I thought this was a great image from the Times-Picayune. Strong, purposeful, blue-eyed, level gaze.
It comes on the heels of Councilwoman LaToyah Cantrell calling for a strict ban on smoking in New Orleans:
The law would ban smoking in virtually every public place. Overlooking the river in Audubon Park? Nope. Picnic in City Park? Not there either.
In a bar? Prohibited. Just outside the bar? Not unless you are 25 feet away from the entrance.
Casino? Nope. Grandstand at the Fairgrounds? Not there or any other sporting venue.
The 25-page proposed ordinance would make it illegal to light up in 22 separately defined spaces. Essentially, it would make it illegal to smoke in any enclosed space that is open to the public or where people work, and on any public property, enclosed or otherwise…
But the ordinance requires at least two public meetings before it can be passed in March.
Fein hopes his group will be able to convince some of the council members that a ban would hurt business and get them to vote against an all-out ban. Failing that, he said, they may be able to at least soften it.
Cantrell’s tone suggests she’s not likely to give up much. Smokers are a minority, and their desire to indulge in what amounts to a suicidal practice should not trump the rights of non smokers to their public health, she said. “They are the minority, and they can decide who lives and who dies because of their desire to smoke a cigarette?” she asked. “No way.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember there were civil rights battles fought in the Deep South for at least one despised and excluded ‘minority’. Seems like Cantrell learned nothing from that, and is now quite happy to exclude another ‘minority’ she clearly despises: smokers.
I’ve been wondering all day if I can maybe help out the smoking minority in New Orleans a little bit in their fight against Tobacco Control. There’s a lot at stake for the Big Easy: its whole happy, easy-going, musical culture.
A couple of years back, Smokervoter asked me to write about the upcoming Proposition 29 in California. And so I did. And maybe it helped a bit, because Stanton Glantz’s Tobacco Control lost the vote, after initially looking set to win. That earned me an entry in Tobacco Tactics hall of infamy.
This time it’s slightly slightly different. It looks much more like what happened recently in Westminster, Massachusetts. It’s probably another case where the Board of Health has been bought by Tobacco Control, and is set to impose its puritanical values on the good people of New Orleans, largely against their will. In Westminster, the townsfolk revolted against the proposed ban on selling tobacco, and the local Board of Health climbed down.
Maybe something like that can happen in New Orleans.
But how much can a UK blogger help out with that? Maybe not a lot. Or maybe quite a lot.
My blog is already a meeting place for smokers, and a clearing house for ideas. Maybe there’ll be some suggestions. I know Smokervoter’s going to think about it.
Frank Davis 
Oh yes its a primary battle of N.O. we called it right.
They are running all the stops even the Appeal to authority sham.
Somebody needs to nail this asshole Doc in NOLA I cant get in to post
http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/11060874-123/letter-secondhand-smoke-is-public
My name is Mitchell Lirtzman. I have been a cardiothoracic surgeon for over 30 years, most of which have been spent operating on the consequences of tobacco abuse. I strongly agree with New Orleans City Councilwoman LaToya Cantrell’s ordinance proposal and support a 100 percent smoke-free New Orleans. As a member of the Louisiana Committee for Advocacy of the American Heart Association, I stand with the majority of the population who also believe that all workplaces should be smoke-free.
My specialty involves operating on countless patients with lung cancer, esophageal cancer, COPD, heart disease and limb-threatening vascular disease. Very few of these patients were nonsmokers. I have seen far too many die a painful death at the hands of these nearly preventable diseases.
James Gill seems to imply that the facts concerning the harmful effects of secondhand smoke to be “junk science” when he says “If secondhand smoke is the hazard it is alleged to be …”
The science is well-documented. A study done years ago on nonsmoking bartenders placed in smoking environments showed a marked decrease in lung function just by secondhand exposure alone. Service industry employees and musicians breathe 300 to 600 percent more secondhand smoke than any other type of employee. In fact, many have similar illnesses that one-pack-per-day smokers will develop.
Additionally, Gill states, “We are constantly being told that thousands die from secondhand smoke every year, but not one of them has ever been named.” If one understands the scientific method, one will know that these studies involve the statistics of thousands of patients, studied over many years.
A friend of my wife, a nonsmoker, died of lung cancer associated with secondhand smoke because her husbands all smoked. That’s a direct reference for you.
I do remember the name of the first man I ever saw die of emphysema. At the Hines VA in 1974, Mr. E.G. was slowly turning blue until he suffocated while awake. Or perhaps the young man I recently operated on for advanced lung cancer, a two-pack-per-day smoker. Yes, these are/were smokers, but the effects of secondhand smoke are just as dangerous.
While to smoke or not is a personal choice, no one has “the right” or the “free choice” to actively harm another person against their will. That is secondhand smoke.
People are concerned about asbestos exposure and the small risk of developing mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the chest cavity. There should be more intense and widespread outrage for the more obvious and commonplace health risk like tobacco smoke, which is a real, proven and common health hazard affecting millions of Americans every day.
I was fortunate to have participated in advocating for passage of the 2007 tobacco control legislation. Secondhand smoke exposure is a clear issue of public health, and our municipal leaders are elected to protect the health and welfare of all whom they serve. I’m hopeful that our leaders will join those of us concerned for the health and well-being of New Orleanians and all the citizens of Louisiana.
Mitchell Lirtzman
chief of surgery, Regional Medical Center of Acadiana
Lafayette
I busted their asses on NOLA and why Nola left me stay to fight it out is definitely surprising as they have always banned me before when we went at the junk science………
So when Nola lets it fight out I start to think the Nazis maybe loosing support from the leftist media but only time will tell.
This guys got more holes in his claims than swiss cheese. But he doesn’t name the study of so called bartenders and reduced lung function. I don’t recall it at all.
The next weak link is his claim about how they studied non smokers as each and everyone like they did physical exams and all that crap when we all know it was nearly all
Questionaire studies………….
Rallying the troops Frank that’s how important your Blog is!
Okay. I name the study. Here’s what I posted under his letter but the site shows only the first sentence of everyone’s comment so I doubt it’ll be read. If Smoking Lamp wants to quote it vetbatim in a hard copy letter to the ed, go ahead.
The study the Doctor is referring to here is undoubtedy the oft-cited Eisner et al, “Bartenders’ Respiratory Health After Establishment of Smoke-Free Bars and Taverns.” JAMA, 12/9/98. Here’s how it went:
Eisner attempted to demonstrate how bartenders’ health had improved between approximately a month before a California ban and about a month after. It was, he admitted, extremely difficult to muster volunteers, most bartenders being as hostile towards the study as they were to the ban. Ultimately, however, he gathered 53, a sample atypically weighted towards females, and younger ones at that. Already the potential for bias is pronounced, as the authors acknowledged, both on this and other grounds. In fact, their list of caveats consumes most of a page.(p. 1913)
Then too of the 53, about half had described themselves as “former smokers” [consider that some lied and still actively smoked] and 24 as “current.” The study also relied on the workers’ self-reports of their exposure other than work, their general state of health, and their agreeing –or not– that they experienced a presented (and suggested) list symptoms (none medically diagnosed or medically confirmed).
In most cases, the number reporting a given symptom were equalled or outweighed by the number who didn’t. For instance, at the baseline, 13 of the 53 had reported a sore throat (meaning 40 didn’t have one) and similarly, 28 had reported having a cough (which meant 25 didn’t.) And just for comparison, 7 of the 13 throats were still sore, and an average of 9 of the coughers were still coughing at the end of the experiment though one of them reported that his cough had gotten worse.
Lung function difference (measured spirometrically) depended on exactly how the numbers were diced. Statistical significance could only be tweaked when the stats were examined in one particular way, but fizzed with another twist. Lung function itself, especially at increments and decrements as small as were found in this study, is notoriously variable– can vary from breath to breath (same person, same test) and are also easily played upon by many other factors (see Keith, “The Rise and Fall of FEV1,” Chest, 2000) including the psychological. Then, too, one could note that in one of the three tests (forced expiratory flow) a decline (a bad sign) was observed AFTER the ban. (Eisner, Table 5, p 1912)
Finally, as Eisner himself pointed out: “controversy generated by the smoke-free bar and tavern legislation could have biased symptom reporting. If subjects who agreed with the smoking ban were more likely to report symptom reduction the observed improvement in symptom status could be inflated.” (p. 1913)
And though we I’m really not eager to engage in a Study Fight (the matches become endless) I’d simply point out that some other similar studies have shown opposite results, ie, no effect from secondhand smoke:
Kaufman et al, “Respiratory Symptoms and Lung Function in Relation to Passive Smoking,” Int J Epid, 1989; Jaakkola et al “Passive Smoking and Evolution of Lung Function in Young Adults,an 8 year longitudinal study. ” J. Clin Epid, 48, 1995; Comstock et al, “Respiratory Effects of Household Exposure to Tobacco Smoke…” Am Rev. Resp. Dis, 124, 1987;
Walt thanks I just read the whole thing thru my sleep coffee urinated eyes………….hell Im still asleep………….but good show. Its should b a ;letter to the editor.
I replied. The guy got above himself. He thinks he’s a big shot. But he isn’t.
Thanks Frank Id of already demoted him to a corpsman if I could get in.
I can’t seem to access the comments – am I missing something? When I click on ‘comments’ at the top of the page, it just takes me to the bottom of the (comment-less) page.
Seen that happen before too. Its either tricks or connection issues.
New era of cheap oil ‘will destroy green revolution’
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/new-era-of-cheap-oil-will-destroy-green-revolution-9922217.html
Smokefree advocates fight pre-emption laws that limit regulations on tobacco use in Tennessee
Read more: Smokefree advocates fight pre-emption laws that limit regulations on tobacco use in Tennessee | Johnson City Press http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/article/122865/smokefree-advocates-fight-pre-emption-laws-that-limit-regulations-on-tobacco-use-in-tennessee#ixzz3Lw7sDO19
It is time to stop the antismoker madness. The antismokers are not satisfied with educating people about risks. They want total control. They must be stopped.
A Century Ago: Rockefellers Funded Eugenics Initiative to Sterilize 15 Million Americans
The Rockefellers have been one of the largest financial backers and drivers of the eugenics and the depopulation agenda for over a century now. Check out these…
http://truthstreammedia.com/a-century-ago-rockefellers-funded-eugenics-initiative-to-sterilize-15-million-americans/
Councilwoman LaToyah Cantrell:
Jazz lovers are now in the minority. Most enjoy pop, rock, country and other music. Why should the majority be subjected to Jazz when they enter a bar in New Orleans ?
Particularly that repugnant Dixieland Jazz that wafts-out all over the French Quarter.
I personally enjoy Jazz and visit New Orleans for that express indulgence. Should we ban all Jazz in New Orleans ?
Please allow the property owners to make that decision. “Jazz and Smoking Permitted’ placards on the entrance sounds fair.
I think the zealots want to sterilise the creativity in everything, including that of the great celebration of the individual, traditional jazz.
In Portland they are trying to ban smoking in the parks. The local paper The Oregonian came out against the proposed ban in an editorial: “Portland commissioners should say ‘no’ to the tobacco-ban herd: Editorial Agenda 2014,” http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/12/portland_commissioners_should.html
This is a good sign, but there is lots of damage to repair. In a poll conducted by the paper 48% of respondent were against the poll, but a large segment 40% were in favor, The majority of pro-ban comments were based on the risk of SHS (outdoors)–essentially ignorance and fear.
The NOLA situation is thus pivotal; hopefully the tide can be turned and objective risk assessment and liberty restored…
Im hoping risk assessment gets dumped completely.Its to easily manipulated.
Some background on LaToylett Cantrell.
A few years ago her hubby, a lawyer, got busted when a joint fell out of his pocket in the courtroom:
http://www.sickchirpse.com/new-orleans-prosecutor-drops-spliff-in-court/
From LaToylett’s web page – she’s a Board Member of the Salvation Army of Greater New Orleans
http://latoyacantrell.com/meet-latoya/
The Salvation Army, a British import into America in the late-1800s, has long been anti-tobacco/alcohol. SA members are prohibited from using tobacco/alcohol (which has nothing to do with the Christian teaching).
LaToylett’s twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/latoya_cantrell
These are the council members in question. [Note LaToylett on the far right. She’s certainly a “solid” woman. In current medical parlance she’s seriously overweight. If she’s going to ride the healthist bandwagon, the same bandwagon would declare her – after her anti-tobacco usefulness – a “bad” role model]
http://www.louisianaweekly.com/n-o-mayor-council-are-sworn-in/
Based on some very rudimentary back-of-the-envelope political analysis, I’d say that the two at-large councilmembers (second and third from the left) and the older-blondish women (Guidry) on the right side (District A) are the only ones who have any political risk in the next election from alienating smoking voters.
I think the recall of any councilmember over the proposed smoking ban is pretty much out of the question (although given the wild and crazy nature of New Orleans realpolitik, it’s always possible).
The wildcard might be James Gray of District E, which can produce some close contests (it did in 2010) in which a 550 switch of angry smokervoters would have elected the opponent. I estimate there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 voters who smoke (again in 2010) in District E. Districts B, C and D are safe districts it would seem.
I started out by crunching the 2010 election numbers. There is no wikipedia entry yet for the 2014 results. Anyone got a simple easy-to-copy-and-paste-the-data source for this year?
I’m using my own secretly derived formula multiplier of 23% for prevalence and a relatively high voter turnout (at least for local elections and again, based on 2010 results).
I’m learning a lot about NOLA political dramas in the process. Never a dull moment there, that’s for damn sure.
On the proposed ban:
“This is not about attacking people who want to smoke,” City councilor LaToya Cantrell said. “This is about protecting our workforce, protecting our residents who wish to live in smoke-free environments.” Cantrell is one of a few city leaders who joined together Wednesday morning to launch the week of events with the announcement of a proposed smoke-free ordinance in New Orleans. She said the proposal will encourage bars, public places and casinos to go smoke-free.
http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/smokefree-event-begins-in-new-orleans-angering-some-after-ordinance-announced/29684816
LaToylett is a typical rabid antismoker making irrational, highly reckless and inflammatory claims about SHS that can only promote more irrational belief, fear, and hatred. She’s obviously not the first. She’s the dream politician for the Tobacco Control racket. TC comes into town and they have a ready made antismoking nut case highly enthusiastic to take up the prohibition cause.
“Our residents who wish to live in smokefree environments” are members of the deranged antismoker cult whose primary, irrational belief is that members never be exposed to tobacco smoke… ever. Not even a whiff, indoors or out. And this cult wants the force of law to protect their deranged belief.
I think LaToylett is beyond convincing that she’s a neurotic bigot. Information needs to be highlighted to others/other groups. Amongst that information needs to be that there is no mandatory national ban on indoor smoking. The reason is that the actual federal regulatory authority governing indoor air quality – Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), as opposed to activist groups, does not view indoor, let alone outdoor, tobacco smoke as problematic. Further, any claims of “harm” from whiffs of smoke outdoors need to be shown up as straight out lies. There is not even any concocted “evidence” of hazard in this context. Since the proposed bans also involve the outdoors, it can be indicated that this has nothing to do with protecting nonsmokers from SHS “danger”. As has been seen in other locales and countries, it’s salami-slice prohibition.
Re: OSHA
Has anyone bothered to ask the most pertinent question in the face of all these smoking bans – why, if ambient tobacco smoke is so “dangerous”, is there no mandatory national indoor smoking ban in the USA?
The Centers for Disease Control and the Office of the Surgeon-General, for example, that claim that secondhand smoke is a “danger” or there’s “no safe level of tobacco smoke” have long been hijacked by the antismoking zealots in pushing for their smokefree “utopia”. The medical credentials of these organizations have been prostituted to chase an ideological agenda. Concerning tobacco, these organizations are propaganda outlets…. activist groups, their reports dominated by antismoking zealots/extremists. The standard deception inflicted on the public by these groups is promoting the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority” – the same occurred in the 1800s/early 1900s.
Constantly omitted is the stance of the actual federal regulatory authority governing indoor air quality – Occupational Safety & Health Administration. OSHA does not view typically encountered tobacco smoke INDOORS as problematic, let alone outdoors. It does not support the view that typical SHS exposure causes lung cancer and heart disease. That’s why there’s no regulatory national ban on indoor smoking in the USA. The activist groups routinely ignore OSHA – they never refer to OSHA – and substitute their own inflammatory propaganda and promote the deception that organizations such as the SG and CDC are “regulatory authorities”. They are no such thing. And through this fraud the zealots have managed to get numerous baseless indoor and now even outdoor bans. See the Godber Blueprint.
The long-held OSHA position on indoor environmental tobacco smoke:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
Re: Salami-slices to prohibition.
Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.
The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.
While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.
On top of all of this, there are now instances where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.
At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).
Other useful information:
A brief history of antismoking:
It’s America that’s popularized antismoking insanity – again, and which other countries are following suit. The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history. America has a terrible history with this sort of “health” fanaticism/zealotry/extremism or “clean living” hysteria – including antismoking – that goes back more than a century.
Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of it predating even the pretense of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and bigotry. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034
The Nazi “war on tobacco”:
Click to access bmj00571-0040.pdf
Feel free to use any of the information.
Mag if you haven’t read this piece here you should its everything you brought mainstream these past few years
http://truthstreammedia.com/a-century-ago-rockefellers-funded-eugenics-initiative-to-sterilize-15-million-americans/comment-page-1/#comment-8303
Now you know what kind of powerful elite (then-)millionaires were behind those laws.
As we’ve previously reported, “Following World War II, Eugenics was re-branded to cast of its associations with the Nazis, and emerged, as it were, in the form of such social policy topics as ‘population control,’ ‘family planning,’ abortion/Planned Parenthood, health care, various types of genetics, even laced in between such agendas as global warming/climate change – which leads to arguments about reducing the burden of over-population upon the earth.”
Later projects funded by the Rockefeller Foundation included everything from Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, to an anti-fertility vaccine among others. These people spent millions back then and continued to do so throughout the decades.
Regarding that “great image” – to young people it’s just an irrelevant old geezer.
Carol perhaps a pic of Obama and Billy Joel smoking on the portico or John Boehner smoking in his side office in the capitol building……………they say the new economics bill was hashed out in a smoke filled back room……….
to young people it’s just an irrelevant old geezer.
That’s one heck of a sweeping generalisation. How the hell would you know?
“just an irrelevant old geezer”
Ummmm, that would describe a number of us that post here. Perhaps, even Carol herself? :(
Damn it Gary just as I had illusions of Carols 38-24-36 figure dancing in my head…………
They are the Minority
An article on the Western Daily News set me thinking.
High cost of saving a few pounds on price of tobacco
“Former Scotland Yard detective Will O’Reilly, now working for a tobacco giant investigating illegal and counterfeit tobacco sales,”
“The fact that smoking now has such a stigma attached to it, driving even those who buy legitimately-made cigarettes and pay the full tax on them to the margins of mainstream society, may have helped to fuel an increase in the black market.
If you are already forced to shiver outside a pub or workplace having a crafty drag and need to make a special effort to ask for your brand of cigarette because shop displays are in the process of being banned, it might seem like a small step to buy cut-price brands of doubtful origin.
Yet smoking tobacco is still legal. Smokers need to stay on the right side of the law.”
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/WMN-opinion-High-cost-saving-pounds-price-tobacco/story-25711978-detail/story.html
But why? Surely it is the formerly respected, decent law-abiding citizens, who, clinging to the vestiges of their old position in society, are the only ones paying the punitive taxes on government approved cigarettes.
Perhaps it takes a long time to break the habits of a lifetime and realise that they have been abandoned.
In this, I count myself.
Indeed. You’re paying the same gov’t that bans you from society and propagandizes against with your own money. Might cause a wee bit of F U resentment.
BAM! Watch This Business Owner Slay The Proposed Nanny-State Smoking Ban In New Orleans
The Hayride
We’ve reported on the nanny-state proposed smoking ban in New Orleans by City Councilwoman Latoya Cantrell (D) here and here. But, this local New Orleans business owner could not have said it better when he slayed the government overreach proposal in the Times Picayune/NOLA.com last week.
Read it here:
Increased consumption of alcohol, perhaps binge drinking, at bars. Fewer customers. Congested sidewalks — rendering areas like Bourbon Street virtually impassable — packed with people who stubbornly demand a cigarette when drinking, regardless of any law. Shuttered storefronts where cigar, hookah or e-cigarette shops used to be. And the exodus of even more businesses to neighboring parishes. These are some of the unintended consequences that could follow the City Council’s proposed ban on smoking in bars, casinos and public places.
People primarily come to New Orleans because our culture embodies and celebrates indulgence. The irony of the smoking ban is that drinking and gambling establishments encourage customers to party but walk a fine line between having fun and going overboard. Bars and casinos are not pristine environments where patrons go for quiet solace and the puritan experience. If the smoking ban is passed on belief that government knows what is best for the people, what’s next to be prohibited in the name of public safety? Beignets? Pralines?
Many bars in New Orleans are nonsmoking. Customers vote with their feet to push venues in the appropriate direction. The smoking ban is so overbroad that it could ensnare understandable behavior. Someone may inadvertently light up a cigarette to accompany his or her go-cup in commiserating the latest loss at the Dome. In the French Quarter, smoking inside a tobacco business would still put a smoker within 25 feet of another business, which would be illegal under the ban.
Our city faces at least two greater threats to tourism than smoking in bars: crime and deteriorating infrastructure. Cities that offer a good business climate and do not saddle businesses with burdensome regulations are competing heavily for the tourist dollar. Losing a potential convention from the American Heart Association is nothing compared to the foreseeable losses that would result from leisure travelers who spend less or visit elsewhere. In fact, recent studies of tourism in New Orleans indicate that the percentage of visitors from leisure travel is nearly equal to that from conventions, and the leisure segment is growing, which helps to explain the recent boom in the city’s hotels and showcases the misjudgment of the smoking ban.
William Khan
French Quarter business owner
New Orleans
We couldn’t agree with Khan more.
http://thehayride.com/2014/12/bam-watch-this-business-owner-slay-the-proposed-nanny-state-smoking-ban-in-new-orleans/
Oil Price Plunge Trigger for Next Global Crisis-Harry Dent
Who is to blame for the shaky economy we are in? Look no further than the government, and Dent contends, “What’s happened is the government has created a bubble with all this low short- term interest rates and all this stimulus, and their only defense is to keep this bubble going. . . . We got the greatest bubble in debt in modern history by far. We have the greatest asset bubble across the world in real estate, commodities, stocks; everything is in a bubble. When these bubbles burst, the whole system comes down. They are doing everything to prevent it, but everything they do to prevent it from blowing up is making it worse. This is a game they cannot win–mark my words, cannot win, and we are going to see a major crisis . . . especially over the next two years. These falling oil prices trigger these fracking firms. They have 20% of the junk bond high-yield debt in the United States, and that’s all it takes to trigger another financial crisis, just like the subprime crisis back in 2008. All it takes is a trigger and the whole debt thing comes down.”
On the stocks, look out below. Dent says, “The next crash is going to take us to a new low around 5,500 on the Dow. . . . That’s going to be a 65% to 75% crash.”
http://usawatchdog.com/oil-price-plunge-trigger-for-next-global-crisis-harry-dent/
The new economic law repealed a 40 year old pension law and now pension plans can cut up to 30% payouts to retirees……………The government already knows whats coming!
Get ready………
Canada Bill Would Legalize Euthanasia of People With Disabilities
Like I keep saying: Euthanasia/assisted suicide is not about terminal illness. It is ultimately about allowing anyone with more than a transitory desire to die to be killed–whether by a doctor, a lay suicide facilitator, or even, family and friends.
picassistedsuicide18And here we go again! Canadian legislation would legalize active lethal-injection euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with disabilities. From S. 225 (my emphases):
In order to be eligible to make a request for physician-assisted death, a person must…
have been diagnosed by a physician as having an illness, a disease or a disability, including a disability arising from traumatic injury,
(i) that causes the person physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to that person and that cannot be alleviated by any medical treatment acceptable to that person, or
(ii) that results in the person being in a state of weakening capacities with no chance of improvement…
Do you see how broad and wide-open a killing license that would be allowed? This definition would permit Netherlands-style euthanasia of the diagnosed mentally ill, paraplegics, or even, asymptomatic HIV infection causing the patient great distress.
And can you understand why? This is the actual agenda–death on demand.
Whether to permit that is the debate we should be having. Anything else is phony, baloney pretense.
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/12/10/canada-bill-would-legalize-euthanasia-of-people-with-disabilities/
Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
When Christmas Was Banned in Boston
“Outlawing the celebration of Christmas sounds a little extreme, but it happened. The ban existed as law for only 22 years, but disapproval of the Christmas celebration took many more years to change. In fact, it wasn’t until the mid-1800s that celebrating Christmas became fashionable in the Boston region.
The Puritans who immigrated to Massachusetts to build a new life had several reason for disliking Christmas. First of all, it reminded them of the Church of England and the old-world customs, which they were trying to escape. Second, they didn’t consider the holiday a truly religious day. December 25th wasn’t selected as the birth date of Christ until several centuries after his death. Third, the holiday celebration usually included drinking, feasting, and playing games – all things the Puritans frowned upon. One such tradition, “wassailing”, occasionally turned violent. The custom entailed people of a lower economic class visiting wealthier community members and begging, or demanding, food and drink in return for toasts to their hosts’ health. If a host refused, there was the threat of retribution. Although rare, there were cases of wassailing in early New England. Fourth, the British had been applying pressure on the Puritans to conform to English customs. The ban was probably as much a political choice as it was a religious one for many.”
http://masstraveljournal.com/places/boston-cambridge/when-christmas-was-banned-boston
When Christmas was illegal- England
“Good Protestant English people, the argument went, celebrated Christmas at their peril. A few days of careless and inappropriate feasting could well mean eternal damnation. In 1650, a year after the execution of Charles I, a Puritan minister confidently asserted that, during the twelve days of Christmas, “more souls are sent head-long to hell than in all the rest of the year beside”. And, six years later, another preacher, regretting that people simply wouldn’t give it up, insisted that “most of the national church do serve the devil on that day and the twelve days following”. He added that he saw his job as being to “beat the people off from this observation whereunto they feel themselves driven by a cursed thing within them”.
The problem for the Puritans who ruled England during the civil war and interregnum was that people’s reasons for celebrating Christmas were hardly Satanic; it was more an attachment to having fun during the darkest, most miserable time of the year.”
” Taylor then scorned the lengths to which the regime went in order to prevent any sign of seasonal celebration: “Their madness hath extended itself to the very vegetables, the senseless trees . . . holly, ivy, mistletoe, rosemary, bays, are accounted ungodly branches of superstition.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/node/139332
Life in England under Oliver Cromwell
“Most of these generals had been in Cromwell’s New Model Army. The law – essentially Cromwell’s law – was enforced by the use of soldiers.
Cromwell believed that women and girls should dress in a proper manner. Make-up was banned. Puritan leaders and soldiers would roam the streets of towns and scrub off any make-up found on unsuspecting women. Too colourful dresses were banned. A Puritan lady wore a long black dress that covered her almost from neck to toes. She wore a white apron and her hair was bunched up behind a white head-dress. Puritan men wore black clothes and short hair.
Cromwell banned Christmas as people would have known it then. By the C17th, Christmas had become a holiday of celebration and enjoyment – especially after the problems caused by the civil war. Cromwell wanted it returned to a religious celebration where people thought about the birth of Jesus rather than ate and drank too much. In London, soldiers were ordered to go round the streets and take, by force if necessary, food being cooked for a Christmas celebration. The smell of a goose being cooked could bring trouble. Traditional Christmas decorations like holly were banned.”
http: //www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cromwell_england.htm
Maypoles banned 1664
“The church in the middle ages tolerated the May Day celebrations but the Protestant Reformation of the 17th century soon put a stop to them. The Puritans were outraged at the immorality that often accompanied the drinking and dancing – and Parliament banned maypoles altogether in 1644.
But when Charles II was restored to the throne a few years later, people all over the country put up maypoles as a celebration and a sign of loyalty to the crown.”
http: //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/86133.stm
End of English Renaissance theatre: ban on plays by the English Parliament
“The rising Puritan movement was hostile toward theatre, as they felt that “entertainment” was sinful. Politically, playwrights and actors were clients of the monarchy and aristocracy, and most supported the Royalist cause.
The Puritan faction, long powerful in London, gained control of the city early in the First English Civil War, and on 2 September 1642, the Parliament, pushed by the Parliamentarian party, under Puritan influence, banned the staging of plays in the London theatres though it did not, contrary to what is commonly stated, order the closure, let alone the destruction, of the theatres themselves:
“Means to appease and avert the Wrath of God, appearing in these Judgements; among which, Fasting and Prayer, having been often tried to be very effectual, having been lately and are still enjoined; and whereas Public Sports do not well agree with Public Calamities, nor Public Stage-plays with the Seasons of Humiliation, this being an Exercise of sad and pious Solemnity, and the other being Spectacles of Pleasure, too commonly expressing lascivious Mirth and Levity: It is therefore thought fit, and Ordained, by the Lords and Commons in this Parliament assembled, That, while these sad causes and set Times of Humiliation do continue, Public Stage Plays shall cease, and be forborn, instead of which are recommended to the People of this Land the profitable and seasonable considerations of Repentance, Reconciliation, and Peace with God, which probably may produce outward Peace and Prosperity, and bring again Times of Joy and Gladness to these Nations”
http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Renaissance_theatre
http: //www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/pp26-27
People don’t seem to have changed much in 400 years but then again in evolutionary terms it’s just the blink of an eye.
I appreciate that we started this contagion and America caught it, but please don’t keep sending it back, our current politicians seem to have no knowledge of history and think that this is all new.
Casinos, what casinos?
History of Gambling in the United States
“Massachusetts Bay Colony outlawed not only the possession of cards, dice, and gaming tables (even in private homes), but also dancing and singing.”
http: //www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/03/chapt2.html
I’m sure that there is some scientific sounding way to put a stop to all that.
Oh look, so there is.
Gambling addiction linked to brain reward system
19 October 2014
“The ‘high’ or feeling of euphoria created by addictive behaviour is less obvious in the brains of problem gamblers, research suggests.
This could make them more prone to addiction as they search harder for an “endorphin rush”.
“Dr Mick said the findings suggested that the opioid system had a role to play in gambling addictions. The way the system responds may be different in people addicted to alcohol or cocaine, however.
She said the study findings could help develop new treatments for gambling addictions.”
http: //www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29659416
You know Rose the movie Cromwell I saw as a kid with Richard Harrison never mentioned any of the awful things in your post that I can remember. I just remember in fighting among the leaders was constant and Cromwell came in and kicked them all out and ruled by his own hand til he died.
Well, it all depends on what angle the film maker decided to portray.
To the Puritans, it had all been for our own good.
When the Monarchy was restored and things got back to normal, Oliver Cromwell and three of his accomplices were exhumed and then postumously hung drawn and quartered, the heads being displayed on spikes at Westminster Hall.
“Following the death of Oliver Cromwell on 3 September 1658, he was given a public funeral at Westminster Abbey, equal to those of monarchs before him. After the defeat of King Charles I in the English Civil War and his subsequent beheading,
Cromwell had become Lord Protector and ruler of the English Commonwealth. His legacy passed to his son Richard, who was overthrown by the army in 1659, after which monarchy was re-established and King Charles II, who was living in exile, was recalled.
Charles’ new parliament ordered the disinterment of Cromwell’s body from Westminster Abbey and the disinterment of other regicides John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton, for a posthumous execution at Tyburn. After hanging “from morning till four in the afternoon”, the bodies were cut down and the heads placed on a 20-foot spike above Westminster Hall.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell%27s_head
And of course the maypoles were put up again and the theatres were opened and more Puritans went off in a huff heading for America where they continued their miserability until the 1800’s.
“The ban remained in place for 22 years until it was repealed in 1681 after a new surge of European immigrants brought a demand for the holiday. Even though the ban was lifted, Christmas was not warmly embraced by the puritans and it remained a dull and muted holiday over two centuries later.”
http://historyofmassachusetts.org/when-christmas-was-banned-in-boston/
Well Fuck,it was Cromwell that screwed all of us! Dig em back up again and take his head to the WHO! ON A POLL…………….
It’s not as simple as it seems, Harley.
“The king-killer who toyed with wearing the crown, the hero of liberty who shot down the Levellers, the champion of religious toleration who loathed Catholicism, the practical joker who became a symbol of joyless Puritanism, he remains one of the most bewildering figures in British history.”
“One of the many misconceptions about Cromwell is that he was a dull, dour man, the kind who liked nothing better than smashing up stained-glass windows and banning Christmas. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a boy, writes Hill, Oliver was “rough, boisterous and practical-joking”, and even as MP for Cambridge he was generally regarded as outspoken, impetuous and politically naive.
Far from being solemn, he was an ebullient, fun-loving man who wore his hair long, smoked tobacco and enjoyed a drink. At the wedding of his daughter Frances, after he had become Lord Protector, Cromwell reportedly tossed wine over his guests, danced until dawn and “dawbed all the stools where they were to sit with wet sweet-meates”, rather like some early-modern Benny Hill. Given his wild mood swings between jubilation and gloom, some biographers have suggested that he suffered from manic depression, which might explain why he laughed “as if he had been drunk” after the Battle of Dunbar in 1650, or why, at the signing of Charles I’s death warrant, he relieved the tension by flicking ink at his colleagues’ faces, like a naughty schoolboy.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/cromwell-god-essay-history
English spirits were crushed by Puritan rule according to an observer.
“(Cromwell made a state visit to the City of London amid) all outward signs of respect and honour, but with very scanty marks of goodwill from the people in general, who,on the contrary, greeted him with a rancour which increases daily because he has arrogated to himself despotic authority and the actual sovereignty of these realms under the mask of humility and the public service….Obdience and submission were never so manifest in England as at present,…their spirits are so crushed..yet…they dare not rebel and only murmur under their breath, though all live in hope of the fulfilment one day of the prophecies foretelling a change of rule ere long.”
Lorenzo Paulucci, Venetian Secretary in England, to Giovanni Sagredo, Venetian Ambassador in France, 21 February 1654, Calendar of State Papers Venetian.”
http://www.olivercromwell.org/quotes2.htm
“they dare not rebel and only murmur under their breath, though all live in hope of the fulfilment one day of the prophecies foretelling a change of rule ere long.”
As true then as it is today.
Well I destroyed their story and hey didnt like it…………so they shut it down. They brought the 3rd hand smoke scam up and well Chris did an excellent job rom his blog post destroying that junk!
I love it
×
Comments for this thread are now closed.
13 comments
Observer-Reporter
Avatar harleyrider1903
Favorite ★
Avatar
o-r moderator Mod • 2 hours ago
Harleyrider1903, thanks for your zeal on this matter, but please refrain from excessive comments. Thanks!
Annie’s mailbox: The dangers of smoking
Smoking outside won’t eliminate risks
http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20141214/LIFESTYLES/141219706#.VI89ymM3Njr
Cantrell has a degree in Sociology and a minor in Political Science. Don’t they all? I am not sure how anyone can claim that Sociology is a science and it is obvious that this harpy would not recognise good science if it jumped up and slapped her in her purse lipped puritanical mouth with a wet catfish. She is ignorant, opinionated, dishonest and sadly in a position of power.
My kid got his I will call it a meatless degree in socialology because it was easy to get as he said to me and now he has a masters in it too…………
He told me str8 up gee dad it was easy all I had to do was show up and do a little work.
This is what todays Nazis are schooled in. I can imagine what the PHD part would be farting down stairs and watch peoples reactions…….
Sociologists should be banned from ever holding political office. Their goals are never in the true interests of society. It’s a volatile combination which allows these “scientists” to abuse their political power in order to propagate social control and conformity in hopes of creating their own personal vision of utopia.
What makes Cantrell (and the countless others like her) dangerous is not that she is ignorant, opinionated or dishonest (she is obviously all of the above), but rather that she has created her idealistic image of society and is frighteningly in a position of power that allows her the ability to pursue it.
It appears as though LaToya Cantrell is exceptionally good at pissing people off. Looks like we probably have the entire New Orleans Police Department on our side of this vote now, after she made unfounded accusations about them earlier today:
New Orleans City Council’s LaToya Cantrell Just Made Some Pretty Defamatory Remarks About The NOPD
I thought this was a great image from the Times-Picayune. Strong, purposeful, blue-eyed, level gaze.
Indeed! A real man…. Thanks for the eye candy, Frank!
This one is for Frank.
—–
I begin to wonder about the hurrying anti-smokers. Perhaps they do know that their days are numbered? Or maybe it is their shrinking numbers?
So, they are concentrating on the US once again. Whilst they are busy there it’s a great opportunity for some other smoking ban dictated countries to become a little more smoker-friendly again – and when the dictatorship homes in on these countries, others (e.g. the Russians) can start ignoring smoking bans; and whilst the anti-smoking zealots home in on Russia again, the US citizen can start ignoring smoking bans and then …..
We can proceed for many years in this fashion and carefully decide what political party we vote for next.
These days people are easily angered; it’s coming up to Christmas and people have spend a lot on credit cards. By March next year they are not in a good mood. And Debbie surely wants to see smokers punished with high tobacco tax in April.
What month is the General Election in 2015 in England? I believe the US is voting for another president in 2016… etc.etc.
We are not helpless. And the antismoking zealots know it!
I may need to fly over and help frank out on this one………….
Mental Illness Programs Shouldn’t Force Abstinence On Smokers
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marvin-ross/mental-illness-smoking_b_6329542.html
Now they are going for Oklahoma. An editorial in the Journal Record entitled “Editorial: No smoking, please” is calling for a statewide smoking ban. http://journalrecord.com/2014/12/15/editorial-no-smoking-please-opinion/comment-page-1/#comment-122369
I tell ya whats going on,the worlds fixing to fall into a massive worldwide recession id not depression……..that means TC is DEAD. Governments will drop smoking laws and taxes as quick as they passed them just to get revenues generating again.
Russia Shocks With Emergency Rate Hike, Boosts Interest Rate From 10.5% To 17% | Zero Hedge
Following the biggest rout to the Ruble in ages, Russia – unlike Mario Draghi – instead of talking the…
zerohedge.com
Well Palo Alto, CA passed its outdoor smoking ban. “Palo Alto Council Passes Smoking Ban,” http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Smoking-Ban-Passes-in-Palo-Alto-285981641.html
The ban prohibits smoking in all commercial areas downtown and all outdoor dining areas.
This is the trend throughout the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Essentially the same reach as the NOLA proposal.
Hmmm, I wonder if you can still smoke in East Palo Alto?
My ex (Miss High-Falutin’ Stanford Grad) is from ‘good side’ of that area. I remember hearing that they almost renamed it Nairobi.