TobaccoTactics and 29

Firstly a few bits and pieces on California Proposition 29. I dug out a YouTube from 26 May where Stanton Glantz was answering a few questions about it. Back then (and it’s only a couple of weeks ago), according to him the polls were showing that Prop 29 was likely to win with 53% of the voters intending to vote Yes, and the multi-million dollar effort by tobacco companies wasn’t working.

He has no medical qualifications that I know of: he’s a mechanical engineer

Prop 29 is to increase the tobacco tax by $1. Back in 1988, Prop 99 increased it by 5 cents. So, the way I see it, that’s a huge increase.

Glantz also said that ‘economic modelling’ had suggested that Prop 29 would create 12,000 new jobs in California. I think that this naively assumes that if smokers don’t spend their money on tobacco, they’ll just spend it on something else. I think that what actually happens is that smokers stay home, and stop spending on everything, and buy their tobacco in the black market.

But the key bit for me came at 9 minutes and 19 seconds, when Glantz said about Prop 29:

“The effort here in California is absolutely crucial to the national and global tobacco control effort. Tobacco companies have successfully blocked a lot of tobacco taxes in recent years, here in California they blocked 33 efforts to increase the tobacco tax in the last 30 years. Prop 29 has become such a high profile battle that a victory here by the public health forces will empower people all over the country. More important though is that if smoking is cut as much as we think it will be California could within a few years become the first place to reach former surgeon-general Koop’s goal of a smoke-free society, and show the country and the world that you can essentially eliminate tobacco use as a public health problem in a very few years if you’re willing to implement the policies that we know will do it.”

I guess that means that losing Prop 29 will be an enormous setback for national and global Tobacco Control, and would dis-empower a great many people.

The last sentence was also, I thought, utopian (although he was being interviewed by Utopia News) megalomania. The man has delusions of grandeur.

And what does he mean by “we know will do it”? How does he know? They’ve never created a smoke-free society anywhere yet, so he has no real experience.

And I thought, when I first saw him, that he’d just woken up from an afternoon nap, and would fall asleep the moment the interview ended. But then I thought: he’s not half asleep, he’s stoned out of his head. The condition is, after all, quite familiar to me.

So how’s Prop 29 been doing since last Tuesday’s vote? According to this recent report, as the count of votes continues, Prop 29 looks set to lose. Also, smokervoter in California this morning sent me a couple of spreadsheet images of his that he’s been working on. He reckons prop 29 is going to lose too, on two different scenarios. Maybe he can explain in the comments.

Also of note, that I came across on Facebook, All Smoke and Mirrors, which lays into the new tobaccotactics website:

As a project of the TCRG, the website is either using funds hypothecated for research in tobacco control or it is not. If it is, then this is money and resources provided by various research councils, which are usually publicly funded, and embodies the use of research money for political attacks. If it is not, then the website is carrying the logo of the University of Bath and the name of the TCRG for no reason other than the echo of credibility they confer.

So which is it?

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to TobaccoTactics and 29

  1. Frank, I didn’t do anything up in the way of spreadsheets, but looking at outstanding votes in counties with ten thousand or more “outstanding” votes still to come in, and weighting each county according to percentages already tallied, the final total should be slightly MORE against the tax than the present totals. The rough ratio I found was that there’d be an additional 250,000ish votes in favor of the tax and 350,000ish against the tax.

    Note that my figures were based on quick in-the-head calculations and only reflect about 600,000 of the 1,000,000 outstanding. However I did the calculations without bias and believe they represent a decent estimate. The straw that the Antismokers are grasping for has to do with the idea that many of those 1M votes were cast weeks and weeks ago in absentee ballots before people became fully aware of the defects inherent in the tax plan. They’re hoping that those votes from ignorance will tip the scale in their direction, but I see no way that could honestly happen.

    – MJM

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Mike those absentee ballots from weeks and weeks ago should have made it in before election day and already counted.Its the ones mailed in the week of the election date that arent really counted yet or have been..I think California gives up to 2 weeks after election day for absentee ballots to be in the office to be legally counted.

  2. jaxthefirst says:

    Glantz’s idea of a totally tobacco-free society is about as realistic as the idea of a totally crime-free one. There will always be people who, no matter what the risks or penalties, will continue with any particular behaviour. Even in states where they have the death penalty murders still happen, not all of them in the heat of the moment.

    Of course, if he really wanted tobacco usage to be radically reduced he could always suggest making tobacco totally illegal, with all the associated penalties for illegal drug use, couldn’t he? Although some people would no doubt still indulge, the lack of easy availability and the stigma of doing something illegal would, by and large, put the vast majority of people off starting.

    And enforcement would, of course, then come under the umbrella of the police and the legal system, which would, effectively, put an end to the need for anti-smoking campaign groups, wouldn’t it? After all, no Government can actually do any more than make something totally illegal, so there’d be nothing more to campaign for.

    Ah – I knew there was a reason why he wasn’t suggesting that!

  3. The logic of an antismoker :Stanton Glantz , the master of manipulative statistics!

    Check on his blog,he blames the LA Times(!!!) for the No on the proposition

    But wait,the best is yet to come:

    He has made a publication where he claims that if Prop 29 passes,you ‘ll see $32 billion in reduced health care costs in the first 5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    But the icing of the cake is this:

    if you cut the antismoking program in half to 0.025 per pack(from 0.05 being currently),there is an increase of 2.2 billion in health related costs (+10% increase in tobacco consumption)

    But if you enact prop 29 & increase the antismoking program in 0.25 per pack, 28 billion would be saved!Just for helath care costs!!!!!(-10% increase in tobacco consumption)

    How on earth can you come to such disproportioned figures by using the same percentage analogies,is beyond any rational being’s understading…

  4. smokervoter says:

    Actually I have 2 and one-half scenarios. There is scenario 1 and scenario 2a and 2b.

    One article I read stated that the non-ballot box votes generally run at 20% of the first announced totals. The first total was approximately 3,853,000. Therefore that suggests a final outcome of 4,816,000 votes. This squares with the bandied about figure of 1 million ‘new’ votes.

    There have been three batch releases so far. The first went 56%-44% for the Yes side. Cumulatively speaking, by the second batch it was running 53%-47%. By the third batch it had settled in at 52%-48% for the Yes camp. Since this represents 60% of the eventual total, it would seem a pattern has unfolded. If this holds and is applied to the remaining votes, we ultimately win 50.2%-49.8% or by a scant 19,000 votes. This 4.8 million final tally squares with a turnout of 28.1%, which was the turnout of a prior June election (2008) also featuring 2 ballot propositions.

    The key is from where those batches came from. That is the basis for scenarios 2a and 2b.

    I’m going to break this into two comments. Long threads have a way of frosting the eyeballs.

  5. smokervoter says:

    It really helps to click that link before absorbing scenario 2a.

    The author of the San Jose Mercury article states that “Nearly half were cast in Southern California counties and the Inland Empire”. Try 66.5% of the votes my dear lady. Using her supplied data, the six southern counties went, on average, 58% No to 42% Yes. (Yaay!). That produces a 78,675 increase in the eventual No column. The four Northern Cal counties (one of which surprisingly went No) averaged 58.5%-41.5% in the Yes column. (Boooo!) That produces a 44,523 net increase in Yes votes. To bottom line it, that nets out at an increase of 34,152 No votes for a final victory margin like Michael suggests of 97,000. Do note that this is crunching the numbers from the 10 largest counties collectively totaling 780,000 votes. We prevail by 51.1%-48.9%. I think that might be a bit rosy

    So, what about the other 120,000? They’re from the small counties that really slaughtered this proposition to the tune of 65%-35% in many cases!

    I have a third scenario where I blend in some on my personal knowledge of the state and just a bit of hunch and intuition to the cold hard numbers.

    Stay tuned for scenario 2b. I apologize for the eyeball glazing if that’s setting in at this point, my dear friends.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Glantz by aying its for TC in the nation and the world is that prop 29 is a SLUSH FUND pure and simple after theyve lost so much funding in the last 3 years……..Its kinda there last ditch stand for without the funding its ALL OVER!

  7. junican says:

    The continuing existence of the Tobacco Control Industry depends entirely upon achieving Government-set targets of a reduction per an in smoking of 2% ish, but not much more. A drastic reduction of, say, 10% in a given year, would be disastrous, since revenues from duty and vat would fall too rapidly for the Gov to transfer the tax elsewhere. Also, prohibition would stop the flow of statistical information upon which the Tobacco Control Industry depends. I mean, who in their right mind would admit, in a survey or study, that they smoke tobacco if tobacco is banned? The reduction in smoking MUST be not a lot more and not a lot less than 2% per an. The Tobacco Control Industry will OPPOSE any attempt to prohibit tobacco – as they did in Ohio (or wherever). The only way in which they can achieve the eventual eradication of tobacco is by very,very slowly reducing demand.

    But the plans of the Tobacco Control Industry have already hit the buffers. This is because they have already hit the consequences of THE BELL CURVE (probably before they expected it).

    The BELL CURVE means that, for any given activity like smoking, health scares will have a great effect immediately, but, as time goes on, those people who are not bothered about health scares become more numerous in the ‘population’ of smokers. Thus, the effects of propaganda are diminished, in which case greater effort and cost is required to ‘persuade’ such people to stop smoking.

    At the moment, the Tobacco Control Industry has hit a paradoxical situation. It dare not advocate prohibition but is unable to reduce smoking further without the expenditure of even more money. But the BELL CURVE demands that MORE AND MORE MONEY IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A SMALLER AND SMALLER RESULT.
    But another aspect of the paradox which the Tobacco Control Industry is faced with is ‘exhaustion’. Politicians must surely, by now, be becoming sick to death of these Zealots going on and on, and demanding more and more resources on the uncertain grounds of a reduction of NHS costs sometime in the future. Also, the lies of Tobacco Control are gradually being exposed.
    The collapse of the Tobacco Control Industry is imminent. They need more and more money to achieve less and less. They need more and more laws to achieve less and less. The more that they press, the more smuggling will occur and the more ‘grow your own’ will occur. Ugly packets will be replaced by elegant cigarette cases (or other simple devices designed to reduce the ugliness of the world which the Tobacco Control Industry wish to impose upon The People). Whatsisname, the artist, has it right – ugliness is being imposed upon The People by The Tobacco Control Industry.
    I hope that Frank doesn’t mind me quoting from the Bolton Smokers Club. At the BSC, the scandal of the Tobacco Control Industry’s use of the lax rules in the UK regarding Parliamentary control of treaties is exposed. Frankly, it is exposed that the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Treaty is not A TREATY at all – at least, as it applies to the UK. IT IS NOT A TREATY AS DEFINED IN THE UK. Essentially, that is because treaties have always been about DEFENCE, which is why treaties are exempt from Parliamentary scrutiny (on the grounds of urgency, when the Nation is under the threat of imminent invasion or such). At best, the FCTC Treaty is an ‘informal agreement’, if it is anything at all. It is no accident that the USA, despite signing the treaty, have not, TO THIS DAY, ratified the treaty.
    Our system of Government is corrupt.

  8. magnetic01 says:

    Ah! Stantonitis “The Mechanic” Glands, piffle producer extraordinaire.
    He looks like Robin Williams doing a routine in slow motion.


    should read:
    If you don’t smoke, we won’t rob you.
    If you do smoke, we will rob you.

    • magnetic01 says:

      He looks like Robin Williams doing a routine in slow motion.

      That should read –

      He looks like Robin Williams dosed up on tranquilizers doing a routine in really, really slow motion.

  9. smokervoter says:

    Scenario 2b involves the two ‘battleground’ counties of Los Angeles (limosene liberals) and Sacramento (government employees – it’s the state capitol) both of which I could see flipping from their current narrow No positions to Yes.

    Jredheadgirl would have a better perspective on LA than I. While I’ve spent a lot of time there in my lifetime and have family there, I live in that nearby county that went 62%-38% Nooooooo. Haven’t been there since I caught the Yardbirds act in 2005? was it? at the House of Blues. I irritatingly had to go outside to smoke that night, but they absolutely cooked.

    Together they represent 246,000 votes, not trivial. Assuming they flip exactly though, that still nets about 6,700 votes to the Yes.

    San Diego could conceivably swing from the Yes to the No column slightly. Again if flipped exactly, this would net the Yes column 3,800.

    San Diego I know much better. There are pockets of Nouveau Puritans there but on the whole, it’s a libertine place. And it has a vast contingent of armed services personnel, whom I suspect will vote No. Many, many, many of them smoke.

    So, factor in a possible additional 10,500 net Yes votes and what do you have?

    A final No victory margin of 87,000 votes. Or 50.8% to 49.2%.

    Which is right where we started with on election night.

  10. Tom says:

    “More important though is that if smoking is cut as much as we think it will be California could within a few years become the first place to reach former surgeon-general Koop’s goal of a smoke-free society, and show the country and the world that you can essentially eliminate tobacco use as a public health problem in a very few years if you’re willing to implement the policies that we know will do it.”

    if by “willing to implement the policies that we know will do it” – he means what they have implemented in SF and continue to escalate – the horrible hate-filled anti-smoker posters in the subways, the constant anti-smoker attacks on nightly TV, the outdoor smoking bans with up to $500 fines, the barrage of false SHS Fraud claims convicting smokers and encouraging others to join in the harrassment of smokers, them getting a new law in CA that requires for all rental housing the landlord must point out all the locations where the smokers live and that SHS might be present, the push to make all housing smoke-banned be it apartment rental, condo or unattached housing – if by “willing to implement the policies that we know will do it” – he means THAT – then I pity everyone in the rest of the world if these loons who have turned SF into their private little social engineering and experimentation zone get the funding from Prop 29 they need and then push it onto the rest of the country and world – as he is promising.

    It is very difficult living in that sort of hateful evil environment that SF has in fact become – and I say again, as I have said in the past, if anyone is looking to spend vacation dollars on someplace pleasant and welcoming for their getaway – SF is defintely NOT the place to consider visiting.

    Visit if you like. But you may not like what you see once you get there. It would be a bit like visiting Berlin during the time Hitler is approaching his Final Solution, only this time against “the smokers” and with Glantz and cohorts in crime playing the role of you know who, the name nobody dare to say because it upsets the Anti Tobacco Industry for someone calling it for what it actually is.

    The vote on Prop 29 in SF was nearly 3/4 firmly voting Yes – but it was a very small turnout, much apathy including among the smokers apparently with only 1/4 of the vote going No.

    • Frank Davis says:

      the name nobody dare to say because it upsets the Anti Tobacco Industry for someone calling it for what it actually is.

      Nazis? I call them that regularly. Because that’s what they are.

      Or did you have some other name in mind?

      • magnetic01 says:

        Or did you have some other name in mind?

        Maybe you could tone it down just an eensy weensy (so as not to “offend” by direct reference), and yet still perfectly make the point/connection, by referring to “those in question” as Nazi-esque or Nazi-ish or Nazi-like. Or, maybe even Narzi – an entirely new word whose likeness to other words is happenstance – that people can read into whatever they will.


        • Rose says:

          We really are going to have to think of some suitable euphemism, antismokers always seize on the name to twist it round to the Holocaust and make people who are trying to explain the history look like hysterics.

          I have on occasion referred to the previous government when they were in power as our “national Socialist party”, but the reference was probably too oblique.

          Honestly, you began to wonder what new madness was coming next.

          Before 1997 it was legal to own a donkey without a passport

          “Normally when the British get irritated, we respond with a resigned and embarrassed shrug rather than shout and bellow. We are not like the French who take to the streets at the drop of a hat to chuck cobblestones at the police. But our characteristic mildness as a nation is being tested to destruction by our politicians – whether in national or local government – who have forgotten that if they must interfere in our lives, to do so only when it is absolutely necessary. We have the worst of all worlds – not only are we over-governed; we are badly governed as well.

          This Government has brought in more legislation than any of its predecessors. Since 1997, the Home Office alone has introduced 50 Bills, launched more than 100 consultation papers, made at least 350 regulations and created an astonishing 271 new offences.

          Overall, more than 3,000 new criminal offences have been created by Labour – 1,000 of them punishable by imprisonment.

          Here are just a few of the things you could do before 1997 but can’t now – many of them, it must be said, forced on us by EU directives, though our government in most cases agreed them.

          Smoke in a pub or on a railway platform in the open air in the middle of the countryside, or at a covered bus stop, or in your own car if it is used for work, or in your own house if it is used as an office where outsiders may come.

          Own a horse, donkey or Shetland pony without possessing a passport carrying a picture of the animal.

          Ride off with a pack of hounds in pursuit of a fox or stag.

          Play the piano in a pub without an entertainment licence.

          Stage more than 12 events a year at, for instance, a school or church hall at which alcohol may be served without a full licence.

          Set off a firework after midnight or be in possession of a firework if aged under 18 at any time other than the period around Bonfire Night and New Year’s Eve.

          Own a pistol for any purpose, including sport target practice.

          Stage a protest of any sort, even if alone, within 1km of the Palace of Westminster, without the authority of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

          Fish in the River Esk without authorisation.

          Enter the hull of the Titanic without permission from the Secretary of State.

          Import into England potatoes which a person knows to be or has reasonable cause to suspect to be Polish potatoes.

          Obstruct the work of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales.

          Keep a car on your own driveway without tax, even if it not being used, without filling in a form.

          Sell a grey squirrel (though you can kill one).

          Labour has created new offences at twice the rate of the previous Tory administration, which was bad enough in this regard, and it has done so at an accelerating pace. Now you may support some or all of these new laws.

          What cannot be denied is that we have had a frenzy of law-making that has changed the character of the nation in a way that many of us neither expected nor wanted – even those who voted Labour (especially those who voted Labour, perhaps)”.

          But the scary thing was, they didn’t as a rule announce to the public what these new laws were or that some had even made , so before very long, going about your business as normal, you had absolutely no idea if you were breaking the law or not.

          Its a very disconcerting feeling.

        • magnetic01 says:

          What about The Nasties™ or the “Nasties”? It’s a bonus that it even sounds a little like….. you know…. the other word.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Maybe you could tone it down just an eensy weensy (so as not to “offend” by direct reference)

          But I do want to offend them. I don’t see any reason to play nice with them at all. As far as I’m concerned, this is a war.

        • Rose says:


          You may want to offend them
          But what you don’t want to do is startle passers by, who are unlikely to be familiar with the history, or where these theories originally came from, or where they were “scientifically” developed, nor who funded some of that.

          I’m sure that was an alarming revelation to us all.
          It depends who you are talking to, I have referred to 1930’s Germany before and let the listener make the connection.

        • Frank Davis says:

          But it’s not just the Nazi historical origins of antismoking science, which I know most people don’t know about, and which I didn’t know about either until 5 or 6 years ago.

          It’s more than that. The whole antismoking assault on smokers, that’s been happening in broad daylight in front of everyone for the past 5 years, is also thoroughly Nazi as well. Antisemitism has been replaced by antismoking. Nobody has got any excuse at all for not seeing what’s happening.

          Same with the Nazi-style propaganda campaign of vilification. That’s been happening in broad daylight too.

      • Jim says:

        Well, they could be refered to as the new but hardly improved “Hitler Youth” instead.

      • Tom says:

        It was just a figure of speech, similar to “the name no-one dares to speak” phrase and a pause in speech, long enough to permit a segue into someone whispering in the back of the room, during a period of silence in which a pin drop would be clearly heard, the whisper “Nazi”, like that. So you whispered it and yes, that’s what I had in mind by “the name no-one dares to speak”. Of course, behind the New Iron Curtain, or maybe Smoke Screen is a better term, for those living in SF for example, the big taboo is to ever whisper any word complimentary of, neutral or factual about smoke, smoking or smoker – unless it’s done loudly and in a condemnatory fashion as if to demonstrate allegiance and loyalty to “the one party” who runs things there. Slavery is freedom you know for those living behind The Smoke Curtain.

        • Marvin says:

          I’ve thought for some time that the word “Nazis” is too soft.
          After all the word is short for a ‘Nationalist’ and there is nothing inherentley wrong with nationalism per se.
          A movement fighting an occupying army would be a Nationalist movement.
          A party wanting to leave a union would be a Nationalist party, like the SNP.
          I think the word to describe the Anti-Smoking fanatics is “FASCISTS”.
          Which is exactly what they are.

  11. waltc says:

    San Diego could well turn out a No. It surprisingly voted to curb public unions so anything may be possible. For those not-American, you may want to understand the geo-political breakdown of California. The symbols we use here to describe these divisions are the colors red and blue. All the areas colored red are Republican/ Libertarian. The areas colored blue are the oxymoronic Progessives. 98% of California,at least in terms of its land mass, is colored a bright red. Only a narrow strip along the coastline is colored blue but it includes the populous cities and the haunts of the rich and wired. Even then, the color changes about halfway along the coast, with the blue fading out as you move towards the southern border.

    And with that much in mind here are 2 editorials from 2 parts of the state about Prop 29.

    From 4 hrs ago and pretty much conceding that the No votes have won, an almost hilariously nasty editorial, oozing intolerance, not just for smokers, but for all of those troglodytes who may have voted No thus yes to Killing Children:

    On the real side of reason, the Orange County Register.

    • Frank Davis says:

      In the UK, at least, the red-blue thing is the other way round. Red stands for the left and Labour (they still sing the Red Flag at their party conferences), and blue stands for the Conservatives party (I don’t know why). And the Lib-Dems are Orange (again I don’t know why).

      I suppose that if there were to be a Smokers’ party, it ought to use the the colour of smoke: a light blue-grey?

      • Rose says:

        Purple, a) because I like purple and b) because its a mixture of blue and red c) it’s the direct complementary of yellow on the colour wheel.

    • smokervoter says:

      Excellent links there Walt.

      There’s been talk of dividing California into two states for as long as I can remember and I’m all for it.

      There’s no need for a multi-million dollar Grand Public Commission filled with pointy-headed academics and political party hacks to draw up the boundaries. We could simply use the Prop 29 map as a guide.

      The resulting new entities could be simply named Northern Kalifornia ( or simply Hell) and Southern California. This would dramatically change both local and national politics.

      Northern Kalifornia would constitute about 17 electoral college votes. Southern California would have 38. The Democrats could no longer automatically count on 55 Big Ones on election day.

      Internationally, we would finally shed the horrific Nanny State capital of the world image as the true California of “she’ll have fun, fun, fun till her daddy takes the T-Bird away” fame re-emerged. Locally, smoker-only taverns would flourish.

      This pathetic newspaperman Joe Tarica (as per Walt’s first link) would always retain the option of migrating to NorKal or risk spending the rest of his miserable life as a powerless minority subject living amongst the neanderthal riff-raff of SoCal. He’s definitely suffering from San Francisco Envy as it stands now. He’d be much happier to the north of the new San Luis Obispo border anyway. Just think, he and his posse can meet up at freaky Frisco seances, where they channel up the dearly departed spirits of Bull Conner or Carrie Nation or Sylvester Graham or…..

  12. James says:

    Here’s info on how Prop 10 tobacco tax law funds have been misused:

  13. magnetic01 says:

    For anyone NOT in the USA that is having difficulty accessing Siegel’s “comments section” on threads, the issue is with the “Blogger” system. It unfortunately defaults the blog address to the country of origin of whomever is logging on to the blog.

    So Siegel’s blog (in the USA) has the address:

    If someone from the UK is logging on to the blog, the blog will automatically default to the UK address:

    When it does this, it sets up a comments section under the thread that only those from the UK can see and comment on (i.e., useless). The usual “comments section” is entirely blocked; it can’t be accessed at all.

    There is a solution provided by the “Blogger” provider:

    When someone from a country other than the USA logs on, allow Blogger to default to the redirected country. For the UK, it will default to

    Then, go up to the address bar, backspace over the “.uk” and replace with “/ncr”. The “ncr” stands for “no country redirect”. This will bring up the USA web address and give access to the usual “comments section” again.

    • junican says:

      Hi Mag,
      Thanks for that tip re Siegel. I’m a bit surprised that the good doctor did not put that advice on his site.
      Just one thing. On my computer, the redirection address was not ‘’ but ‘’, so I was having difficulty following your tip. Anyway, after a little think, I deleted ‘.[dot]uk’ leaving ‘co’ and then iserted ‘m/ncr’ (so that the address read, “…”. That worked! Also, as far as I can see, you only have to do that once.

      Other blogspot sites have had similar problems – eg. Jredheadgirl. I should imagine the same tip will work there also.

    • junican says:

      Hi Mag.
      On my computer, the redirect address is not ‘’ but ‘;’, so it was difficult to follow your tip. After a little think, I deleted ‘.uk/’ leaving ‘.co’ and them typed ‘m/ncr’, so that the address read “…………” That worked! As far as I can see, you only need to do it once. Other sites (eg Jredheadgirl) are also problematical. Should work there as well.

  14. smokervoter says:

    I’ve always seen similarities between the smokefree health purists and Jim Crow America. I could readily picture imperial wizard Glantz, decked out in a lilly white lab smock, on the steps of his University of San Francisco making a big media showcase out of refusing a federal order to integrate the campus and allow a filthy, uppity smoker (who failed the mandatory cotinine admission test) to attend school.

    I’m struggling for a word beginning with K that connotes behavioral purity and bigotry to complete the KKK moniker.

    For now I’ll just throw out Kewl Kalifornia Klan which captures the radical chic hipster turned totalitarian jackboot angle fairly well.

    • Jim says:

      I have often spouted off to folks here in Oregon that being told to go outside regardless of the weather is no different than being told to “move to the back of the bus” or being forced to give up your seat on that bus to someone whose skin tone is a bit “lighter”, shall we say.

      • smokervoter says:

        @ Jim

        You often hear antismoking bigots say they’ve got nothing against smokers as long as they ‘know their place’, which is outside, or on the other side of the the street they’re walking down, or in an apartment dwelling other than the one they live in.

        I’ve sometimes wondered what originally set Glantz off on his maniacal hatred for humans that smoke. Did a smoker steal a girlfriend from him? Did a smoker wink at his mother? Did a smoker fail to show proper deference to him by failing to abandon his place on the sidewalk when Stanton passed his way?

  15. SV: how about Kewl Kalifornia Klique?

  16. Tom says:

    K is also for Kunt which describes Stanton Glantz to a T.

  17. waltc says:

    Here’s a pretty comprehensive History of Stanton Glantz (up to c, 2003) so it doesn’t include his ventures into thirdhand smoke and the rest of the decade’s mischief. You (meaning Frank) might want to send the link to the guys at Tobacco Control Tactics.

    BTW, smokervoter, I spent the first 12 years of my life in SoCal and used to go there on business –both to N and S– quite a lot later on. If you’re still into looking for something to call the North (tho NoCal might do it, considering their food fads), why not cut to the chase and just call it North Korea?

  18. smokervoter says:

    Walt. North Korea it is, my friend.

    I sensed that you had lived here before. The San Diego comment and just, well, you know how it is with us. Especially the native born.

    Now I’m itching to know where in SoCal you were. If you don’t want to be specific I wouldn’t blame you. But how about just the county? I know this place like the back of my hand.

  19. Walt says:

    I don’t mind specificity. Up to the age of about…4?… we lived in Chino bec,. my father was the doctor at the prison there. (I could tell you stories.) Then several places in LA and finally the South Side of Beverly Hills, the South Side being, at least then, the “wrong side of the (literal) tracks.” Many drives both up and down the coast, and deep into orange country, and often to Chatsworth where a friend of the family worked on a ranch called the Open Diamond Bar, and to places in the desert. (I remember the car breaking down in Twenty-Nine Palms on a day when it had to be 129,) We moved to NY when I’d just turned 13.

  20. raymond barfoot says:

    dear sirs, my name is raymond. i am a smoker and have been so since i was 19 years old.i truly hope and pray prop29 is indeed dead as dracula after a wooden stake for miester glanz and his followers,i have no sympathy for them at all.i also have none for dreadful arnott and her ilk.they are not as i would liketo be nor do i consider them people either.they are as evil as people drunk on unelected power can get.still as ben franklin once did say all that is requtred for evil to triumph is for good people to stand ans do nothing. and i agree with with frankdavis the hounding of smokers has been done in broad daylight with malice aforethought. so i have no sympathy for thr nasties that is my nick-name for these health nazis. i hope i have offended at least one nastie today good day and good luck to us smokers everyone of us oh, and god-speed to us all raymond b.

  21. As you all know, the day after the polls closed the total vote total was about 3,850,000 at about 51% in our favor with supposedly 200,000 to 800,000 votes still to be counted. As of today there are now over ONE MILLION new votes that have been counted … with the latest batch of 100,000 coming in at ALMOST SEVENTY PERCENT in favor of the Antismokers. I don’t know just where these new votes came from yet or what explanation is being offered for their extreme imbalance. Even WITH those votes however, we are STILL ahead at 50.2% to the Antis 49.8%. It remains to be seen what develops.

    – MJM

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.