Intentional or Unintentional

I’ve been musing over something that came up in an online smoky-drinky earlier this evening, when someone remarked of the social division and exclusion consequent upon smoking bans that it was one of the “unintended consequences” of them.

And I replied that I thought such division and exclusion was fully intended. There was nothing unintentional about it at all. And in evidence I cited the Deborah Arnott quote which I keep in the right margin of this blog. She wrote, 6 months before the UK smoking ban came into force:

“Smokers will be exiled to the outdoors.”

And that meant that she knew in advance what the outcome of the smoking ban was going to be. Smokers were going to be exiled to the outdoors. And she was quite right. That’s exactly what happened. It certainly wasn’t something I was able to foresee at the time.

But since she knew what was going to happen, and did nothing to stop it happening, it means that she was quite happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. And it also meant that she, and her colleagues in Tobacco Control, fully and knowingly intended this to happen.

How did she know? From the experiences gained by Tobacco Control during smoking bans introduced earlier, when smokers were exiled to the outdoors.

So there can be no possibility whatsoever that the exile of smokers outdoors was an unintended consequence, and unfortunate accident. It wasn’t. It was completely and entirely intentional.

We might also look at the particular words she chose to use. She used the word “exile”. In Webster’s dictionary, “exile” is defined as “the state or a period of forced absence from one’s country or home.” Exile was often used in antiquity as a form of punishment which removed people from society, very often permanently, without actually killing them. She could have used any number of other words, but she chose a word with a very precise meaning.

And also she used the word “outdoors”, which means outside of any kind of shelter. Smokers were going to be exiled to the cold and wet and windy outdoors. And this is the hostile environment from which people everywhere shelter in warm, dry houses, because prolonged exposure to these external elements poses a considerable threat to human health and life. But Deborah Arnott (and Tobacco Control) were nevertheless content to deliberately and knowingly exile smokers to the cold and the wet and the wind.

If nothing else, this goes to show that Tobacco Control has no interest whatsoever in the well-being of smokers. Because nobody would use one trivial health risk (the non-threat posed by secondhand smoke) as a pretext for imposing a far more serious health risk (of death by exposure to cold). And indeed, one might even reasonably suppose that, by deliberately exposing smokers to a far greater health risk, Tobacco Control was either utterly indifferent to their health, or actively wished to undermine it.

But also, once smokers had been successfully exiled to the outdoors, it necessarily followed that they were separated from their non-smoking or ex-smoking friends who continued to enjoy the warmth and comfort and hospitality indoors. And so the exile of smokers was bound to divide the insiders from the outsiders. No other consequence was possible. And so this subsequent social division was also fully intended (and most likely something else that Tobacco Control had learned from their experience with earlier smoking bans). Once again, there was nothing unintentional about it at all.

In fact, we may suppose that almost all of the consequences that have flowed from smoking bans have been fully intended by Tobacco Control. None of them were accidental. And that includes the inevitable and entirely foreseeable economic damage to pubs and bars and restaurants once a large fraction of their customers were exiled to the outdoors. Tobacco Control had no doubt learned from earlier smoking bans that this was another consequence. And it would appear, once again, that it was a consequence that they fully accepted.

And all these consequences would appear to be consistent with Tobacco Control’s goal of denormalising and demonising and excluding smokers. They have embarked on an eugenic programme – a form of social cleansing – in which the undesirable smoking elements of society are to be systematically separated out, and excluded or purged from society.

And indeed it would appear that smokers are not the only “undesirable elements” in the controllers’ sights. Drinkers and fat people are also equally undesirable. And this may explain the indifference of Tobacco Control to the closure of numerous pubs and cafes and restaurants – because they were all full of undesirable social elements who, if they weren’t smoking, would be drinking and eating. They were all to be expelled.

And in pursuing these eugenic social goals, Tobacco Control employs a veritable arsenal of lies. Their assertion that secondhand tobacco smoke poses a health threat is a lie, but it is a lie that serves to get smokers exiled. So also is their claim, intended to re-assure worried bartenders and restaurateurs, that the exiled smokers will be replaced by non-smokers flocking to their newly smoke-free premises. This never happens, but by the time the bars and restaurants have woken up to this, it’s too late to do anything about it. Tobacco Control has a lie ready for every eventuality. They play up the health threat from secondhand smoke, but play down the far more real health threat of exposure to the elements outdoors. They play up the non-existent health benefits of smoking bans, and play down the social and economic impacts of them.

I don’t mean to suggest here that antismoking zealots know exactly what they’re doing in every respect. I simply mean that they knew all along that smokers would be exiled to the outdoors, that communities would be divided, and pubs bankrupted. And they knew this because they’d seen it happen before. And they probably took the view that you can’t make omelettes without breaking eggs, as Lenin once remarked.

But Tobacco Control is still learning, and still has a lot to learn. They have taken their relatively small experience of smoking bans in a few localities – e.g. San Francisco -, and used this as the template for rolling out bans almost everywhere in the world. They believe that what worked in San Francisco would work everywhere else. There are, needless to say, a good many reasons to suppose that they may be mistaken about this.

In short, they don’t know everything. In fact, they know very little at all. And they have embarked upon a global eugenic programme which is based on some laughably simplistic assumptions about what such programmes can achieve. For they clearly believe that they can create some sort of utopian, ideal society simply by removing non-ideal elements from existing society – purging it of smokers, drinkers, fat people, and whoever else fails to measure up to their ideals. One might say that such simplistic eugenic programmes are doomed to inevitable failure, if only for the very simple reason that they will inevitably make the would-be controllers truly colossal numbers of sworn enemies of them and their programmes and their eugenic ideology.

But the point I wish to emphasise is that Tobacco Control are fully aware of the damage they are currently doing, and they are continually looking to keep that damage concealed, very often using outright lies to play down social and economic costs, or play up largely non-existent health benefits. Exile, exclusion, and division were not unintended consequences. They were consequences that were both foreseeable and foreseen. And they were welcomed because they served the purpose of denormalising smoking and excluding smokers.

In Tobacco Control we are not dealing with kindly, well-meaning health care workers, trying to improve everyone’s health, but making unintended errors. We are dealing with a carefully-planned, idealistic, eugenic social programme that anyone with the slightest trace of civility or humanity should find utterly abhorrent, and should fight tooth and nail until it is destroyed like its Nazi predecessor, only destroyed far more completely.


About Frank Davis

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

29 Responses to Intentional or Unintentional

  1. Ripper says:

    Its all about divide and conquer Frank. Separate all the factions, make them hate one another – I’ve heard Leggy say that the fatties/drinkers etc will get no sympathy from him because they didn’t stick up for the smokers. But when we are all divided like that we are easier to control. Smokers and vapers for example should be standing together to fight what is a common enemy. As each group is denormalised we should welcome them into our group and stand together.

  2. waltc says:

    I fully agree that the division was intentional. The intention was to blackmail smokers into quitting ( your cigarettes or your social life) and to make society in general, and their own friends in particular, view them as unacceptable companions. This was spelled out in early TC documents. I’m quoting below from an article with no URL and I may have to (forgive me) chain post to make it clear how very “intentional” this was:

    Excerpts from a 1991 US gov’t (NIH/NCI) “Blueprint for Public Health Action in the 1990’s” :

    “As social beings, humans are subject to a desire to conform, to adopt the social conventions and norms of the majority, To the extent that individuals perceive their actions as deviant, there will be pressure to conform… Efforts to control tobacco use, then, should focus on creating a social environment that provides persistent and inescapable cues to smokers to stop smoking…” “.. the best way to change an individual’s behavior is to intervene through his social structures.”

    Another’90’s Blueprint (sponsored by a coalition of NGO’s) maintains as a major goal: “To foster public perception that smoking is a socially unacceptable behavior.” The bulletin then adds that: “Restrictions on smoking in public places remain a keystone in the overall challenge to achieve a tobacco-free society.”

    The motive behind bans, then, was not to protect the innocent from secondhand smoke but, by officially excluding them by law, to make others begin to see all smokers as unacceptable and deviant. The “desire to conform,” then, would cut both ways as the conformist nonsmoker would hop aboard the bandwagon of Public Opinion, and the now-excluded smoker would clamor to be let back in (or out, in the case of outdoor bans) to the Brotherhood of Man.

    Most tellingly, one of the 9 members the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel (specifically selected to “independently review” the EPA’s 1992 report) included a Dr. David Burns, who openly admitted to having spent “half his time in the anti-smoking movement.” In testifying on behalf of an (early 90’s) outdoor ban that included city sidewalks and beaches in Del Mar, California, according to a Congressiona report, “Dr. Burns had made clear that his single-minded focus on promoting and supporting restrictions on the use of tobacco in any public place was to penalize smokers for their decision to smoke.”

    Burns had said, on the record, that: “In order to modify smoking behavior, one needs to… create an environment in the larger society that actually discourages [smoking.] The key [is] change the larger environment in which [the smoker] functions to make it less conducive to using cigarettes…And to the extent that [the Del Mar ban] changes the image of the cigarette smoker and changes the psychological and sociological rewards of smoking…it contributes to changing the environment.”


    “Many people quit smoking because it’s just plain socially unacceptable,”[said a spokesman for the American Cancer Society.]”Health risks didn’t move them…But the fact that they were social pariahs and not welcome in their own buildings did move them.”

    And therefore, goes the thinking, it was well worth turning such a “Them” into pariahs.

    • waltc says:

      That should have read (in bold there) “to change an individual’s behavior” (not an individual behavior). The other typos can be easily read around.

  3. waltc says:


    “And then there’s the obvious backlash factor. The Inner Directed smokers have staunchly refused to quit because of the nasty pressure and have bonded into a class in such a way that their act of smoking is now a badge of their rebellion against the obvious manipulation.

    Exactly what a smart sociologist might predict:


    The campaign, quite predictably, binds smokers into a class:

    “Dr. Howard Shaffer, director of Harvard’s Norman Zinzberg Center for Addiction Studies, warns that the (Boston) Health Department’s ad campaign ‘has an underside where it clearly ostracizes people. Groups that withdraw from the social mainstream become [a class] unto themselves with a new value structure. Splitting the society, one faction against another, has a danger. It does concern me.’

    “Clifford Carr…a fierce and proven anti-smoking warrior [who] works as a tobacco-control expert at a research institution in Los Alamitos, Ca… is concerned about the stigma being created by the anti-smoking forces. ‘There is no doubt that what we are doing is creating a new class…Cigarette smokers are outcasts at this point. These people are being ostracized.”

    “Dr Michael Montagne, associate professor of pharmacy administration at Massachusetts College of Pharmacy..:’While we’re trying to have an impact [on people’s smoking] there could be a negative fallout. More than likely, the big impact is that people will just be nasty to each other in public places.’ “We create this mindset for the nonsmoker,[Montagne continues] that smokers are something that they’re really not. The impact would then be on interpersonal or working relationships. There could really be a problem. If smokers are portrayed as vile, people will say, ‘Well, really, I don’t want to live with this person anymore,’…whether these relations are in a workplace, a school or a home.”

    And finally, this, from John Luik, “Pandora’s Box,” 1994

    “By far the most morally objectionable aspect of the anti- smoking movement…is its readiness to use corrupted science to deprive smokers not only of their right to pursue their pleasure in public, but quite possibly to gain or retain their employment, or advance their prospects. Put more bluntly, it is a question of whether it is morally justified to use bad science to hurt people?….

    In doing so, the anti-smoking movement simultaneously violates perhaps the two most fundamental moral principles, first by treating persons, in this case smokers, as merely means to the end of a smoke-free society…and second by inflicting substantial pain on an entire class of people without their consent and for no compelling reason.

    But the question of…using corrupt science goes beyond depriving individuals of rights to something far more crucial, namely, the justifiability of depriving individualsof their moral standing through stigmatizing them as moral outcasts….In the end, this is of course, the logic- al outcome of ETS “science” to make smokers a class of moral miscreants.”

  4. Rose says:

    Of course it was intentional.

    Prepare to be ostracised, all you smokers of England
    11 Jun 2007

    “Smokers of England, lay down your cigarettes. Yes, right away; stub them out. Now take a few deep breaths, to allow your blood to become reoxygenated, and your brain function to be restored.

    What I’m about to tell you is very important. It is the story of what is about to happen to you, and the society you inhabit, when the smoking ban in pubs, restaurants and workplaces comes into force on July 1.

    You’ll find some of this story quite unexpected: indeed, I would struggle to believe it myself had I not experienced it in Scotland in the 15 months since the ban was introduced here.

    For a start, there will be no rebellion. All those rumblings you’re hearing about boycotts of pubs, of unrest and civil strife? Fights over the B&H? Of landlords defying the law? Forget it.
    Those are but the defiant mutterings of a defeated army, beginning the long retreat from Moscow.

    There will be no trouble at all.
    The smokers, meek as lambs, will either stand obediently outside or refrain from smoking”

    “And that, dear smokers, is the great alienation that you face. In the reborn, smoke-free England, prepare to become perceived as a relic. You’ve been left behind. Worse than that, you must prepare to be regarded as, well . . . ever so slightly down-market.

    As you stand outside your pub or your club or your restaurant, or even your friend’s dinner party, you will find you have become part of a sad, excluded, sheepish army of no-hopers, the huddled masses who loiter, sucking deeply on their drug of choice.”

    “And it’s not just the company smokers that are forced to keep, it’s the surroundings. Away from the high streets, where chairs and tables outside have helped create a (long overdue) mood of café culture, Scotland has sprouted a forest of shabby plastic awnings, scuffed beer gardens with patio heaters, and Perspex shelters that look like bus stops.
    Littered with fag butts, these are not the places for the fashionable to be seen.
    Without protest, these shelters have subsequently been banned at all hospitals. Councils have stopped staff smoking outside offices, depots and schools.

    So will snobbery be the unexpected weapon of the antismoking lobby in England? I expect it will.
    The organisation Ash hopes that four million people, or almost 40 per cent of smokers, will stop because of the ban.”

    But as far as I can see from that point on it all went horribly wrong if forcing people to give up the habit of a lifetime was the original intent.
    Perhaps we just do not fit the “simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic creatures” they thought we did.

    • beobrigitte says:

      “And that, dear smokers, is the great alienation that you face. In the reborn, smoke-free England, prepare to become perceived as a relic. You’ve been left behind. Worse than that, you must prepare to be regarded as, well . . . ever so slightly down-market.

      As you stand outside your pub or your club or your restaurant, or even your friend’s dinner party, you will find you have become part of a sad, excluded, sheepish army of no-hopers, the huddled masses who loiter, sucking deeply on their drug of choice.”

      “And it’s not just the company smokers that are forced to keep, it’s the surroundings.

      So will snobbery be the unexpected weapon of the antismoking lobby in England? I expect it will.

      Rose, have you seen this?

      First you force the smokers out then invent a new class system which throws them into the “lowest class” due to the choice most smokers make – to stay and socialize at home, or, as in the case of older people, become very lonely people
      After all, wasn’t it an Ashite who proudly announced that “older people who can drag themselves to a pub can drag themselves outside to smoke” ?

      I did this Where do you fit in the new class system? twice:

      The first time I did this test I ticked the boxes where I went and what I did PRIOR to the smoking ban was dictated.
      I was quite surprised to score as high as I did, but then, prior to the smoking ban I went quite often to theater (I do like a good play, ballet and even opera, although I must admit, Wagner can be a bit of a challenge) where during the interval you exchanged first impressions often with complete strangers with a drink and a cigarette.

      The second time I did this test I ticked the boxes where I go and what I do SINCE the smoking ban was dictated.
      I scored considerably lower, as I am a customer who – like everyone else – PAYS. And I do expect my wish for a comfortable smoking area is being catered for.

      My interests haven’t changed, I am just not willing to spend money in an establishment which kicks me out the door when I wish to smoke a cigarette.

      Another observation: there is no age group 70 and above. I wonder how they would score….. If the attitude is that they are unimportant as they are dying, anyway, what about the pensioners of the future that – according to tobacco control – will live “10 years longer” ?

  5. magnetic01 says:

    Frank, my comment got “moderationalized” (it’s in reply to Walt’s comment).

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Now they went after guns in America,that just added 10s of millions against the nanny Nazis.They may not know it yet the non-smoking gun owners of all political persuasions but they are allies in the war against our common foe. The bans ,obesity control, gun control,alcohol control all of it is a common enemy the nanny Nazis and they are mostly PROGRESSIVES! Followed closely by the RINO’s. The end of the bans and all the rest of the trash made up public health threats are doomed. They’ve made to many enemies and that’s when even their own supporters toes get stepped on and they turn on each other. We will start to see many turn against the healthiest movement in the months ahead. The time has come,Hitler learned the hard way about a 2 front war these Nazis have created a 10×100 front war on every person around the globe. They amass against a common foe and they don’t even realize it yet. But the Nazis aren’t stupid or are they. If they haven’t figured out the billions of enemies they’ve created against themselves they are indeed going to have a rude awakening when the house of cards collpases around them.

    • Barry Homan says:

      Does anyone remember when NOBODY cared if a guy was standing at a bus-stop, smoking a cigarette? Does anyone remember seeing a kid on a damn bicycle and he wasn’t (god forbid) wearing a protective helmet? Does anyone remember when hotels and airports didn’t have prayer rooms??

      Does anyone remember when we better things to occupy our lives with than filling out space on blogs like this?


      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The United Nations and public healthism!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Gun rights advocates fear U.N. treaty will lead to U.S. registry
        The U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday approved a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty aimed at regulating the estimated $60 billion international arms trade, brushing aside gun rights groups’ concerns that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry in the U.S.

        The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons.

        SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control

        The treaty also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes or international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries where they could be used for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

        “This is a good day for the United Nations, and a good day for the peoples of the world,” said Australian Ambassador Peter Woolcott, the lead negotiator during the process.

        With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 155-3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against the proposal.
        ** FILE ** U.N. forces patrol a street in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, on Thursday, Dec. 23, 2010. (AP Photo/Sunday Alamba)

        Enlarge Photo
        ** FILE ** U.N. forces patrol a street in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, … more >

        U.S. gun rights activists say the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. The activists said they do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

        One provision requires participating countries to keep records of arms exports and imports, including the quantity, value, model/type, and “end users, as appropriate” for at least 10 years.

        Gun record-keeping is a thorny issue in the U.S., where similar questions have stalled a debate over expanding background checks to include all private gun sales.

        SEE RELATED: Texas AG to Obama: I’ll sue if U.N. Arms Treaty is ratified

        Second Amendment supporters worry that such records eventually will pave the way for a national firearms registry, currently prohibited by federal law.

        Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying he would sue to block the treaty if it is ratified. It “appears to lay the groundwork for an international gun registry overseen by the bureaucrats at the UN,” the letter said.

        The Senate last month also signaled its aversion, voting 53-46 to oppose the treaty in a nonbinding test vote as part of the budget debate. Eight Democrats joined all 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.

        Sen. Jerry Moran, Kansas Republican, said Tuesday that it made no sense to pass a treaty that will bind the U.S., while Iran, Syria and North Korea will ignore it.

        “The U.S. Senate is united in strong opposition to a treaty that puts us on level ground with dictatorships who abuse human rights and arm terrorists, but there is real concern that the administration feels pressured to sign a treaty that violates our constitutional rights,” Mr. Moran said.

        White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was pleased with the outcome, but “as is the case with all treaties of this nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty.”

        Amnesty International and the Arms Control Association hailed the U.N. vote.

        Read more:
        Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

      • nisakiman says:

        I remember when one was asked: “Smoking or Non-Smoking” at the check-in desk…

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          I always said Im not particular! Then smoke any damn way!

        • Rose says:

          Nisakiman, guess who ..

          Testimony of JOHN F. BANZHAF III Professor of Law at the George Washington University and Executive Director of ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH ASH a National Nonprofit Scientific and Educational Organization, before the Subcommittee on Aviation, U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, May 18, 1994 at 9:30 AM about AIRLINER CABIN AIR QUALITY

          “As the attorney who in 1969 took the first major action against the problem of polluted in-flight air by bringing a legal action which required no-smoking sections, and who brought a series of over 100 law suits and other legal actions which gradually strength- ened these protections for nonsmokers and led the way toward the eventual ban on smoking aboard domestic flights, I am honored to be invited to testify today.

          My purpose this morning is to advise you of what may well be, along with the risks smoking sections pose to flight attendants who must work in them, the most dangerous health problem from polluted air existing on airlines today – and the one which can be most easily corrected, and at zero cost.

          On behalf of the millions of tragic, tiny, and defense-less victims, we seek your assistance in solving it – either by pressuring the airlines themselves, or the agency responsible for regulating them, or by passing new legislation.

          The problem is that young children are routinely seated in the smoking sections on non-domestic flights where they are subjected to enormous concentrations of tobacco smoke far higher than even non-smoking adults are likely to encounter in their everyday lives”

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Non-smoking bars will fail
    Tuesday, Apr 02, 2013 03:00 am

    So, another one is “Up in Smoke”. The River Roadhouse in High River, longtime supporter of live music in Southern Alberta, is closing its doors forever.

    This venue was an “atmosphere defined” and pre-2008 when our oppressive Tobacco Reduction Act came into being, was usually wall-to-wall people enjoying live music and celebrating with friends.

    It was not uncommon to have a lineup of people waiting to get in at the door as opposed to three-quarters of the patrons outside having a smoke (leaving a near-empty bar inside). Mr. Stelmach in 2007 commented that his administration “would not be visiting” the anti-tobacco issue. Liar. By January 2008 the law had been passed (without the people’s involvement) and smokers were banished, everywhere except outside. This hit the smaller bars and lounges the hardest.

    I heard that in one instance a small tavern’s business dropped 90 per cent. “Business will bounce back” the politicians exclaimed. Well, it did not. The first cut most small live music venues made was to their entertainment budget, cutting down band size or quality. The River Roadhouse, however, continued to employ local musicians and even major recording acts. (Trooper, Streetheart, Nazareth etc.) Now, as are many others, I am still a smoker (presently) but will quit if and when I decide to. Not the government.

    If I own a bar, I should have the right to choose what happens on my property and take responsibility for the choices I make. Not the government. People will eventually not smoke and the market will decide what is more popular–smoking or non-smoking bars.

    A couple of decades ago, there were a couple of bars that opened in Calgary offering smoke-free environments. They were out of business within the year. Non-smoking bars will fail right now. Plus or minus a few percentage points, this is why: 1) 85 per cent of smokers go to bars. 2) 85 per cent of non-smokers do not go to bars. To fix this the government strove to level the playing field by banning smoking in bars and restaurants across the board.

    Government interference in the marketplace? Yes, indeed! Then we got word of our new .05 per cent alcohol law where police could (and still can) actually punish you on the spot, without an actual conviction in a court of law. People are scared to death of exceeding this limit. Alcohol sales drop. If people want to have a few drinks and smoke at the same time, they avoid the bars, stay home and watch T.V. or listen to their own collection of music. Bar revenue drops – heavily. Government share of VLT/bingo revenue drops – heavily.

    Quality of life (*for everyone) drops – heavily. To conclude: “Hey, Ms. Redford. Relax some of these smoking restrictions just a little and let the marketplace decide for now. Do not continue to deny us our freedom of choice.

    “Quit eroding our right to fair trial by changing the DUI rules on the fly just because B.C. or California said it was a cool thing to do”.

    And, finally, bring back some common sense. If only those politicians would listen. But, then again, we as Albertans have let this happen through our lack of action. (*Non-smokers can go to a smoke-free bar but the bar itself can no longer afford top-notch live music. Speaking of the smaller, neighbourhood pub type of businesses.)

    Doug Watt


  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    U.S. Supreme Court Cases
    1830 – 2008

    Citing “Cigarettes,” “Smoking, or “Tobacco”
    Supreme Court Cases on Cigarettes, Smoking and Tobacco
    Supreme Court Cases on Cigarettes, Smoking, and Tobacco

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Faber: Cyprus Will Happen Everywhere…

    What Happened In Cyprus Will Happen Everywhere: Marc Faber

    Growing wealth inequality means that the wealthy have nowhere to hide and that events like those in Cyprus will happen in more countries around the world, including developed nations, said Marc Faber, the contrarian investor and publisher of the Gloom, Boom & Doom Report.

    “It will happen everywhere in the world, in Western democracies,” Faber said “Squawk on the Street” on Tuesday. “You have more people that vote for a living than work for a living. I think you have to be prepared to lose 20 to 30 percent. I think you’re lucky if you don’t lose your life.”

    “If you look at what happened in Cyprus, basically people with money will lose part of their wealth, either through expropriation or higher taxation,” he added.

    “The problem is that 92 percent of financial wealth is owned by 5 percent of the population. The majority of people don’t own meaningful stock positions and they don’t benefit from a rise in the stock market. They are being hurt by a rising cost of living and we all know that the real incomes of median households has been going down for the last few years,” he said.

    (Related: China’s Colossal Credit Bubble Next Big Risk: Marc Faber)

    Another item that Faber is worried about is with new market highs, a number of important stocks are not leading the way. He listed companies like GE, IBM, Federal Express, Yum, Intel, Merck, Oracle and home builders, which are have stock prices that are lower than in January or on par with where they were in November. “We have a narrow leadership in consumer stocks,” Faber said.

    “What concerns me really is that most foreign markets have performed badly. The U.S. is the only game in town,” Faber said.

  10. garyk30 says:

    Here is something else the’no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke’ people have known all along.

    Here are the USP standards for the maximum allowable daily exposures for each of these metals from inhalation medicines, in micrograms (from the United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Revision Bulletin, Elemental Impurities–Limits, February 1, 2013) :

    Lead = 5.0

    Chromium = 25

    Nickel = 1.5

    Arsenic = 1.5

    Mercury = 1.5

    Here are the amounts of these chemicals in the mainstream smoke(inhaled by smoker) of the average cigarette as found in the 1999 Mass. Benchmark Study.

    These are in nanograms which are 1/1,000th of a microgram.

    Lead = 63/cigarette = 1,260 per 20 cigs.
    That is 25% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Chromium = 12/cig.= 240 per 20 cigs.
    That is 1% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Arsenic = 14/cig = 280 per 20 cigs.
    That is 19% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Nickel = 12/cig = 240 per 20 cigs.
    That is 16% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.

    Mercury = 6/cig = 120 per 20 cigs.
    That is 0.5% of the USP max allowable daily exposure.(1/2 of 1%)

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Here seems to be the entire argument against the bans:

    State courts cannot regulate items that affect commerce, only the federal government can. In Gibbons v. Ogden the court established that the Constitution defines federal power to regulate commerce and no part of the power can be exercised by a state (22 US 1). This decision showed that the court will not allow state legislation to affect the economy. State powers do not include regulating the economy and that the states cannot create laws that ultimately control businesses

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      During the 1930s, the Court used the doctrine of substantive due process to strike down federal legislation as well, particularly legislation associated with President franklin d. roosevelt’s New Deal. In 1937, Roosevelt proposed a court-packing scheme in which Roosevelt would have sought to overcome Court opposition to his programs by appointing additional justices. Although the plan was never adopted, the Court quickly changed its position on substantive due process and other issues and began to uphold New Deal legislation. Now, a majority on the Court, including Chief Justice charles e. hughes and Justice benjamin n. cardozo, abandoned the freedom-of-contract version of substantive due process.

      Now with what FDR did basically threatening the high court how can anyone expect justice in any court if ever!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        I gather thats how OBAMACARE was passed and no doubt gay marriage which is up at the court now will be sanctioned by the high court……..We are in need of another american revolution.

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    NIH study sheds light on how to reset the addicted brain
    Research suggests that targeted stimulation of the brain’s prefrontal cortex is a promising treatment for addiction

    Could drug addiction treatment of the future be as simple as an on/off switch in the brain? A study in rats has found that stimulating a key part of the brain reduces compulsive cocaine-seeking and suggests the possibility of changing addictive behavior generally. The study, published in Nature, was conducted by scientists at the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the National Institutes of Health, and the University of California, San Francisco.

    “This exciting study offers a new direction of research for the treatment of cocaine and possibly other addictions,” said NIDA Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow. “We already knew, mainly from human brain imaging studies, that deficits in the prefrontal cortex are involved in drug addiction. Now that we have learned how fundamental these deficits are, we feel more confident than ever about the therapeutic promise of targeting that part of the brain.”

    Compulsive drug-taking, despite negative health and social consequences, has been the most difficult challenge in human drug addiction. NIDA researchers used an animal model of cocaine addiction, in which some rats exhibited addictive behavior by pushing levers to get cocaine even when followed by a mild electric shock to the foot. Other rats did not exhibit addictive responses.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Research suggests that targeted stimulation of the brain’s prefrontal cortex is a promising treatment for addiction

      I gather they are suggesting a LOBOTOMY for anyone on anything they dont like!

  13. Pingback: 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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s