gotten gains are being used to fund failed telemarketers to disturb select land line residents instead of fulfilling their 98 year old stated goal  ..... say, FINDING AN EFF'N CURE!

TotalComments: 20