The Ugly Face of Tobacco Control

Still in NorCal (Northern California), and responding to comments. Like this one from Chuck:

Many smokers are now boarding up their windows because of increased attacks by gangs of smokerphobics roaming the streets, cars get vandalised with red X painted on them to indicate smokers onboard, and smokers kids get bullied at school.

Local police reaction is “give up smoking” before somebody gets killed by one of the armed gangs, i have resorted to smoking in rooms with the curtains closed with a “No Smoking” sign at the front of the property.

I am thinking of settting up an underground armed resistance group but you just cannot trust anyone, smokerphobic spies are everywhere.

On being asked where this was, Chuck replied that it was Fremont, California. And in fact the IP address of the comment was also Fremont, California. Fremont is in the south of the San Francisco Bay Area.

This was supported by a comment from Tom (also in California):

Seeing smokers threatened with a beating by fist in the streets of SF – there is no link – I have seen that – with my very own eyes and encountered something very close to that personally as well. Links to one infamous SF Chronicle editorial a few years back prior to the outdoor bans from an attorney advocating violence against outdoor smokers and saying that she would defend the attackers in court and no judge would dare find the attackers in any way guilty as well as links to another infamous Asian Weekly editorial entitled “Filthy Chinese Smokers” just prior to the outdoor bans ..

And Michael McFadden (who lives in Philadelphia) weighed in with:

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear of isolated incidents by nuts. I have documented news stories of a 13 year old smoker being beaten to death by a15 year old Anti, a pregnant smoker being shot for smoking while pregnant in a parking lot, a daughter being “branded” with a hot iron by her mother for smoking, a girl being strangled in her bed by a next door neighbor because the girl had shared a cig with the neighbor’s daughter, and a girl being tortured for hours with a homemade flame thrower etc because she’d smoked around a friend who was pregnant. I’ve also witnessed a smoker being severely gut-punched by a passerby at a folk festival for no apparent reason other than the smoking, and another smoker at the same festival the following year having a bedpan of urine and feces thrown at her.

Most of us have encountered online, at one time or other, antismokers who hope we die of cancer or some other lingering disease. But the kind of threats of violence, and actual violence, that are being reported here represents a considerable escalation of the war on smokers.

And it’s a development that is wholly in line with the Tobacco Control Industry’s ‘denormalisation’ programme, whereby smokers are evicted from pubs and restaurants, and thereby from society, and turned into a demonised underclass, and the object of derision, contempt, and ultimately violence.

For the truth of the matter is that, even though the top echelons of the Tobacco Control Industry generally make no explicit calls for violence against smokers, more or less everything that they do encourages precisely such violence. In this respect they are like senior Nazis in the Hitler era who presented a civilised and cultured face to the world, while discreetly encouraging their Brownshirts to do their dirty work for them. Only this time, rather than building up fanatical support using marches and rallies, it’s built up using the mass media to continually portray smoking as a disease, and smokers as subhumans.

The thugs on the streets of Fremont are not some sort of aberration: they are the real face of Tobacco Control. And it’s people like Stanton Glantz in the USA, and Gro Harlem Brundtland in Europe, and Deborah Arnott in the UK, who ultimately have blood on their hands, because they are the people who have been driving the denormalisation and exclusion and demonisation of smokers. And in Fremont, California, it’s clearly been working very well for them.

It’s a terrible indictment of the political classes in America and Europe and Britain that they are allowing Nazi history to repeat itself, but this time with smokers (and to a lesser extent drinkers and fat people) replacing Jews as the objects of scorn and hatred. Almost without exception, they turn a blind eye to Tobacco Control’s obscene assault on smokers. In fact, with their taxes, they actually fund most of it. (These wretched “leaders” are meeting up later this week to try to cement together a European Union, 150 million of whose citizens – the smokers – are no longer welcome in it.)

So far, in the UK where I live, the denormalisation of smokers has (in my experience) not progressed to the kind of violence reported by my American commenters, although I have no doubt whatsoever that this is what UK antismoking zealots would like to foster. Smokers may have been excluded from pubs and clubs and restaurants, but in the general population they are held in much the same esteem they always were. In the entire time that I’ve been living in the UK since the smoking ban came into force 5 years ago, I’ve never had anyone object to me smoking in a pub garden. If anything, there’s been a palpable retreat by many non-smokers and ex-smokers from antismoking extremism. Perhaps this is because the British people haven’t been subjected to quite the same levels of antismoking propaganda as the citizens of Fremont, California.

These tactics of demonisation and social exclusion may have once worked in Nazi Germany against a small minority of a few hundred thousand Jews, but they’re not going to work against the world’s 1.5 billion strong minority of smokers. The result will not be the extermination of smokers, and the eradication of smoking, but instead civil war. And a civil war which will result in the complete destruction of Tobacco Control, and of a eugenicist movement which somehow survived the defeat of Nazism 70 years ago, but must now be finally expunged.

Tobacco Control must be destroyed. It is a cancer on the face of humanity. It does no good whatsoever. It saves no lives at all, despite its fraudulent claims. It is instead the most socially divisive and economically destructive force unleashed upon the world for the past 70 years, if not the past century. And it must be stopped. And if governments won’t stop it, then smokers will. And not just smokers, but all those mounting numbers of non-smokers who are appalled at its predations.

Today I had an email from an American (a New Yorker) offering to give me $100 towards me and my blog. He’s not the first American to make such an offer. But much as I’d like to blow it on beer and tobacco, I don’t really need it. And furthermore today I can see someone who really does need it. And that’s Chuck in Fremont, California. So I would say to my would-be benefactor: It’s your fellow Americans who need your support much more than I do. Send $100 to Chuck, not to me. Or send him a gun for his fledgling armed resistance movement: it remains the right of Americans to bear arms in self-defence.

I don’t know to what extent my American readers are already in contact with each other, but I see it as my principal task – perhaps even my bounden duty – to bring smokers together, to the small extent that I am able to do so. So I would like to make a suggestion to my American readers, and that is: that I make available your email addresses (which I possess) to your fellow American commenters. If enough of my regular American commenters agree to their email addresses being released, I’ll send those who agree all the email addresses of all the other Americans who agree. And then they can all email each other and maybe even meet up with each other. And they’ll be the Frank Davis American club, or something. And in my small way I’ll be helping to bring Americans together.

And that way (assuming they agree), Smokervoter (who lives in California) and Tom (who also lives in California) can contact Chuck in Fremont, California. And it’s more than just California, of course. My American readers come from all over the United States, and it’s a very big country (as Winston Smith was at pains to point out to me when I was chatting on webcam with him earlier this year). And, who knows, maybe they’ll all get to meet up with Harleyrider and Walt and GaryK and all my other American readers and commenters, and drink a few beers.

Because it’s only by people coming together that these new Nazis will be stopped, thrown back, and finally defeated.

P.S. I sent an email to Chuck, but it failed permanently. His wasn’t (no big surprise) a genuine email address. And so there’s no way he’ll get $100, or an AK47, or even the support of his American compatriots. My attempt to bring Americans together has failed at its very first attempt.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to The Ugly Face of Tobacco Control

  1. I was assaulted by a bicycle courier in downtown Vancouver the other week. This motherfucker, who spends each and every working day trailing buses, cars, and pick-ups around downtown Vancouver, took exception to me smoking on the kerb of one of Vancouver’s major arteries and slammed his bike into my leg. I took him to task for it and the cowardly tosser mumbled something about me ‘maybe smoking in a ruder place’.

    Admittedly, I’d lit up next to some chained up bicycles but there were no scientifically illiterate hypochondriac prissy cunts there when I lit up. If I hadn’t been on a work day’s training course, I’ve have thumped him.

  2. raymond barfoot says:

    dear frank, this then is what i most feared, a very much undeclaredwar on the stigmatized.i do not ever condone violence but as my dad would say:i may not have started this fight but i will by god finish it.my heart goes out to those whom the nasties have already assaulted,i hope the attackersmeet a hungry grizzly bear.these nasties need to man up and admit they are behaving like cowards . i am always amazed at how it is okay to targetpeople who are on average just everyday joes.i may not own a pistol or indeed any firearms but i do know how to survive.anyone attacks or assaults me well you play with a raptor you may well end up lunchmeat,theseanti-smokers are a cowardly lot they never show their true face.i will send you my adress on fb soif harleyrider 1978 or mike mcfadden want to meet they know how to find me. hell i would be glad to meet anyone who smokes cause i do too.just dont mess with my smokes my paperback book library or my coffee.besides we smokers need to stick together.anyways GODSPEED to us and to you and good luck to smokers everywhere truly sadbut angry raymond t. barfoot

  3. I think Mike McFadden spotted that Chuck wasn’t being serious:
    “Heh, Frank, I think Chuck was being satirical.”
    Probably takes an American to understand another American’s sense of humor.

    Anyway, don’t ditch the idea of introducing willing participants to each other’s emails.

    • Tom says:

      I don’t know that Chuck was being serious, his email going dead shortly afterwards could mean he was exaggerating to get an effect, or could have been an anti-smoker infiltrator doing that – on purpose – to stir up fears. However, I can say this much and with total honesty, no exaggeration and the actual truth, there was an article in the SF Chronicle a few years back (which I posted on the F2C discussion board at the time and might still be there in the archives), and in it an attorney in SF said quite frankly that persons should be permitted to physically punch out smokers and that she would gladly defend them in a court of law and that no judge would dare find them guilty of a crime, for beating up the smokers. And I can also say, anectdotally, since I have no “link” to what I actually saw, but a perhaps mid-30’s well-dressed black professional on the corner of Diamond and Bosworth, directly across from the BART subway station, during mid-afternoon on a sunny breezy day, go up to an older white gentleman in his 50’s or 60’s who was standing to cross the street and had a cigarette in his hand – and yell at the man in his face, telling him that if he did not get away from him with that second hand smoke he was going to punch him out – to which the older man did a kind of confused laugh behind the younger man’s back after the light turned and the younger one scurried to make his distance from the older one who had the cigarette. And I have personally experienced an incident, not quite so serious but slightly surprising when it happened in downtown SF when a woman dressed in extreme finery got out of a Mercedes unbeknownst to myself, came up beside me and started screaming and thrashing her hands around my face crying that second hand smoke would get on her fancy clothes and it took her husband rushing up behind her to drag her away to the Palace Hotel, where a dinner can easily run $400 and they must have been going there for something important. There is also the matter of the “Filthy Asian Smoker” article that the Asian Times newspaper ran, condemning smokers in Chinatown, many of whom are elderly men and women in their 80’s and 90’s, and that was the kick-off for Supervisor Alioto to have smoking banned outdoors in parks, squares and plazas with a $500 fine. Alioto’s BTW, is an old money family in SF going back generations in the areas of law and politics, her dad was mayor and their family restaurant, Alioto’s, on the Wharf, is a famous over-priced over-rated tourist trap restaurant – that given her excessive outdoor smoke-banning clarion – is another place of business that any smoker visiting SF would do wel to boycott. I’m certain I’ve seen other threats of various natures carried out on the streets, but the one across from the BART station, I remember quite clearly to this day – and it is nothing I am making up. It was real.

  4. bing11 says:

    As mentioned in other posts, eugenics was a major [destructive] movement in the USA earlier last century. Within the USA, the California administration was an epicenter of eugenics thought, and, within California, Pasadena was a eugenics epicenter (e.g., Human Betterment Foundation). Do a google search of “eugenics” and “California” or “eugenics” and “Pasadena”.

  5. bing11 says:

    Smoking bans in apartments have become an antismoking focus in a number of countries. Apartment bans are really the only extension to the Godber Blueprint. Godber would have been happy if the only place people could smoke was in their homes. This apartment ban situation highlights that once a bandwagon is out of control, it is difficult to predict tangents that it will fly off onto.

    Concerning apartment bans, there is no science of health hazard. There are a few antismoking researchers (e.g., Klepeis, Repace) who have gone to great trouble attempting to measure barely detectable levels of specific constituents (e.g., particulates, nicotine). These constituents are not peculiar to tobacco smoke, and such dilute levels are not associated with hazard. If there was the possibility of “transfer” between apartments (due to air flow and cracks or shared vents), then it would also involve bacterial and viral material, cooking smoke, deodorizers, etc., and would also involve barely detectable levels of these that would not constitute a health hazard.

    Consistent with how antismoking proceeds is to isolate two [non-peculiar] constituents of tobacco smoke from any coherent context, such that only these constituents “transfer” and are “hazardous”, i.e., how to build a mountain out of nothing. It is lying both by omission and commission.

    The antismoking fanatics know that there is great difficulty in establishing “transfer”, let alone establishing “hazard”. So they do what they typically do – they attempt to whip up a frenzy of fear. Terrifying gullible nonsmokers will ensure that increasing pressure is placed on landlords to institute a “no smoking” policy for their apartment complex. Once bans are instituted – however unjustly, it is difficult to get them overturned; in the short-term, it would require a lawsuit which is probably not forthcoming, or longer-term, antismoking fervor fizzles out.

    Perversely, in the USA, it is government housing authorities that are leading in the push for these apartment bans with “advocacy manuals” filled with baseless inflammatory propaganda.

    Consider the “Lavac Incident” from Australia. It’s a very recent example of the depths of depravity that antismoking fanatics will stoop to advance their deranged agenda. In Australia, the fanatics are not even attempting a futile court case to enact apartment smoking bans. Given that they have no evidence of hazard on their side, what do fanatics do? They bypass scientific and legal scrutiny and go straight to the unquestioning media where they can make all sorts of baseless, inflammatory claims made to appear as “authoritative” aimed directly at the public. The “Lavac Incident” highlights the lies of commission/omission appearing in a newspaper article advancing apartment smoking bans. The “information” provided in the newspaper article and an advocacy booklet is entirely at odds with the actual facts. http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/peter-lavac-whole-story.html
    http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/march-of-morons.html

    Only more mental dysfunction can be promoted by this very serious misrepresentation. It is the pathetic, delinquent attempt to whip up a bandwagon effect. Read also the “comments section” of the blog thread. One of the antismoking groups involved even has a draft letter that can be distributed to smoking neighbours, informing them that the antismoker regularly has people with a variety of medical conditions that are aggravated by smoke; so could the smoker refrain from smoking. It is all made up.

    Also noteworthy is the lameness of the mainstream media which provided unquestioned access to the public for the fanatics. Worse still, is that commenting was disabled on the story.
    It is now June and Lavac has still not filed a lawsuit (nor will he), but the damage is done.

    • bing11 says:

      Latest from the BMJ blog:
      Choking on smoke in multi-unit housing
      http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/06/26/choking-on-smoke-in-multi-unit-housing/

      Freeman, a true disciple of the antismoking cult, refers to Klepeis for “substantiation”, and even refers to a California organization – way back to early last century – as a model for “better breathing and better living”. These people are dangerously clueless.

      • nisakiman says:

        …refers to Klepeis…

        Coincidentally, the word “κλέψιες”.(klepsies) or more accurately “κλέψιε” (klepsie) means “steal” in Greek. Maybe our Mr Klepies comes from a long line of professional thieves. Only this time it’s your liberty he wants to take…

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      LMFAO!!

      Concerning apartment bans, there is no science of health hazard. There are a few antismoking researchers (e.g., Klepeis, Repace) who have gone to great trouble attempting to measure barely detectable levels of specific constituents

      Errr yepper>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Schuman’s Expert Witnesses Testify in Secondhand Smoke Trial

      The plaintiff’s expert witnesses spoke up on day three of David Schuman’s case against his housing cooperative, Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (GHI), for its failure to prohibit the nuisance created by his townhome neighbors, the Popovics’, secondhand smoke.

      Courtroom and Plaintiff’s Townhome Register Similar Carcinogen Levels

      But, an incident from Repace’s testimony Thursday came back into play Friday during cross examination. Goecke pointed out that on Thursday, while demonstrating the carcinogen monitor, Repace had measured the concentration of carcinogens in the court room — which is in a smoke-free building — and the amount he recorded there was similar to what Repace had reported recording in Schuman’s townhome in July of 2011.

      greenbelt.patch.com/articles/schumans-expert-witnesses-testify-in-secondhand-smoke-trial

    • bing11 says:

      Harley,
      I don’t know why you’re laughing. You ought to know by now that facts have little/nothing to do with things antismoking. You need to keep up. That Schuman result was not the end of the matter. Schuman was granted an appeal:
      http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/schuman-s-to-pay-fees-used-to-fight-against-his-secondhand-smoke-case

      It’s probably “good” that Schuman is going to persist with this case. The defense might do a far better job this time.

      Needed is one or two psychiatrists/psychologists specializing in anxiety/somatization disorders. They should be able to indicate that the agenda-driven, inflammatory propaganda of self-styled “scientists” such as Repace and governments committed to antismoking as a societal ideal produce bandwagon disorders such as the environmental somatization syndrome or idiopathic environmental sensitivity, amongst others.

      The constant, baseless claims of “danger”, “hazard”, “disease”, “death” due to the most minute exposure to smoke remnants promote neurosis in the gullible and fearful.

      Despite there being no evidence of transfer/hazard, there are those at GHI that have petitioned to have their rows of apartments be made permanently smokefree:
      http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/neighbors-win-right-to-vote-on-smoke-free-rows
      And they were granted to present a proposal:
      http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/co-op-members-pass-non-smoking-directive-by-a-landslide

      Although the last court case found against Schuman, the ruling is troubling:
      Judge Northrop had sufficient sensibility to recognize that the attempt to demonstrate “hazard” was conjured nonsense. Unfortunately, he was very lame in addressing the neurosis/bigotry bandwagon that antismoking activism – with government support – has produced and the destructive consequences thereof. Although the Judge favored the defense, his conclusion is troubling. The judge’s sister, a smoker, died of lung cancer. He seemed to have an antismoking leaning. He was well aware that he could be setting a precedent. Rather, he indicated that government should be setting such antismoking policies – even though there is no evidence for them. He didn’t want to be the one to set a precedent based on such flimsy “evidence”.

      And then there’s this – regardless of facts:
      http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/03/second-hand-smoking-ban-introduced-in-maryland-73607.html
      http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2012/04/14-30/Smoking-ban-slated-for-public-housing.html

      It needs to be understood that inflammatory propaganda is a play on emotions – fear/hate. If it was announced tomorrow by the WHO that secondhand smoke “danger” was one big hoax, the problem doesn’t just “go away”. There are many for whom the propaganda is so emotionally ingrained that they would require something along the lines of “de-programming” such as when people are rescued from deranged cults.

  6. Walt says:

    FWIW, I too thought Chuck was a put-on and likely an ant, perhaps even trying to prove we were chumps. But what he actually proved was how perilously close the surreal is to the real. When it’s hard to tell the difference, reality’s in trouble.

    For the hell of it, I tried a quick google of “Fremont” and “smoking” and one of the top hits was…Frank Davis, wordpress…

    I’ve got a collection of bona fide “smoker stabbed/ beaten/ shot” newspaper articles, and yes the one about the teenage girl who was tortured and a reporter punched in the face about a year ago on an NYC street, and a 15 year old boy beaten into coma on the false rumor that he’d given a cigarette to someone’s 13 year old brother, and an elderly man tossed out of a tony Manhattan restaurant, literally tossed so his head hit the pavement and he never recovered, and I’m sure there’s a whole section of this stuff available at The Smokers Club. It goes back about a decade, And surely as the hysteria increases exponentially (thirdhand smoke!) this will only accelerate. But this much we know: whenever the roving gangs, in reality, pursue smokers into their homes and paint X’s on their cars, it will start in California.

  7. Audrey Silk says:

    Ahem…. NYC C.L.A.S.H. is about to sue the state parks agency. I can’t afford “shy” at the moment. So how about suggesting to my fellow New Yorker that $100 come C.L.A.S.H.’s way

  8. Mr A says:

    “Tobacco Control must be destroyed. It is a cancer on the face of humanity. It does no good whatsoever. It saves no lives at all, despite its fraudulent claims. It is instead the most socially divisive and economically destructive force unleashed upon the world for the past 70 years, if not the past century. And it must be stopped.”

    This! This! A million times, this!

  9. bing11 says:

    1
    Baseless campus-wide smoking bans are also becoming en vogue.

    This is a ban concerning the University of Kentucky:

    Colleges tell smokers, ‘You’re not welcome here’
    This summer, a group of University of Kentucky students and staff has been patrolling campus grounds — scouting out any student, employee or visitor lighting a cigarette.
    Unlike hall monitors who cite students for bad behavior, the Tobacco-free Take Action! volunteers approach smokers, respectfully ask them to dispose of the cigarette and provide information about quit-smoking resources available on campus.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/31/smokefree.college.campus/index.html

    What we have is a fanatical antismoking mentality attempting to impose its will on everyone. And they patrol the campus searching out “violators”. Violators are not only told that they need to extinguish and dispose of the cigarette because of policy but they are offered (unsolicited) cultic information on quitting (involving NRT) for “redemption” purposes, that the violator – the heathen – might hopefully become one of the “superior ones”. The patrol of neurotic bigots indicates to the “violator” that antismokers control the entire property and these buffoons also become unwitting [volunteer] sales reps for Pharma NRT (Pfizer must be having a big belly-laugh). This is staggeringly perverse and only more mind-boggling that it is occurring in institutions of “higher learning”.
    Let’s for a moment consider Mormonism which practices tobacco and alcohol abstinence. A Mormon-run university could make anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol policies. It would be expected that the majority of students/staff would be Mormons. If they aren’t, they would at least know that, being Mormon-run, the university poses certain restrictions.

    Now let’s say that a small group of Mormons managed to convince University of Kentucky administrators to adopt a tobacco-free campus policy because they hated the habit and it made living their Mormon lifestyle “easier”. The group also volunteered to patrol the campus to pick-up “violators”. I suspect that people would immediately be outraged by the prospect. The university is not Mormon-run nor is it there to promote Mormon beliefs and lifestyle. The Mormon group should not be imposing its beliefs – particularly through policy – campus-wide. Also, secular universities are not high schools. Students and staff are adults, free to make adult choices in particularly legal activities, hopefully protected from fanatical elements attempting coercion to conformity. The case of current smoking bans is little different to the example above. Rather than involving a religion, it involves a cultic framework, i.e., healthism, eugenics. This cult believes that no-one should be smoking and those who smoke should be “helped” (coerced) to quit.

    From the article:
    “There’s a very health-conscious, socially aware student that we have on campus these days,” she said.

    They are physical-health conscious to the point of neurosis and bigotry, i.e., unhealthy: They have been indoctrinated in biological reductionism, a healthist, eugenics view. Not only are the students who have deteriorated into antismoking fanaticism unhealthy, but the universities that have allowed their campuses to be dominated by this cultic fanaticism are also unhealthy.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Old Ellen Hahn is behind that shit…….The bitch is nothing more than a know-nothing RN and there so broke,they go out and try get post-grads to write up there Methodology for their junk science studies! Trust me these people are as stupid as their beliefs in SHS!

  10. bing11 says:

    2
    The issue of the tobacco-free campus insanity is critical because it can have potentially dangerous consequences. Consider:

    Young women are discouraged from walking across campus alone at night. Most of the University of Montana stays well-lit, but dark shadows still creep across the grass and the flashing blue lights of emergency phones can seem far apart.

    With the new smoking ban, young women living in the dorms must now walk to the edge of campus for a cigarette.

    Chief of Campus Security Gary Taylor said this issue has not been fully addressed yet.

    “We’re forcing girls into a dangerous situation,” he said.

    Freshman Emma Brunckhorst agrees. She said she’s glad she lives in Jesse Hall because it’s right beside the designated smoking area on campus.

    Freshman Michelle Beckenhauer doesn’t feel so lucky. Living in Jesse Hall’s twin, Aber Hall, she’s a half-mile from where her peers smoke.

    “I just end up breaking the rule and smoke right outside Aber,” Beckenhauer said.

    Taylor admits the distance of some dorms from the smoking-friendly rim around campus could increase the risk for students. He plans to bring the issue up in the next Tobacco Task Force meeting.

    “We’ve tried so hard to get people to smoke off campus that we never considered these girls,” Taylor said.

    This sort of thing must be going on in the 500+ campuses that have adopted this asinine, bigoted policy. Why in heavens above would anyone institute policies that can endanger someone in the immediate sense to the point of fatality? Why would someone attempt to “protect”, without request, from risks of questionable causal basis that are 30, 40, 50, 60 years down the track (only to be replaced by other risks) by placing them in situations that can be immediately harmful, even to a fatal extreme, in fully-definable causal terms? Only fools; tragic, BIG, fools. Not only had the possibility not entered their minds in their fanatical quest to institute the policy, but with the situation now raised, they react with the lack of emotion and sensibility typical of a [physicalist] fanatic; they react with something like….. we hope nothing bad happens, but only the policy matters.

  11. bing11 says:

    3
    Linda Green, the director of Health Enhancement for the Curry Health Center, said she hopes students will follow the smoking ban despite the hazards of walking alone across campus. While students cannot be ticketed for smoking on campus, they can be written up for a violation of the Student Conduct Code.

    “I don’t want to see that happen,” she said.

    Green advocates that women who want to smoke at night should always have a friend with them. Taylor also strongly urges that women not go alone.

    Green said the ban is not meant to be punitive toward smokers. She admits the ban makes it harder for them, but she thanks them for being compliant with the new policy.

    Green recommends nicotine gum or patches to help reduce cravings after dark. She also suggested an upcoming acupuncture clinic to help smokers overcome the addiction.

    And let the absurdities compound: Green, who is promoting neurosis and bigotry and recklessly endangering students, is the director of ….[what?]… Health Enhancement (healthism, eugenics). These smoking/tobacco-free campus policies have nothing to do with even the pretense of “protecting” nonsmokers from ETS (tobacco-free policies include products that don’t even involve smoke). They are a coercive measure intended to [further] pressure smokers into quitting. There is no issue of exposure in the expanses of a campus or the sparseness of passers-by at night. Even the Chief of Campus Security knows the policy is a coercive measure to [nonsmoking] conformity – coercion to join the cult.

    The Griz Personal Safety cart zips around after dark as a resource for safely getting across campus. Usually used for trips to the library or between dorms, driver Jake Thiesen said no one has used it to get to the smoking areas.

    “Most of the calls we get are from freshmen,” he said. “For the first couple weeks a lot of the freshmen don’t know about this service so … maybe as it goes on we’ll get a couple calls.”

    Taylor said he doesn’t think the Griz Personal Safety staff should be used to escort smokers.

    “The whole intent of the ban is to get people to stop smoking,” he said.
    http://www.montanakaimin.com/news/ban-places-smokers-in-dangerous-situation-1.2602457

    • Mr A says:

      We have campus-wide bans in the UK, too. The University of Worcester has one, with just a patio (on a massive site of sports fields, car parks and huge expanses of landscaping) as a “Designated Smoking Area.” Anywhere else – outside, in the room of your hall of residence… all-non smoking. I heard they wanted to make the whole campus non-smoking but someone with a brain suggested that would be a bad move as everyone would gather by the gates and it would look like there was a permanent strike on.

      Then again, they also gave an honorary doctorate to an ex-ASH bod and recently converted the student bar into a cafe (so now guess where the students go at night – one hint – it’s not the new cafe), and it’s pretty obvious they’re a bunch of healthists there. They also have signs saying “Do not smoke next to this window. The people in these offices object to your smoke.” As far as I know, no-one ever actually asked the people in those offices, some of whom are undoubtedly smokers.,,,

      YOU WILL DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD!

      The Milton Keynes campus of the Open University is much the same although they have several smoking pods (literally four paving stones big) dotted around the campus where you are expected to stand. They also have signs up saying (wrongly) “It is illegal to smoke by this doorway.” I spoke to a security guard about it and he said they couldn’t enforce the rules anyway, as they didn’t know who were staff (it’s in their contracts to abide by the policy), students (who could get disciplined) or visitors (who can do exactly what the Hell they like). As such they didn’t really enforce it, although there were plenty of snitches who would ring them up when they saw someone smoking . Through a closed window. 100 yards away. Outside.

      Lunatics……

      • beobrigite says:

        They also have signs saying “Do not smoke next to this window. The people in these offices object to your smoke.”

        In work we have them, too. Everybody ignores the sign(s). Unfortunately no-one complained for me to say:”Oh, well, give us a comfortable room and we won’t be here – you put us here, put up with us!”

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Most of us have encountered online, at one time or other, antismokers who hope we die of cancer or some other lingering disease.

    Ya just got one a few minutes ago!

    tigermeatPlease smoke at least 2 packs a day. We need you out of the gene pool.

    http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/06/vestavia_hills_delays_decision.html

    • Tom says:

      Except in Northern California areas, it’s no longer “online” one encounters them. After 17 years of smoke bans and hate propaganda that begins in kindergarten and plays daily in all media encouraging pride in anti-smoking and subtley demonstrating how to denigrate smokers, the payoff for anti-smoking is beginning to produce results, which are blatant, hateful and violent attacks against smokers on the streets – and with nobody blinking an eye, because the propaganda campaign has made it all seem “normal”. The police aren’t going to help. They’re beholding to enforcing things like $500 fines for outdoor smoking in some parts of SF – they are just going to turn the other way and figure “the smoker” somehow “deserved it” – because that is the fog of propaganda, what it has normalized.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Perhaps there might be a St Valentines day Massacre someday,the like of which was the heralding moment when PROHIBITION met its doom!

  13. bing11 says:

    4
    We know that Departments of Public Health within the medical faculty at universities have an antismoking stance, i.e., ideologically compromised. We also know that there is an intimate relationship between these medical departments of public health and the overall university health offices. But how has this anti-smoking/tobacco goal of taking over the entire campus (consistent with the Godber/WHO Blueprint) been empowered?

    From the University of Kentucky article:
    It wasn’t until the early 2000s that 100% smoke-free campuses began popping up across the United States.
    Ty Patterson, the former vice president of Student Affairs at Ozarks Technical Community College in Springfield, Missouri, says he started the first smoke-free campus in 2003, but the idea was planted in 1999.
    “The president came to me and said, ‘Ty, we’ve got problems. You can’t get in and out of doorways without going through a corridor of smoke,’ ” Patterson recalled.
    Patterson, who had quit smoking two years prior, set out to find a higher education institution that had managed to eliminate tobacco on campus. To Patterson’s dismay, there weren’t any.
    “When I explained to (schools) what we were thinking about doing, they said … ‘We’d love to be able to do that, but we don’t know how,’ ” he said.
    Over the next four years, Patterson developed a policy in which trained staff members held polite conversations with students and faculty who violated the smoking rules. The first violation is a warning. The second and third result in $15 fines or two hours spent picking up tobacco litter. For any further violations, the offender is placed on probation or asked to leave the school.
    Patterson predicts that nearly all college campuses in the United States will be 100% smoke-free in 10 years. Talbott-Forbes, too, says it’s a possibility — mentioning how professors once smoked in their offices but can’t today.
    “We’ve gone from pushing smoking out of the building … to now trying to push smoking totally off campus,” she said.
    Although it may take time to sink in, Hahn said, people eventually “get it.”
    “They get the idea that tobacco use just isn’t accepted here.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/31/smokefree.college.campus/index.html

    There we have it. That’s how this more advanced phase of the bigotry bandwagon started. One bigot said to another “I don’t like having to put up with smoke when I enter doorways, so let’s ban smoking on the entire campus”, to which the second bigot replied, “OK”.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      When I explained to (schools) what we were thinking about doing, they said … ‘We’d love to be able to do that, but we don’t know how,’ ” he said.

      The answer was simple, they got the government to tie pel grants and research grant money to having a smoking ban as a pre-requisite! The Deans quickly adopted bans regardless of the outrage! In texas the nazis got control of cancer research money to the tune of 5 billion dollars and Texas universities fell quickly into line…….theres many more examples out there!

  14. bing11 says:

    5
    It is this Ty[rant] Patterson that we can thank. He is an “enabler”, a link man. It is Ty[rant] that is in need of scrutiny. Here’s some bio on Ty[rant]:
    http://thenctp.wordpress.com/ty-patterson-director/
    http://www.otc.edu/7378.php

    Following his successful implementation of a campus-wide tobacco-free policy at his technical college in Missouri, Ty[rant] set up as an enabler for other campuses to also institute such policies. He now heads his own creations: “….he directed the Center of Excellence for Tobacco-Free Campus Policy beginning in 2004. In 2008, Patterson …… continued to lead the Center of Excellence for Tobacco-Free Campus Policy as part time Director until the establishment of the National Center for Tobacco Policy in December 2010 when he joined the NCTP as the Director.”

    Got that? The Center for Excellence for Tobacco-Free Campus Policy and the National Center for Tobacco Policy. And these “centers” sure pour out the bigoted drivel.

    How To Start A Tobacco-Free Campus Campaign by Ty Patterson
    IT IS EASIER TO ENFORCE A 100% TOBACCO-FREE CAMPUS POLICY
    than designated use areas and/or perimeter restrictions!
    The next step is to find an institutional champion for the policy change. This can be difficult. Administrators are loathe to get involved with policy initiatives that are controversial or counter intuitive. Unfortunately to most administrators I have encountered this will be the response you get.

    When the champion is identified they will help further develop the proposal to include the process of obtaining support from the president/chancellor and key groups on campus. The groups include student government, faculty senate, classified staff association, HR, and in particular the Allied Health department.

    This process involves thoroughly explaining why the policy is necessary. Either before or at the time you are meeting with groups the champion should meet with the president or chancellor to explain why the campus should be tobacco-free and to summarize activity in support of this goal to date. In some institutions it will be necessary to have the support of the president/chancellor.

    But in every case the effort to make the campus tobacco-free must NOT BE OPPOSED by the president/chancellor! Your champion will understand best how to avoid opposition from the institution’s leader.
    Once institutional support is gained the process of implementation can proceed. The next step is to identify a committee or task force whose job will be to plan the successful implementation. The timeline should be at least one semester and preferably two semesters between the formation of the group and the date of the policy going into effect.

    These steps are not inviolate. Each institution is unique. But if you follow the approach I have outlined I believe you will have a good chance to succeed in making your campus tobacco-free. And, if this all seems too much I invite you to come to The 6th Annual “Making Your Campus Tobacco-Fee” Workshop on June 19 in Springfield. This daylong event provides opportunity to share with those who have done it!
    http://www.motobaccocontrol.com/2009/04/how-to-start-a-tobaccofree-campus-campaign-by-ty-patterson.html

  15. bing11 says:

    6
    THE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR
    TOBACCO-FREE CAMPUS POLICY
    In 2004 the OTC Tobacco-Free Advisory Committee, comprised of leaders from health care, education, civic, and the business community recommended, and OTC President Norman Myers approved, establishment of a Center of Excellence for Tobacco-Free Campus Policy to help those interested in making their campuses tobacco-free.
    http://www.tobaccofreenow.org/about/

    Some information on one of these “workshops”:
    The 8th Annual Tobacco-Free Campus Workshop
    http://mom.missouri.edu/tobacco_workshop.html
    CASE, or Campus-Community Alliances for Smoke-Free Environments, is a group of researchers and experts on the health effects of secondhand smoke with expertise in addictions, health promotion, psychology, public health, strategic communication and project evaluation. Their team of professionals, in partnership with already existing statewide organizations, is working to improve the health of Missouri communities and campuses, complement existing tobacco control efforts, and build an infrastructure that can sustain successful programs for years to come.
    http://mom.missouri.edu/sponsors.html

    Some more on Ty[rant]:

    Patterson, who is the director of his school’s Center of Excellence for Tobacco-Free Campus Policy, advises those colleges to slowly integrate the rules and offer reasoning for their implementation.

    “It’s important to be respectful of those who disagree with you,” he said. “There has to be an approach that doesn’t demonize tobacco users.”

    Dr. Alan Glass, the health center director at Washington University, said it is important to recognize that avoiding smoking can be very difficult for some campus guests and residents.
    “Smoking is not healthy, period,” Glass told the Post-Dispatch. “Still we recognize it’s going to present challenges to certain individuals.”

    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/04/20/Colleges-attempting-to-ban-campus-smoking/UPI-89841240244001/

    Committed to fostering wellness and a healthy environment, Ashland Community and Technical College will officially became a tobacco-free campus on August 1, 2011

    “I am impressed with the leadership of President Adkins and the hard work of the students, faculty and staff at ACTC in preparing for their campuses to be tobacco-free,” said Dr. Ty Patterson, Co-Director, National Center for Tobacco Policy.

    “In working with hundreds of higher education institutions across the US on such policies, those with the commitment from the top, and genuine support across the organization, are most successful,” Dr. Patterson said. “I have no doubt Ashland will succeed in changing the campus culture to embrace the policy out of respect for others and their environment.”
    http://www.thelevisalazer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=75&Itemid=254&limitstart=50

  16. bing11 says:

    7
    What can be said of Ty[rant] Patterson? Although he attempts to portray a jovial disposition, Ty[rant] is a highly conflicted mind, harboring much fear and hostility. So, he confines himself to only a small part of his thinking, the rest is too terrifying. We can see from his rants that his view is unbalanced, entirely one-sided. He is a classical bigot bully – I have an absolutely definitive view of the world and therefore should be imposed on everyone else. His “policies” have no consideration of detrimental consequences such as rights issues and endangering smokers as in the example above. His only consideration is that he is absolutely correct and all must follow; all else, whatever it may be, is acceptable “collateral damage”.

    Maybe his military background has something to do with his capacity to fixate on a goal and an inability to consider any other relevant issues. It seems that Ty[rant], an ex-smoker, views tobacco and smokers as “the enemy” that must be moved off, the ground (campus) reclaimed/recaptured for the “good” antismokers. Enforcement also seems to be a big deal with Ty[rant]. We know that antismokers, generally, first demand designated outdoor smoking areas on campus. Eventually, the claim becomes that this is “unworkable” and that the only “solution” is to ban smoking campus-wide. Ty[rant] also agrees with this, but possibly with another [military] spin. He advocates that “it is easier to enforce a 100% tobacco-free campus policy”, “enforce” being the key term. Where there are designated smoking areas, there can be a congregation of smokers. With complete campus bans, congregation of smokers is less likely to occur. It is probably just individual smokers that would be caught violating the ban and probably in isolated circumstances. As such, in military terms, individual smokers are easier to isolate, encircle, and intimidate – a show of who’s in charge – with the roving “enforcement” patrols.

    A little more on Ty[rant]’s view of ‘enforcement”. We know from comments in other threads that standards in academia have plummeted over the last few decades. For example, plagiarism and cheating, serious violations of why people are enrolled at a university, can attract little more than a reprimand. Yet in Ty[rant]’s view of university life, multiple (more than 3) violations of a smoking ban – the smoker referred to as “an offender” – should attract expulsion. Ty[rant] is militarizing antismoking. It is just more evidence that Ty[rant] is deranged and that many universities have utterly lost their scholarly way.

    Ty[rant] uses the term “respect” in his raving with regularity. But, again, it’s a bigot’s contorted version of respect. According to the bully Ty[rant], smokers will be told, “respectfully”, that their habit will no longer be accepted on the entire campus because….. well, because Ty[rant] says so. The policy is obviously and intentionally demeaning, interfering, inconveniencing, coercive, and potentially endangering. Violations will be met with fines and possible expulsion. This apparently, in Ty[rant]’s mind, is “respectful to others [antismokers] and the environment”. And I’m confident that Ty[rant] would find it bizarre that he would be referred to as given over to a tyrannical/fascist mentality; that’s part of his mental disorder.

  17. Frank Davis says:

    I didn’t think Chuck wasn’t genuine. I just thought that he left a false email address. Lots of people do that, particularly if they’re feeling paranoid. And paranoid seems to be exactly what Chuck was.

    • Tom says:

      I thought about this later too and it might be that is the case – he might be afraid of being “found out” for having reported assaults on smokers in public online – or he might be subject to threats himself. Also, about Fremont, but I believe there may be a very large number of immigrants from Afghanistan have arrived and settled in Fremont over the years and there might be some kind of anti-Afghani (ethnic, racial) (or anti-Islamic, or anti-Christian, etc.) resentment among a bitter few; or for some, religious differences are turned into threats of violence with anti-smoking getting mixed in with it – since anti-smoking seems to blend so well with other types of hateful, violent and prejudiced ways of thinking. I do sense that smokers are “running scared” and hiding/keeping-low as much as possible in SF. It is taboo to mention violence against smokers in any public media, the propaganda only works in the opposite direction and you’ll be kicked off any local SF discussion boards if you say anything that is non-supportive of the anti-smoking claims. Right now, UK may not have an outdoor ban, but let them get it banned outdoors and that is when they really start ratcheting up the call for violence, because it makes it nearly impossible to smoke legally anywhere at that point and puts everyone into the open as a potential target. Your making a stand at Stony-Stratford for example, was a very important action as it needs nipped in the bud fast, if they try to extend it any further, or else you risk escalating into the kind of violence being seen in SF and CA which has 17 years historical experience on this now and the violent outcome is becoming clear.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        you’ll be kicked off any local SF discussion boards if you say anything that is non-supportive of the anti-smoking claims.

        Boy you got that right!

      • Tom says:

        “… It is taboo to mention violence against smokers [in a defensive manner in defense of smokers] in any public media, the propaganda only works in the opposite direction and you’ll be kicked off any local SF discussion boards if you say anything that is non-supportive of the anti-smoking claims. …”

        … am clarifying/editing by adding: [in a defensive manner in defense of smokers] – it’s not taboo to mention it in an offensive manner, as an attack on smokers, only as a defense is it taboo – to make it clear how local SF discussion boards operate.

  18. bing11 says:

    8
    Here are some photos from a tobacco-free campus conference.
    http://mom.missouri.edu/photos.html

    What goes on in these conferences seems to be a cross between an Amway motivational seminar, a religious “revival” meeting, and a military pep-talk. These are a gathering of the like-minded attempting to build the confidence/motivation to impose their [deranged] view/will. The question is well asked, how much do these people know about anything. These self-proclaimed superiorists don’t seem to understand too much at all. By the looks of these people, many don’t look physically well, let alone mentally healthy, i.e., they particularly shouldn’t be “throwing stones”. Their view of smoking/smokers must be so [erroneously] pitiful – their own bigoted concoction/projection, that they look “good/great” in comparison. And, of course, they want to do their bit to “fix-up” the world. These conferences attract a mutual-admiration group of the ignorant, the arrogant, the gullible, the stupid, the neurotic, the bigoted, the tyrannical.

    Unfortunately, there’s more. Ty[rant] is a man for the dysfunctional, deteriorating times. He’s an in-demand jet-setter. He sells his perverse services, and not for a pittance either:

    MISSION
    The National Center for Tobacco Policy (NCTP) teaches organizations how to develop, implement and sustain a tobacco free environment
    http://www.tobaccofreenow.org/

    TELECONFERENCES $200/hr
    ON-CAMPUS CONSULTATION $1200/day + travel
    TOBACCO POLICY WORKSHOPS Registration costs vary.
    PRODUCTS IN DEVELOPMENT Costs will vary.
    QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM $550/year
    http://www.tobaccofreenow.org/services/

    Got that? $200 an hour for teleconferences and $1200 a day (plus travel) for an in-the-flesh consultation. The only thing more troubling is that there are universities/colleges seeking Ty[rant]’s “services”. Administrators are happy to pay quite handsomely for a neurotic bigot to come on to their campus to teach them how to become better, more effective neurotic bigots. …..Extraordinary. Ty[rant] would do well to seek some psychotherapy and these administrators should hang their heads in deep shame that the academic setting has deteriorated so much on their watch and that they gave themselves over to such a needless, stupid, draconian, bigoted antismoking policy, i.e., bandwagon riders.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Need a Rope!

    • From the 2012 conference call for attendees:

      “In addition to a variety of pre-conference workshops and keynote speakers, session topics may include:

      Alcohol and Drug Abuse
      Peer education and prevention programming
      Social norms theory
      Program Evaluation and Assessment
      Law enforcement strategies to reduce underage drinking
      High risk and underage drinking
      Sexual Health
      Sexual assault and sexual violence
      Coalition building and advocacy
      Risk management
      GAMMA and health promotion in Greek systems
      Tobacco prevention and cessation
      Mental Health Issues and Suicide”

      To be bracketed together with those issues tells us everything we need to know about how anti-social, dangerous and quasi-criminal we are believed to be by these saviours.

      What the heck is “social norms theory”? And is it as soul-crushing as it sounds?

      • brigitteschulze@hotmail.com says:

        Quite frankly, some of these session topics need some form of clarification. Here mine:

        1. Peer education and prevention programming
        = bully your friends into whatever you have been told is good for you. That way no money needs to be spent.

        2. Social norms theory
        = expansion of the above. Some expenditure for governments, though; the cost of compulsory “behavioural medication”. Individual thought processes will be illegal.

        3. Law enforcement strategies to reduce underage drinking
        = adapt the law to add further tax to alcohol and put the little drinkers into prison for 5 years. Shoot their parents on site.

        4. Sexual Health
        = sticking more condoms over cucumbers in primary school classes.

        5. Coalition building and advocacy
        = find coalition partners and legalize the most absurd coalition?

        6. GAMMA and health promotion in Greek systems
        = greek people, duck and run. You will be made to adhere to the smoking ban!!!

        7. Tobacco prevention and cessation
        = enforcing of the holy denormalisation programme everywhere. Especially the greek people.

        8. Mental Health Issues and Suicide
        = blame smokers.

        Who finances this “conference”?

  19. brigitteschulze@hotmail.com says:

    Most of us have encountered online, at one time or other, antismokers who hope we die of cancer or some other lingering disease. But the kind of threats of violence, and actual violence, that are being reported here represents a considerable escalation of the war on smokers.

    I have encountered online some anti-smokers who think that we “should be gassed” or “put against a wall and shot”.
    I have heard of anti-smokers in Germany beating up smokers but this gets minimal/ no media cover.

    I guess I am lucky to live where I live. Even non-smokers look the other way or smile, some of which actually say: “it’s despicable what they (who ever they mean!) do to you”.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Might as well name it the THE NEW EUGENICS MODEL

      The Social Norms Approach:
      Theory, Research,
      and Annotated Bibliography
      August 2004

      “Initial results from programs adopting an intensive social norms approach are
      promising. Several institutions that persistently communicated accurate norms
      have experienced reductions of up to twenty percent in high-risk drinking over a
      relatively short period of time…. Together these findings provide strong support
      for the potential impact of the social norms approach. Although any case report
      in this literature could be challenged methodologically, the results of each study
      are remarkably consistent.” (NIAAA, p. 13, 2002)

      Click to access social_norms.pdf

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Since the NIAAA report numerous new studies have provided additional evidence for
        social norms’ efficacy. In addition to addressing alcohol use with social norms marketing
        campaigns other programs have demonstrated the effectiveness of social norms
        interventions in [[[reducing or preventing cigarette smoking]]], reducing DWI, changing
        attitudes associated with rape proclivity in men, and reducing sexual assault. Positive
        results have been obtained with college and university students, with high school and
        middle-school populations, and in defined populations such as sorority and fraternity
        members, athletes, and first-year college students, and with individuals, groups, and
        communities. More recently, a number of social norms interventions have been
        evaluated and found to be successful without parallel changes in comparison groups.

  20. harleyrider1978 says:

    Honest to god this social norm shit sounds like its about not only brainwashing the end target but the ones doing the targeting too!

  21. RexMnd says:

    Re: ‘bing11 says:’
    Thanks for posting link to photo gallery. Couple of observations.
    -I don’t see a single attractive girl/chick/woman (ok, maybe one or two borderline cases) in the crowd, and quite a few are morbidly obese (see Image 33). Perhaps less attractive progressive ladies feel that this is a ‘soft-skills’ area of the future, offering more possibilities for career advancement.Or, the way to meet like-minded partner? Whichever, it suggests continuing application of succesfull feminist template, only to a different target group.
    – Funding, obviously, was not an issue i.e.combined indoor/ outdoor setting, refreshements, light meals, projectors, lightning, IT support, shiny award plaques, etc.
    – For me, the whole thing has a creepy vibe, Stepford Non-Smoking Children Lunching at People’s Temple in Guyana…

  22. RexMnd says:

    ..part of it dissapeared in the black hole…
    The visual experience is for me very important as we are mostly limited to communicating via written word. I’ve only seen couple of photos of anti-smoking advocates and associate the movement visually with middle-aged bespectacled men.
    This link helped me better understand the oppositon, and also better identify key stakeholders, which is critical to the success of any project.
    For example:
    Cluster 1: Chubby White Young Women of College Age – well represented
    Cluster 2: Young Asian Males – not represented at all… therefore I find this event terribly offensive and racist…;-) and will write to my representative to alert her/him about ongoing xenophobia and bigotry in so-called Anti-Smoking Movement.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      I carry a gun,why bruise your knuckles on rabid government fed hate when they attack you! Shootem…………..legal like! For those idiot anti-smokers who think they can beat up on us smokers think again……….You think SHS/ETS is killing you,then you need mental help……..I havent even seen a fly killed by my second hand smoke flying above my food in a restaraunt ever………and your scared! KMAMF!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        BTW I do have a concealed carry permit………I was a military policeman in Rota Spain.

        If your threatened with bodily harm or attacked you have the right to defend yourself even using deadly force if need be…..Thats what rabid attackers should understand, if they dont We can hate it for their luck,ehh!

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

  24. Scot says:

    My first encounter with the neurotics was in a bus shelter in the city centre, from what period I recall from my job at the time must have been early 90’s, – it was pissing down, I was fagging it waiting to get home after work and a swankily dressed couple in their 40’s started all the theatrical coughing and waving of hands they do.

    I was astonished at it all, then I overheard the American accents, I guess they must have been from California!

    They must have been reassured that our local buses went smoke-free in about 1990.

    Fuck knows how they put up with all our smoke-as-you please venues on their visit…

    I laughed them off as absolute cranks, waving like windmills in a bus shelter with a howling gale ripping through it.

    Not laughing at them now, fucking angry now.

  25. Scot says:

    Actually, it was MY bus shelter, paid out of MY Poll Tax, and MY municipal bus company they travelled on, subsidised again from MY Poll Tax bills.

    Told you I would get angry, should have done better at the time if I had a nicotine tainted crystal ball.

  26. Pingback: Smoke ‘Em If Ya Got ‘Em | Frank Davis

  27. Jerome says:

    These are some of the root problems that need to
    be solved before addiction can be totally overcome. It usually starts at
    an early age for most and it is anywhere between the age of 10 to 15 years old where most
    have their first exposure to pornography. We’ve created some cool inventions and we
    innovate rather quickly when it’s forced upon us.

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.