Post-Normal Prop 29

Pretty much everybody else seems to have conceded on Prop 29, but not Stan.

I just got a call from AP saying that they are calling the race for Big Tobacco.

I was a little surprised that they did this at this point in time. There are wide differences in the responses by county, which makes predictions of the outcome complicated. I have developed a statistical model that predicts the votes since the election from those on election night. (The post-election counts are systematically more for Prop 29 than the election day returns.) The last projection I did (based on returns as of June 20) showed Prop 29 losing by .31%, with 49.85% yes vs 50.15% no) or 15,861 out of 5,129,712 votes.

This difference was, however, well within the statistical margin of error.

So Stan has a computer model that predicts the votes! Just goes to show that Stan can do post-normal science as well as anybody else.

‘Normal’ science was back when scientists measured things in the real world as accurately as possible, using rulers and scales and clocks and so on, and used this data to construct models of the natural world (very often in the form of concise laws). The models had to behave like the real world, or they were wrong. That used to be the ‘normal’ way of doing science.

In ‘post-normal’ science it’s the other way round. You start with the model, and you use the model of the world to predict what’s going to happen in the real world. If the real world doesn’t behave like the model, the real world data must be adjusted to fit the model. The real world has to behave like the model, or else the real world is wrong.

A great example of ‘post-normal’ science is to be found in the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare. Computer climate simulation models have shown that the earth is going to get hotter and hotter as carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere. And if the actual global temperatures for the past 14 years have actually been falling slightly, well then the measurements must be wrong. And they may need to be ‘adjusted’ to conform with the models. Or else the real world climate has yet to catch up with the climate simulation model climate. But it most certainly will do one day. Because the model is more accurate than the reality. You don’t need stuff like thermometers and anemometers and all the rest of it once you’ve got these simulation models. They’ll tell you what the temperatures and stuff will be.

It’s the same with antismoking science. You build a model, and it predicts that 40 million smokers will die as a result of their habit, and so that’s what’s going to happen. Same if a slight variant of the model says that 400,000 people are going to die from inhaling secondhand smoke. It’s what the model predicts, so it’s what’s going to happen. There’s no arguing about it. Antismoking scientists can’t point at any real person and say “Smoking killed them,” or “Secondhand smoke killed them.” But that doesn’t matter. If their death certificates don’t ever record the cause of death as being secondhand tobacco smoke, then the death certificates are wrong. And they’ll maybe need ‘adjusting’, just like the temperature records.

And it’s the same with Prop 29. There’s the physical count that’s being done in California, which is old-fashioned ‘normal’ science, with real people counting real ballots. And there’s Stan’s statistical predictive model of Prop 29 voting.

And Stan’s model is more accurate than the real count, obviously, just like in all ‘post-normal’ science. So if it works out in the real physical count that No wins by, say, 20,000 votes, but in Stan’s model Yes wins by 2,000 votes, then Stan will be able to tell the State of California that they counted wrong, and they should do it again – because his computer prediction is more accurate than what happens in the real world. And he’ll tell them to keep on counting until they get the right answer.

In fact, Stan’s Box of Magic Numbers makes actual voting redundant. All the State of California need do is ask Stan to use his box to predict the result of Prop 29, and Stan will provide them the answer. No need for voting slips, voting machines, campaigns, TV ads. Just ask Stan! It’s so much simpler and quicker and, above all, more accurate.

So I predict that, on 6 July, if the physical count hasn’t produced the correct result, Stan will ask for a recount.

I think it’s more or less absolutely certain that this will happen. And I say this because I have my own Box of Magic Numbers, and it says this will happen. So it must be going to happen.

(I won’t try and explain how my Box of Magic Numbers works. Suffice it so say that it adds and subtracts and multiplies and divides and finds the square roots of lots of numbers, and it does this about 735 million times, and it’s really too complicated to explain. And also, it’s standard practice in ‘post-normal’ science to never let anybody see your code and data, when they use FOI requests to try to get hold of it. Just ask Michael Mann, of Hockey Stick fame.)

And in fact, Stan more or less has already called for a recount. Which goes to show just how accurate my Box of Magic Numbers is:

1. Both the Secretary of State and the health groups should carefully consider whether or not a recount is in order.

I also predict that, in order to expedite the recount, Stan’s going to claim that, if Prop 29 is struck down, 4 million smokers will die. And, guess what, he’s already said something like this too. Which goes to show, once again, just how accurate my Box of Magic Numbers is:

In terms of the reasons for the loss, assuming that is what happens (or even if 29 narrowly wins), the prime credit goes to the LA Times, which wrote an editorial that parroted Philip Morris and Reynolds’ position that the money should go to the general fund. (See my earlier commentary on this point.) It is not often that a newspaper can have such a major effect on life-and-death events. The LA Times should be ashamed of itself. Their ill considered position will mean a lot of people will die early.

So, because the horrible LA Times got people to vote No on Prop 29, a lot of people are going to die. And die horribly. And that can’t be allowed to happen, can it? It would be like a mass murder or something.

So I predict that Stan will be saying that, unless the vote is recounted, and the recount shows the Yes vote won, 4 million people are going to die (the 4 million figure comes out of my Box, not Stan’s Box, incidentally. I’m just predicting that Stan’s Box will predict the same number as my Box does, that’s all. He does say “It’s about a billion lives this century” on his website.).

And I predict all this in large part because there’s 735 million cute little green smackers at stake, and there’s no way that Stan’s going to wave goodbye to them without a helluva fight.

About Frank Davis

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

32 Responses to Post-Normal Prop 29

  1. Stan will definitely WANT a recount on the proposition, but evidently if an organization not officially affiliated with the State in the proper way demands one then they also have to PAY for it — which is a pretty pricey proposition in itself!

    – MJM

  2. magnetic01 says:

    And I predict all this in large part because there’s 735 million cute little green smackers at stake, and there’s no way that Stan’s going to wave goodbye to them without a helluva fight.

    Stantonitis Glands (a là Daffy Duck having inhaled helium): “Dethhhh…picable! I demand a re-count, a count-over, a count-again. The numberths are unbelievable…. beyond belief. I demand that I count every single vote and get fairnethhh back in this corrupted thircumthhh..tance.

    It thhould be obviouthhhh that Big Bad Tobacco/Wolf/Monster/Goliath is methhhin’ withhhh my 735,000,000 smackaroonies. It’thhh mine, I tell you. All mine! MINE!!!”

  3. Tom says:

    Stan. That is only one letter short from reading Satan. Did you know that. He’s just pissed off that the entire state of CA isn’t 75% in favor of Prop 29 as they managed to manufacture in SF. SF is the Tobacco Control Industry’s Father-Land and where they centralize all their propaganda campaigns and test them for effectiveness before spreading them outward concentrically. So he’s probably mystified why if it worked in SF and they manufactured a 75% approval for anti-smoking hate-mongering and thievery of taxpayer funds, why didn’t the rest of the state bow down and oblige by doing the same. Realize, in extremist held territories along the western coast of the US, in CA, SF and Santa Cruz just for example, you have incidences of local mayors and councils who, instead of patching the holes in streets or keeping the infrastructure funded and in operation, they worry instead about grandiose utopian high-minded ideals – like “peace in our time” and sympathizing with every anti-US dictatorship worldwide – so much so that they will create proclaimations of a worldly nature (ignoring the unfixed potholes and broken infrastructure) and actually believe that what they did had a lasting effect worldwide, that they were of that importance and central in the scheme of world history. That is why in Santa Cruz for example they have done proclaimations endorsing Central and Southern American dictatorships, Cuban Communists – and they are like that with their anti-smoking endorsements – they wish oh-so-much to “prove” they can make a dull smoke-less utopia and the whole world will bow down and honour their genuis. Satan, or Stan, he’s a bit like that way of thinking too, which is unique to the Northern California, San Franciscan way of thinking among it’s ruling elite class. I’m not surprised he’s asking for a recount and also bet he is counting every vote right now the same way being done on this blog in the last article. But I wouldn’t put it past them to still be trying to conive some way to pull a few extra yes votes out of the blue somehow, even if it means winning by just a single vote, people of his mindset would try it. They will certainly try having this done legislatively next after a propaganda campaign of calling it “a shame” – and if that doesn’t work, they have enough money to pay for signature gatherers on a new petition to get it back on ballot next time.

    • smokervoter says:

      I always look forward to reading your dispatches from the belly of the beast Tom. If I recall correctly I think the former mayor of Santa Cruz taught Marxism at UC Santa Cruz. And UC Santa Cruz was going to be one of the 3 voting members of the 9-man board created if Prop 29 had passed. You’re absolutely right, this would have had ramifications for our good UK friends had it prevailed. The Fatherland of antismoking is an apt description.

      I wish I’d known you when I lived up there. I’m sure we’d have tossed down a beer or two or three.

  4. Walt says:

    I’m not willing to read too much into this victory even if we won. Apparently Californians voted down a cigarette tax hike in 2006 (Glantz refers to it in his screed) so this doesn’t seem to mark a trend towards sanity or brotherly love. (Tho I’d be curious to know by what margin it lost the last time.) Then, too, if you look at the LA Times editorial, it didn’t at all mind selectively taxing smokers, but it rightly pointed out that the proceeds wouldn’t help California in its current financial crises as, first, the money would go elsewhere and, second, that there was no oversight (except, perhaps, by the likes of Glantz) or accountability.

    Glantz, in his memo, plans to correct at least the first part when he tries again by, as he says, inserting the words “in California” as many times as he can. This proposal, like all TC proposals, is an improperly-staked vampire that will just keep rising from its grave again and again.

    So I’m not sure Californians have changed their minds about punishing smokers; they just want a better, more selfish, payoff.

    • smokervoter says:

      Walt to answer your question, it lost 52%-48% and by 300K votes but with almost twice the turnout. I thought this one would have been easier to defeat with we smokers able to leverage our 15% demographic slice against a smaller turnout. I think a lot of lazy ass smokers stayed home. Let’s hope they’ve learned a lesson.

      The fact that many missed the flawed morality of sticking the manufactured Untouchables with the blame for the budget deficit wasn’t lost on me either. There was plenty of let’s tax the fatties next, too. Pitiful to say the least.

      I did an exhaustive geopolitical reckoning on this state while tracking these election results. Bottom line; 54% of California are good folks – 46% are complete jackasses. Now I’m working backward to try and figure out why that isn’t reflected in our legislature.

      Two first hunches – immigration of socialist types from points south and east and gerrymandering. Progressive/healthist types come to California to join the perceived flock. Very few libertarian/Republican types do, and the ones that were here natively are leaving.

  5. PaulinMO says:

    Mr. Davis, Stan and the rest of the anti tobacco control freaks will put up anybody else’s money to share in the spoils. You don’t think Stan knows he stands to get his cut of that delicious $700+ million a year if prop 29 had passed?
    It is not without precedent. While the media is filled with the whining and crying of the Glanztinistas while their precious and insipid anti-tobacco programs get their just cuts to nothing.
    Practically every interview has Stan pushing his blather about reinvigorating the evaporating purchasing power (I loved his quote that a nickle doesn’t go as far as it did in 1988) that sustains the current crop of anti-tobacco drones.
    Remember the infamous RICO case started by Clintons DoJ? I’ve been trying to find the exact link that detailed the outcome but the closest was here:
    Was big tobacco guilty? Of course….the curs. However, when it came time for themoney machine to spit out the greenbacks, all that was assessed was $160 million court costs incurred by the DoJ. No $280 BILLION (along with money Stan & his cronies would finance an anti-smoker holocaust) :
    and NO jail time. HA!
    But we all know how well Stan can make use of revisionist history and co-propagandized:
    his historic struggle against the baddies.
    I betcha Hollywood is falling all over itself for the movies rights to this tripe.
    Right now, Stan had better shore up his position at UCSF because the next shoe to drop is Capt’n (Jerry Brown) Moonbeam 2.0’s prop 71 coming up next November. Should it stay DOA, as expected, the CA higher ed system budget will get the machete treatment. The regents will be looking long and hard at who and what to jettison.
    Maybe Stan’ll get handed a stack of blank CD’s to record his campus Big Tobacco ‘chronicles of horror’ and shown the door….. just like he’d done to Enstrom.

  6. Winston says:

    “If the real world doesn’t behave like the model, the real world data must be adjusted to fit the model. The real world has to behave like the model, or else the real world is wrong.”

    As is often the case, what is simplest is usually true. Frank, those two simple sentences are arresting and elegant simply because, to my knowledge, no one has perfectly expressed the problem with such economy.

    That statement can fit on a bumper sticker. It has the qualities of a powerful meme–it’s so truthful that it feels like it’s been sitting next to you the whole time, but you somehow never managed to find it. I have to use an oxymoron to describe it: It’s “deceptively truthful”.

    It seems so obvious, but has anyone ever written that before? It feels like someone did, but I can’t think of an instance, off hand.

    I love it. It perfectly expresses the larger problems confronting the modern world. Yet it’s short, simple, easily understood, and thought provoking. It’s an argument-destroyer in a short, simple phrase.


  7. Winston says:

    Sorry, but this occurred to me after I posted.

    “Godwin’s Law”, under examination, has less credence as a precept. I propose “Davis’ Law”:

    “If the real world doesn’t behave like the model, the real world data must be adjusted to fit the model. The real world has to behave like the model, or else the real world is wrong.”

    • Frank Davis says:

      Well, Godwin’s Law isn’t really a ‘law’. It’s an assertion. Or a claim.

      And I don’t think the quoted sentences of mine constitute a ‘law’ either. But they do seem to describe fairly accurately how a lot of ‘science’ is done these days. So rather than “Davis’ Law”, I’d prefer “Davis’ Proposal” or something.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        “If the real world doesn’t behave like the model, the real world data must be adjusted to fit the model. The real world has to behave like the model, or else the real world is wrong.”

        No Shit Frank, as usual your right on the mark:

        No loss in revenue, jobs after tobacco ban: study
        In the wake of the enforcement drive to implement the State government’s ban on the sale of pan masala, a study has disputed the argument raised by tobacco companies that the ban will lead to large scale loss in revenue and employment especially among small scale traders in the State.

        The study conducted by the Master of Public Health Division of Mahatma Gandhi University’s School of Medical Education, reveals that the ban will not in any way affect the prospects of small scale traders.

        The study was based on a sample survey covering 1,200 shops in Kottayam, Changanassery, Pala, Kanjirappally, Karukachal, Vaikom, Ettumanoor, Kaduthuruthy, Chingavanam, Kumarakom, and Puthupally.

        A team comprising five first-year Master of Public Health Division students led by faculty member Benoy S. Babu conducted the survey over a period of 12 days.

        “The sample is strong enough to give a State-wide pattern going beyond Kottayam district where the survey was conducted. The survey was based on a questionnaire of 16 questions and we personally took down the responses,” Mr. Babu told The Hindu.

        According to the survey, the sale of tobacco products accounted for only one per cent of the total revenue of 55 per cent earned by the traders surveyed. Only eight per cent of the traders reported between 10 per cent and 30 per cent revenue from tobacco products. Majority of them were roadside vendors.

        Only four per cent of the traders exclusively dealt in tobacco products and of this 3 per cent were roadside vendors, mostly migrants.

        Forty eight per cent of the traders reported no loss of income owing to the ban, while 38 per cent of the traders reported losses that ranged between Rs.50 and Rs100.

        Nine per cent claimed losses between Rs.100 and Rs.200. Except for a sole trader no one else complained of loss of employment due to the ban.

        In fact, 98 per cent of traders were of the opinion that the ban of pan masala has stopped people from spitting pan and littering in public places.

        Fifty four per cent of the traders vouched that the ban on chewing tobacco products had not led to any perceptible surge in the sale of cigarettes and bidis while the remaining 46 per cent of the traders reported an increase.

        Sixty eight per cent of small scale traders favoured the ban while just five per cent opposed it.

        Interestingly, 65 per cent of all the traders surveyed had started sale of other products like banana, vegetables, soft drinks, or bakery items to compensate for the slight fall in revenue. While five per cent of the traders shifted the location of their sales, one per cent stopped trading altogether.

        Thirty eight per cent of the traders told the surveyors that they had thought of stopping the sale of tobacco products even before the State government imposed the ban.

        Ninety two per cent of the traders vouched that they had not sold the tobacco products in question since the government banned it.

        Keywords: State government, tobacco products, ban, Mahatma Gandhi University, survey

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Theyre literally trying to ”CREATE” their own real world! Goes against natural law and human nature altogether……….

      • Winston says:

        It’s a “maxim”.

  8. smokervoter says:

    Stan should have got in touch with me. My Magic Box of Numbers, consisting of an old computer running Microsoft Works 4.0 (love the uncluttered spreadsheet interface – it’s Excel minus the useless bells and whistles) came within -0.36% of nailing the final vote tally right on the head.

    And I’ve got nary one letter trailing my name, nor a list of peer-reviewed publications as long as my arm.

  9. smokervoter says:

    Frank, if you noticed that I lifted a bit of your writing on the end of that last comment, I confess I did.

    This is driving me up the wall right now. I am completely disgusted with the incompetence of all the search engines. I put this in VERBATIM and they simply refuse to find from which of your postings the following originates.

    The more I think about it, the more I think that there is something of a hideous cult of “experts” these days. And very often the so-called “experts” know more or less nothing at all. But they’ve got academic qualifications, and they’re a fellow of this or that society, and they’re called “Doctor” or “Professor” or something, and they have a list of peer-reviewed publications as long as their arm, and they think that this entitles them to tell everybody else how to live their lives.

    They all need to be taken down a few notches.

    Can somebody please find this for me. I give up.

    • Rose says:

      “The more I think about it, the more I think that there is something of a hideous cult of “experts” these days. And very often the so-called “experts” know more or less nothing at all. But they’ve got academic qualifications, and they’re a fellow of this or that society, and they’re called “Doctor” or “Professor” or something, and they have a list of peer-reviewed publications as long as their arm, and they think that this entitles them to tell everybody else how to live their lives.”

    • Tom says:

      Are you, by chance, aware of a new state law in California, that applies statewide, that states that a landlord renting to a tenant is now required to, a) provide full disclosure to tenants of where the smokers might be residing inside one of their buildings and b) provide full disclosure about the dangers of SHS along the lines of the warnings on cigarette packs?

      There was a massive amount of expensive billboard sized subway and transit signs all over downtown SF this last month that were hailing this new state law as a major victory and demanding that all renters in SF and California for that matter go to their landlords and demand full disclosure of a) where “the smokers” live and b) the dangers of SHS.

      Just curious if you heard about this new law – ad it’s been highly promoted all over SF this month, encouraging people to run to landlords and complain about SHS – using highly provocative anti-smoker propaganda of the hateful and devisive variety to accomplish its goals – the kinds of billboards one would have expected to see in East Germany or during Nazi occupation.

      • smokervoter says:

        No, actually I haven’t heard of this in my neck of the SoCal woods. I wouldn’t doubt that L.A. does have some similar ad campaign. It’s such a ghastly, spread-out freeway megalopolis, I doubt if the message would get much further away than downtown. That’s the home of Mayor Villaragosa, who once hosted Lance Armstrong and touted millions of jobs created with Prop 29.

        When his term as mayor is up, everyone is sure that it will be revealed that he is addicted to some prescription drug. There has to be some explanation for his incoherent speech and the weird look in his eyes.

        They’ve even stopped running the 24/7 antismoking ads (TobaccoFreeCA) on public television (KCET). I think they started getting angry phone calls and emails. L.A. dept of health continues to run 1-800-QuitButt (or something) ad nauseam on commercial TV.

        So people are still getting plenty of thumb exercise hitting the mute button on the remote.

        • Tom says:

          I don’t recall seeing as many anti-smoking hate and spite encouragement ads on TV as of lately either but that doesn’t mean they’ve disappeared entirely in NorCal – just that I don’t recall recently seeing them (now that you mention it). However – this is something new I did start noticing. Channel 20, which many years back, after it changed ownership and some gay organizations in SF for some reason decided to complain about their programming (or something like that), then they managed to “out” (expose to the public) unsavory tid-bits about the new station owner, resulting in him being called gay and eventually admitting to such – and later on, the same Channel 20 became the first TV channel in Bay Area to begin broadcasting the annual SF Gay Pride Parade in its entirety – so their attack may have had something to do with that. So the station gained a reputation as being a little more edgy than the traditional and longer owned network stations in SF – my only point for bringing it up, being they gained a reputation for being more on the ball with trends or trendy. Lately, on one of the Channel 20 substations (digital has multiple broadcasts going simultaneously), the one featuring old-time TV shows from the 50’s through 70’s (and LOTS of smoking too), they began running an advertisement for an e-Cig retailer out of Santa Rosa, Napa County, inviting people to stop in, test sample their flavors, showing the indoor vaping (not smoking) lounge – advertising openly, on the air, in outdoor smoke-banned SF Bay area. Then last night, they were running one of those late-night horror movie shows, where they have a guest host dressed in vampire costume and guests from local communities in costume having a party in-between segments – and there was a lady dressed in costume, she had a drink (alcoholic I assume) in hand – and, she had an e-Cig in the other hand and was vaping away, like mad, blowing big puffs of steam directly behind the host who was center on camera. So that was weird. Why suddenly on this one local channel is it beginning to show an ad for a bricks and mortar retail vaping supply store and now had someone vaping in full view on camera (couldn’t “the children” watching the monster movie be destroyed by seeing it?). Is that a new SF trend or development that might start happening – permitting e-Cigs but not real tobacco to show up on local TV first, then start spreading into consciousness outward from there – I don’t know. But talking about TV ads in CA and in SF, that is something recent I began to notice, this trend, but so far only on that one station. (And I was only passing by the monster movie channel when I saw what I saw, wasn’t watching to see if they were reinforcing it – but it may be for the benefit of their new sponsor, the Santa Rosa vaping store, website something like DigitalCigz or Cigzz .com I think.) (But if so, could that indicate Glantz, etal., have devised some new trial product along the e-Cig line and TV 20 is doing some test promotionals for them?)

      • Frank Davis says:

        No, I hadn’t heard of it. Got a link?

        It’s like asking where the Jews live, isn’t it?

        • Tom says:

          Well, I will start again. I already typed up the whole thing and then it conked out on me – I sometimes DO believe I am being monitored and filtered/censored by my ISP.

          However, briefly, the poster billboard campaign in downtown SF I believe must have been talking about this law:

          It requires all landlords to now disclose in writing where all the smoking is NOT, thus by default, disclosing all the locations where smoking IS – thus giving everyone a clue as to where “the smokers” are located (either in reality or in the haunting fears of the anti-smoking imaginary mentality) – then goes on to say that this is not enough and that now people must push for a stricter ban by complaining (basically) about “the smokers” – is the gist of that billboard campaign endorsing hate and spite.

          There are similar laws already on the books at the local level at communities throughout CA, this must have been the way of making it state law and forcing it statewide at this point – and just for example only, two randomly collected links below, one indicating Berkeley Rent Control Board makes clear, it is perfectly okay to discriminate against smokers – and another, Pasadena in SoCal making smoking illegal inside your own apartment or condo unit entirely, including balconies. So it’s already at the local levels, they must have enacted it at the state level – and now the anti-smoking industry is test-marketing new hate campaign billboards in SF for their effectiveness before springing them onto the rest of the state (and by way of international anti-smoking cohorts, elsewhere in the world, given time).

          Berkley for example only:

          Q: Can I refuse to rent to smokers?

          Yes. The fair housing laws do not specifically protect smokers, and addiction to nicotine does not qualify as a handicap for purposes of the laws protecting the rights of the disabled. Although the California Supreme Court has ruled that the Unruh Civil Rights Act bars arbitrary discrimination on the basis of a person’s “personal characteristics” (e.g., hair style) or “personal traits,” and it might be argued that refusal to rent to smokers is this type of discrimination, it is unlikely that such an argument would be successful in court because there are valid business reasons for refusing to rent to smokers, e.g., concern for the health of other tenants, fire safety, lower insurance costs, reduced cleaning and maintenance expenses. The federal Fair Housing Act, in fact, provides that a landlord is not required to rent to anyone whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of others or pose a risk of damage to property. As long as a no-smoker policy is applied uniformly, it is likely to be legal.

          Pasadena for example only:

          On July 11, 2011, the City of Pasadena passed a “no-smoking” ordinance for multi-family homes, defined as two or more units, applicable to both those now existing and to be built, effective January 1, 2012. The ordinance provides that it will be unlawful to smoke in any common area (broadly defined in the statute to include all areas other than a unit), patio, balcony or inside a unit within any multi-family building, and yes, this applies to condominiums.

          More information on this from the local anti-smoking fake-charity (of which there are dozens in SF) that sponsored the encouragement to rat out smokers posters is at:

          I also found online a CDC federally sponsored 45 page handbook that explains step by step how to go about enacting these ordinances in other jurisdictions outside of CA (hardly a “grassroots effort” if CDC, a government taxpayer sponsored agency is providing political organizing materials and support to lobby for what the government clearly already is supporting) – but that link seems to have closed up and not handy – but it was under the CDC website, illustrating it is a government agency that is manufacturing this so-called “grassroots effort” that the anti-smoking fake-charity in SF is helping out with their hate-campaign against apartment and condo smoker posters this last month on trial run in downtown SF.

        • Tom says:

          I tried responding – twice now. The first time lost it all, hung up on me. The second time went to a blank screen and disappeared. I don’t have an email address or I’d email it to you. Briefly, the new law requires all leases to include disclosure of all areas smoking is banned, thus all areas not disclosed indicate areas where smoking is not banned, including individual units that might not be banned. The fake-charity testing out the new billboards in SF is apparently playing on that fact to promote people taking it one step further and complaining constantly about any remaining areas not disclosued as smoking banned, meaning individual units and that is what the posters were portending to. I had links, links to the actual CA law, etc. – but I can’t post it – even this post might not post, so my final try.

        • Frank Davis says:

          I retrieved the longer post from the spam folder. Too many links.

      • Messalina says:

        My God, I always used to think of California as a laid-back easygoing type of place where anything goes – well, ok that was back in the 60s. Massive billboards displaying hateful antismoker propaganda, yes it sounds like the Nazi occupation.
        But at the same time, if prop. 29 is anything to go by, maybe people are starting to wake up to see what corrupt cheats, liars and thieves TC really are. How much taxpayers money did all those billboards cost. It looks like TC are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

      • smokervoter says:

        I never had much luck with that little search box. I got ‘No results found’ on several occasions. And thanks Rose, too.

        That quote is priceless. I cut and pasted it the minute I read it, but not the full article. Dovetails nicely with this post as well.

  10. smokervoter says:

    Pasadena is one of those nondescript places that you’ve heard of but can’t recall ever having set foot in. The San Gabriel valley is a notorious smog pit by the way. So nice to hear their lungs will be pink-squeaky clean when they’re not stuck out on the freeway.

    Come to think about it, I do remember hearing about a year ago that they were thinking of passing this and the city attorney was checking into the legality of it. The talk radio comments were outraged. I remember one in particular “My mortgage, my rules chump!”

    Pasadena is home possibly to the most boring annual spectacle on earth “The Rose Parade”, which might draw some foreign tourists. Put the word out to our European friends – skip it – for more reasons now than before.

    Don’t worry about boycotting the miserable place – it grew 1.8% from 1990-2000 and 2.4% from 2000-2100.

    “And everybody’s saying that there’s nobody meaner than the little old lady from Pasadena…” Now featuring a little dark moustache as well.

  11. Pingback: Tell Us Where The Jews Live | Frank Davis

  12. Pingback: Anti-smoking violence borne out of hysteria and falsehood « Churchmouse Campanologist

  13. Pingback: A Secret Asthma Miracle | Frank Davis

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.