A New Enemy

It’s quite refreshing to discover a new enemy. It’s a bit like finding another, hitherto-unknown, utterly-obnoxious member of Hitler’s Nazi party. I find I get bored of people like Deborah Arnott after a few years. There’s nothing like new blood to quicken the pulse.

So what could  be better than New Orleans Councilwoman LaToyah Cantrell (right), with her call for a complete smoking ban in easy-going New Orleans?

Within the space of a few days she’s overtaken both Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama (and of course Deborah Arnott) in my personal Hit Parade of People I Love to Loathe. She’s become an overnight international (hate) figure.

And she already has plenty of enemies in New Orleans, it seems. H/T Joe L for the news in Lousiana’s conservative Hayride that she’s been defaming the entire New Orleans police department.

Elsewhere in the Hayride, Cantrell is already under attack:

Just last night, Cantrell introduced an ordinance before the New Orleans City Council which would all-out ban smoking in New Orleans bars and public places in general. Because if anything, New Orleans politicians should be telling everyday New Orleanians and tourists how to conduct their lives, right?

Keep in mind, Cantrell has been endorsed by State Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans), so that should give you a clue on who she aligns herself with.

This may sound familiar in places like New York City, where smoking in bars has been banned for decades, and California, but for New Orleans? The most nonchalant city in the country (when it comes to smoking and alcohol regulation) banning smoking?

‘What’s happening,’ you may ask yourself.

Well, Cantrell, like other infamous “nanny-state” politicians, such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, simply have one concept they live by: The government knows what is best for you.


There will always be problems and implications when a government forces itself on the people and private businesses. It is not the role of city government to control the behaviors of the people and to control the way businesses conduct business. That is a basic right, not a left and right political issue. It just so happens that liberals fail to understand that concept, like Cantrell obviously does.

If the business owners and individuals of New Orleans do not come out in mass, there will be further prices to pay for individual liberties and rights. This will only be the beginning.

Already, the Louisiana ACLU is making a point to stay out of the issue, which is a shame considering this is a perfect case of civil liberties being violated. A representative with the ACLU said the issue would only be a civil liberties problem if smoking was being banned all throughout the streets of the city. Nonetheless, that is exactly what will happen though.

I’m still on a steep learning curve here, but I think this is set to become one of the key battles in the smoking wars. It may even be a key battle for the soul of America. Tobacco Control would really, really like to capture New Orleans, and stamp out smoking in this fun-loving city (and maybe stamp out jazz as well, as Lleweton was suggesting in comments today).

But I get the strong impression that the resistance in New Orleans is going to be ferocious. This is going to be fought street by street, house by house, just like Stalingrad.

I think a firestorm is going to explode around LaToyah Cantrell and her antismoking side-kicks. It may even suck in the rest of the USA (and the rest of the world). Antismoking Nazis may even have to parachute in Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama and Michael Bloomberg and Stanton Glantz.

About Frank Davis

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

73 Responses to A New Enemy

  1. George Speller says:

    Can I pack the parachutes please?

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      George Ive worked in a paraloft I even have a parachute packing stick………..
      But I like totally forget how to do it when the name is mentioned……….besides parachute entanglements on lines while not common do happen…………or we could short chute the guys. Cut out the pull chute!

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Somethings up,the move is to fast to media soaked in just a short time.

    We kicked their asses on NOLA and times picayune……\

    I see it as an economic recession is about to put TC out of Business as Governments run to anything that brings in revenues………..TC costs revenues it doesn’t make any.

    Theyre only claim is health savings and we know how fraudulent that is………….just like everything they say its always propaganda and more lies to cover the last set of lies………

    In Oregon they just went str8 to name calling not even trying to fight back………

    At least on NOLA they fought back a bit but were so overwhelmed they couldn’t keep up much less deny what we were stating……….

    I think the gig is just about up.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Yes, the global economic and political meltdown in progress fuels this. When treated tighten up on control and give potential adversaries something to do that keeps them occupied. But, I’m not sure how this plays out. Tobacco Control (at least the vanguard of the movement) knows that their strategy is a house of cards. They also know it is working and that they have led people to believe their propaganda. It is obvious political and public sentiment has accepted this (otherwise the increasingly draconian bans would not be progressing). The question is when does it fall apart? You believe soon; I actually don’t know. There are many increasingly restricted globally distributed smoking and tobacco bans being proposed and adopted.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Exactly thru the WHO likely Margeret Chans plan at the Moscow summit. They were given their marching orders and off they went………They think once a law is passed its hard to get rid of. It isn’t when it comes to smoking as we have seen time and again in history.

      • prog says:

        It really has become a religion – invent some total self-serving crap, back it up with scriptures, then ram ‘it into the empty-headed in order to control them and make them do your dirty work.

        Still happening with some mainstream religions (one in particular).

  3. Lepercolonist says:

    I would love to see a raucous outpouring at a public hearing in New Orleans. Such as Wesiminister, Massachusetts. LaToyah will be praying for order from the New Orleans Police Department. Hmmm….

    • waltc says:

      Too bad we can’t bus people in the way the ants do. Seems most local hearings are loaded w outsiders and then stacked with ant “experts” . Wouldn’t be surprised if Repace and Glantz show up for this one on NO.

      • Frank Davis says:

        Too bad we can’t bus people in the way the ants do.

        I was thinking the exact same thought when I woke up this morning. Because I kind of see all this as being like the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. Didn’t they bus in “Freedom Riders” or something back then?

        TC is obviously pouring money into this in a very big way, judging from the high quality, professional artwork they’re producing (see Magnetic’s posts below).

        But in today’s wired world, does anyone actually need to be bussed anywhere? And isn’t that artwork just a little too professional?

  4. Smoking Lamp says:

    Oh wait, but she doesn’t think they deserve a living wage… I’d like to see global smokers action days in NOLA and elsewhere (perhaps simultaneous in multiple cities). Something like the rolling taxi strikes in Paris. Tuesdays smokers buy no coffee, Wednesday stay out of pubs and bars, Thursday no lunch at work, Friday avoid the smoke free shopping streets, etc…. To demonstrate economic power (that they deny when bars and pubs close) of the ‘Minority’…

    • Barry Homan says:

      I’ve already proposed a similar form of action: pick a day (or a series of days) when smokers the world over DON’T BUY ANYTHING.

      The thing is, smokers wouldn’t have to “take action”, by joining protest marches, reading blogs and adding comments, etc. Instead, they just don’t do anything on that day. They don’t go out, don’t shop, they buy no services. Other persecuted parties (drinkers, the overweight) might join in.

      More clever people than me could coordinate the effort. How much effort would it take?

  5. nisakiman says:

    I wrote this in response to a comment in yesterday’s post, but I must have omitted to click the ‘post comment’ button. However, it’s relevant here, so I’ll re-post it:

    Having been a bit of an habitué of Soho jazz clubs forty plus years ago, I simply cannot imagine listening to jazz without being surrounded by a fug of tobacco smoke and copious amounts of alcohol (and illicit substances, if you were lucky). The music would surely come across as hollow and soulless without that backdrop. Jazz is by its very nature a rejection of the orthodoxy. Clinically ‘smoke-free’ jazz clubs? An oxymoron that cannot exist in the real world.

    Which I suppose the anti-smoking lot are aiming for – a homogenous, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed troupe of happy and unquestioning joggers with nary an original thought between the lot of them.

    I’m quite glad I’m 65, and won’t have to see the capitulation (if it comes to pass) of a once great people to the grey, joyless ones. We in the West (for want of a better word) were pioneers in the progress of freedom and creativity. Now the neo-puritans want to destroy it all.

    Words fail me. I have never in my life felt any compulsion to dictate to anyone else how they should live their lives.

    What is it with these people……?

    • magnetic01 says:

      Keep an eye on smokefreenola twitter. It’s loaded with the usual baseless, emotive slogans… natch, e.g.,

      The first step is acknowledging the rights of every innocent person that frequent smoke-filled environments in New Orleans.

      Everyone has the right to breathe smoke-free air in New Orleans including musicians, bartenders, and casino employees.

      We have an opportunity to save lives. A smokefreenola is a better place for us all. Join the movement!

      You can help us protect the lives of bartenders, musicians, and patrons across our city.

      There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Therefore, health risks are taken every time we…

      Everyone’s voice matters. Together we can eliminate the threat of secondhand smoke in workplaces in New Orleans.

      A smokefreenola is not possible without your support. We need more advocates like you to help us communicate the dangers of toxic smoke.

      (Currently has 72 followers)

      • beobrigitte says:

        We have an opportunity to save lives. A smokefreenola is a better place for us all. Join the movement!
        THAT is something people in Africa need to know!!!
        Things still aren’t going too well there…

        16 December 2014 Last updated at 09:41
        In August, the United Nations health agency declared an “international public health emergency”, saying that a co-ordinated response was essential to halt the spread of the virus.

        Senegal reported its first case of Ebola on 29 August. A young man from Guinea had travelled to Senegal despite having been infected with the virus, officials said.

        By September, WHO director general Margaret Chan said the number of patients was “moving far faster than the capacity to manage them”.

        Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the US, Thomas Frieden, said in October that the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was unlike anything since the emergence of HIV/Aids.

        Authorities in Mali confirmed the death of the country’s first Ebola patient, a two-year-old girl, on 25 October. The girl had travelled hundreds of kilometres by bus from Guinea through Mali showing symptoms of the disease, the WHO said.

        Mali is currently battling a second wave of the deadly virus.

        So, in SEPTEMBER WHO director general Margaret Chan KNEW that the Ebola epidemic was (still is) out of control – nevertheless, $1.6 million was happily spent on a SECRET “conference” in Moscow to conjure up torment for the disbelievers (smokers).

        It looks like the USA anti-smoking zealots were in for a financial windfall recently.
        We have an opportunity to save lives.
        And whilst they, by the looks of it, have financially heavily invested into media art to further their crusade against smokers, smoking and the tobacco companies, the WHO&TC&friends have no problem with REAL people dying and orphans starving. Ah, the starving population of these African Ebola affected countries is Bob Geldof’s job; he did a good one in 1985….
        What a sick bunch of people the anti-smoking-tobacco-companies-hating zealots are…
        We have an opportunity to save lives…….

    • magnetic01 says:

      The Louisiana Campaign for Tobacco Free Living
      The Louisiana Campaign for Tobacco-Free Living (TFL) is a statewide tobacco control program funded by a state excise tax on tobacco passed in 2002. TFL envisions a healthier Louisiana through 100% tobacco-free living.


      So, smokers are forced to pay for their own persecution.

      The usual America for Nonsmokers’ Rights

    • magnetic01 says:

      Secondhand smoke can damage a musician’s vocal chords permanently, which could end his or her career.


      • prog says:

        Golly gosh, they’re really trying/lying

        ‘All Louisianans deserve protection from secondhand smoke. Chronic exposure to secondhand smoke isn’t just a short-term nuisance, it makes people sick and can even be deadly.


        Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 69 that cause cancer.

        Breathing 30 minutes of secondhand smoke has the same effect as smoking a cigarette yourself.

        Exposure to secondhand smoke increases a non-smoker’s risk of heart disease by as much as 60%.

        Non-smokers who are exposed to cigarette smoke are more than twice as likely to have major depression as those who aren’t.


        People who work in bars and gaming facilities breathe enough secondhand smoke every day to have some of the same health problems that pack-a-day smokers have.
        Secondhand smoke can damage a musician’s vocal chords permanently, which could mean the end of his or her career.’

        All that and more and the vote stands at 73% NO. IMO that poll is more or less a measure of visitor sanity.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Sure about that?

          This looks like 73% Yes.

        • prog says:

          Oops my bad. I did vote no though..

          I guess trying to write survey reports and surfing when I get bored (most of the time) isn’t always a good idea (better go check I haven’t pasted anti propaganda into the latest)

        • Smoking Lamp says:

          This is still at about 73% FOR the BAN. Not a surprise since it is an Antismoker site.

          In contrast a Times-Picayune survey at in November was a bit more balanced…

          How should New Orleans handle smoking laws?
          Leave smokers alone. It’s no place for government interference. 48.14% (842 votes)

          Enact an outright ban on smoking in public spaces or bars. 43.05% (753 votes)

          Create incentives for businesses to go smoke-free. Give examples in the comments below. 4% (70 votes)

          Continue to fight to raise taxes on cigarettes. 3.89% (68 votes)

          Other: 0.91% (16 votes)


  6. Frank Davis says:

    From Magnetic’s Facebook link above:

    This looks to me to be a really professional piece of artwork from an expensive ad agency in NYC or someplace. It even has a little trumpet logo as a nod to NO musical culture.

    And yet it’s precisely that culture they’re trying to kill.

  7. Frank Davis says:

    And why do they always use the same blue?

    TC medical-blue.

    We get the same blue colour on everything NHS in the UK. I suppose it’s the colour of some sort of antiseptic fluid…

  8. Frank Davis says:

    Or what about this?

    I could write a book about how totally fake this is.

    They’re not drinking wine, of course. That’s raspberry juice.

    And all the smiles are false. Not a genuine smile on any face.

    Medical Blue is creeping in, of course.

  9. Frank Davis says:

    This must be about the Worst Ever Smile:

  10. Frank Davis says:

    But maybe it’s not quite as professional as it seems…

    Spot the typo.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    One of the ladies on FB that was fighting with Iro Cage banned her and wouldn’t fight back anymore. Si I go to her facebook page and lord her groups are like that of a black panther member.


    South by Southwest Ecosocialist Conference
    Friday, February 20, 2015 at 5:00pm
    University of North Texas in Denton, Texas
    Workers will be holding a Black Friday protest 1pm today, November 28th, at the New Orleans Walmart on 1901 Tchoupitoulas. The workers want a $15 an hour minimum wage and the right to pursue unionization in an environment free of illegal anti-union measures by management. This protest is one of hundreds of protests for a living wage that will be held throughout the United States.
    #ICantBreathe Rally for Eric Garner
    Sunday, December 7 at 12:00pm
    Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge, Louisiana306 people went

    That one the idiots don’t even realize is helping us!


    NPR just made the decision to drastically reduce its staff dedicated to covering climate change and the environment,leaving just one part-time reporter on the beat.The number of newspapers with a weekly science section has shrunk from 85 to just 19 in 25 years.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Sounds to good to be true doesn’t it. Might be th same reason Popular Science shut downs its comments section completely. I saw it a few times and it was a bloodbath of comments………..All they ran were green stories of claims and about shs even.

  12. magnetic01 says:

    Hey. What be happening here? How do you guys post graphics into your comments?

  13. magnetic01 says:

    If you’re ever interested, Frank, there is a plug-in for wordpress that allows attachment of images in comments:

    It has a good review.

    See also

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    Alistair Darling Warns UK Exit From EU May Be ‘Unstoppable’

    The Huffington Post UK | By Ned Simons
    Britain’s exit from the European Union may be “unstoppable”, Alistair Darling has warned.

    The former Labour chancellor, who ran the successful Better Together campaign to keep Scotland part of the United Kingdom, said on Tuesday there were striking similarities between the independence referendum and the debate about the EU.

    Writing in The Guardian, he said: “It’s not easy to win a referendum. I know. You need to be absolutely clear about not just the question but also who and what you are fighting against. As we drift – and drifting is what we are doing – towards another referendum, this time on Europe, there is a real risk the fight will be lost before it begins.

    “The daily drumbeat of negative claims about the EU is creating a momentum towards exit that may become unstoppable. Regardless of whether a referendum actually happens, those who support Britain’s continued membership must start now to recover the ground lost so far.”

    Darling said there was a “powerful case” to be made for the UK remaining a part of the EU, but it needed to be made with “vigour”. He warned that if it was not, anti-EU campaigners would be able to exploit unhappiness with the status-quo. “Ukip and the SNP are two sides of the same coin,” he said.

    David Cameron has promised to hold an in/out referendum in 2017 should he win the next general election. While Ed Miliband has said Labour would only give the public a vote if any more powers were transferred to Brussels.

    Last night Germany’s deputy finance minister Steffen Kampeter has said he wants the UK to remain in the European Union, adding that the EU will “find ways to offer Britain a good chance to stay in”.

    Speaking to Newsnight on Monday, Kampeter argued that Britain “opting out” would be a “catastrophe”.

    “We are not alone in stating that the Brits should stay in – [Italian Prime Minister] Matteo Renzi stated yesterday it would be a catastrophe [if Britain left],” Kampeter told Evan Davis. “We want them [Britain] in and we will find ways to offer Britain a good chance to stay in. And please do not forget opting out is not economically very preferable to the United Kingdom and has many disadvantages.”

  15. Frank Davis says:

    https://www.facebook.com/SmokeFreeNOLA was created on 15 Oct 2014. It got rolling on 19 Nov with a street march, the day before LaToyah Cantrell called for the smoking ban. It’s all been carefully organised.

    They’re making a big effort in NOLA. I’d guess that the city is undergoing a kind of antismoking blitz right now, with posters everywhere and TV ads all the time.

  16. Rose says:

    Black market for illicit tobacco in Devon and Cornwall puts squeeze on already hard-pressed families

    “A black market in illicit tobacco is engulfing Devon and Cornwall, funding organised crime, damaging health and causing tax hikes for already hard-pressed families.”

    “causing tax hikes for already hard-pressed families”

    How can that be? The punitive taxes on cigarettes are supposed to force people into giving up, not fund other peoples families.

    Making up the lost revenue to the Exchequer is thought to cost every family £200 a year

    So what are all these government funded stop smoking campaigns about then?

    “The trade in illicit tobacco is helping to squeeze the life out of corner shops as lost sales threaten the future of vital community assets”

    “If they close the community had not just lost a tobacco outlet, it has lost a vital service which it will certainly miss.”

    So the long suffering “denormalised” smokers are now expected to be responsible for keeping “vital services” open? How about everybody else taking a turn for a change?

    All this and never a thank you, just more bans and price hikes.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      In effect Miss Rose they are saying they will raise taxes on non-smokers to make up the lost revenues in the end.

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smokers Against Discrimination

    1 min ·


    ‘The anti-smoking movement has played a very significant — almost exclusive — role in absolutely destroying the usefulness of a field a science. Epidemiology is not a hard science, and was never meant to be a conclusive one. It was meant as a corroborative tool — something that the findings of which might strengthen, or weaken, the relative reliability of other, more evidentiary research. It was meant as a starting point; a jumping off point — a tool to be used in order to direct more conclusive research toward, or away from, a certain direction in order to maximize efficiency in research. As in: “Epidemiology suggests X? Then we’d better get to work experimenting with, and trying to disprove, X! It’s doesn’t suggest X? Then too many resources devoted to researching X is likely a waste of resources which could be more advantageously spent elsewhere.” That is where the usefulness of epidemiology lies. And, it’s quite valuable in such a role.

    Unfortunately, the only thing that the anti-smoking movement had, which could be counted in any measure as being scientific, to support their positions, was epidemiological data. Take away epidemiological findings and there simply was no scientific evidence, of any kind whatsoever, to support their claims. So, an intensive and relentless campaign has ensued to present epidemiology as an end-point in science, not a starting point — as being extraordinarily conclusive in nature — its findings practically beyond scientific reproach. And, it’s extremely powerful to have as your ally a science which, by its very nature, lends itself to relatively easy manipulation in the hands of less scrupulous researchers, is always questionable, to at least a fair degree, even in the hands of honest researchers, and which is also, nonetheless, regarded widely as being powerfully conclusive in its findings.

    By and large, they were successful in their campaign. In the minds of the many, epidemiology has been mutated into this strange creature that it naturally is not. And, in so doing, they have trampled over the usefulness of what would otherwise be a valuable tool available to humans in their endeavors toward understanding the workings of the world in which we find ourselves. They turned it from a scientific tool to a marketing device.

    Even now, responsible reporting regarding some new epidemiological finding will commonly be termed in language such as: “A new study suggests…” This is proper, of course. And, the operative word being used is ‘suggests’, as that’s really ALL that any epidemiology has the power to do — to suggest. Yet, ask for scientific ‘proof’ of their claims, and they’ll point you to epidemiological findings and say “Here’s your scientific ‘proof’. This is ‘proof’.”

    And so, here we are today — The average person commonly hearing a 30 second blurb on the evening news: “A new study suggests that X may increase the risk of Y.” And, that gets logged into their brain as “Science says X causes Y.” To them, they now live in a world where ‘science has proven that X causes Y.’ And it was, in very, very large part, the anti-smoking movement that has driven us to this place of poor understanding and misinformation.’ (Derek R. Audette)

  18. Frank Davis says:

    There are two Advocates in Louisiana carrying that Lirtzman piece. One Advocate has 132 comments under it, mostly from people like us. The other New Orleans Advocate doesn’t have any.

    Or at least it didn’t until I re-posted my response from the first (Lousiana) Advocate..

  19. garyk30 says:

    “The first step is acknowledging the rights of every innocent person that frequent smoke-filled environments in New Orleans.

    Everyone has the right to breathe smoke-free air in New Orleans including musicians, bartenders, and casino employees.”

    That sounds good; but, where do they find such ‘rights’ are listed.

    Certainly not in the Constitution of the USA, such a thing is not mentioned.

    Non of the major religions mention such ‘rights’.

    There are no such ‘natural rights’.

    • carol2000 says:

      That’s a weak argument, because the anti-smokers will simply point out that there’s no right to smoke in the Constitution. The truth is simply this: That people don’t have the right to take away other peoples’ freedom, without compelling justification. The anti-smoking demagogues knew that there are no compelling justifications, so they committed scientific fraud to manufacture phony “health risks.” They deliberately use defective studies to falsely blame smoking (and secondhand smoke, by extension) for diseases that are really caused by infection.

      • Joe L. says:

        This is exactly the point Joe Jackson was making a few days ago. Rights are intangible, arbitrary beliefs, and thus cannot be argued, as there will always be an equally arbitrary counterargument. We must instead focus our fight against this fraud by exposing the root cause: the misinformation due to the flagrant abuse of the scientific method (as was very articulately described by Derek R. Audette in the quote from Harley above).

        • carol2000 says:

          “Rights are intangible, arbitrary beliefs, and thus cannot be argued, as there will always be an equally arbitrary counterargument.”

          NO NO NO NO NO NO ABSOLUTELY NOT. That was not my point at all. I stated my point clearly, so why did you ignore it and pretend it’s something else? I said: “That people don’t have the right to take away other peoples’ freedom, without compelling justification.” I absolutely did NOT say that “Rights are intangible, arbitrary beliefs, and thus cannot be argued, as there will always be an equally arbitrary counterargument.” That’s ridiculous, of course rights can be claimed. I stated the basis by which those rights take priority. And Joe Jackson’s nonsense “is it killing them or not” is dumb, too, because it wouldn’t literally kill you to be forced to attend somebody’s church. So why don’t you stick to what I said instead of trying to mutate it into something somebody else said that is NOT the same?

          And this “Derek R. Audette” is the same brand of clueless as Harley. The problem is NOT that the public thinks that “science says X causes Y.” Calling that “flagrant abuse of the scientific method” merely makes you look like a jackass who has no case. As I also clearly stated (and you also ignored) “The anti-smoking demagogues knew that there are no compelling justifications, so they committed scientific fraud to manufacture phony ‘health risks.’ They deliberately use defective studies to falsely blame smoking (and secondhand smoke, by extension) for diseases that are really caused by infection.”

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Carol you might want to rethink that no right to smoke business.

        Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        As Ive stated before a 9th amendment right exists when the claimed right is one that has long traditional standing in the culture and the Tradition of the country.

        What tradition has longer standing in America than that of even the founding fathers or those in Jamestown Colony. Smoking in a place the public gathers.

        • Joe L. says:

          If you’re referring to the tradition of Native Americans smoking at gatherings in America pre-colonization, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. The Constitution was clearly not created to protect the Native American people or their traditions. Just look at all of the freedoms and “rights” (not to mention land and lives) the colonists took away from them.

          Also, an easy counterargument from the TC crowd is that the “right to breathe clean air” existed before people ever smoked at public gatherings. Arguing “rights” is a waste of time and energy that not only can be better used to expose the fraud itself, but it also weakens our case by making us appear just as crazy and desperate as the Anti’s, when, in fact, we actually have compiled a solid case against pseudo-scientific fraud. We can’t win if we stoop to their level. They’ve already succeeded in painting us as filthy cretins; they will always prevail in a war of words. They don’t stand a chance in a war of facts.

        • Frank Davis says:

          they will always prevail in a war of words. They don’t stand a chance in a war of facts.

          I don’t see why they should always prevail in a war of words.

          And I don’t see why they don’t have a chance in a war of facts. They have, after all, their own “facts”. And they will counter your facts with their facts. After all, they regard it as a proven fact that smoking causes lung cancer, and that passive smoking causes lung cancer too. They regard these matters as beyond question.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Joe the 9th is from the bill of rights in the constitution not some Indian treaty. No the Nazis cant claim a righto clean smokefree air as it doesn’t have long standing as a right in the culture or the traditions of the country. It doesn’t pass what certain supreme court justices have said the 9th defines.

          All the Nazis do is try and redefine what the general welfare stands for……….

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Joe I never was talking about Indians to begin with. I was talking about white colonial towns and cities, settlements.

        • Joe L. says:

          Frank, you raise a good point. Both of these issues boil down to exposure, which of course boils down further to power and money. They will continue to win wars of words because they have succeeded in denormalizing and demonizing smoking to the masses. They have managed to brainwash and convert many once-ambivalent non-smokers into hatemongers. They have the upper hand there, and nothing we can claim is our “right,” or “tradition” will ever be taken seriously because of it. We will never be able to make the general public second guess TC’s agenda this way.

          Likewise, the only reason they have been winning the war of “facts” is because they have propagated their junk science to all ends of the earth thanks to powerful connections and massive amounts of funding. Unfortunately, we haven’t had that luxury on our side of the debate (hell, it’s not even considered a debate). However, if we were able to present our facts and research to the world on the same scale as TC, I strongly believe the tide would slowly turn. However, it might even take some other, non-smoking-related (i.e. less denormalized) lifestyle-related piece of junk science to be refuted before people are actually willing to believe it at this point.

        • carol2000 says:

          Congratulations, the anti-smokers will kick your ass even harder by pointing out that slavery was justified by tradition.

  20. magnetic01 says:

    Yep. It’s not just indoors. The antismoking nut cases want to be “free” from whiffs of tobacco smoke everywhere – indoors and out, and they’re indicating it up front. That’s important.

    NOLA’s parks embody the rich, natural beauty that our city has to offer, and our residents should be able to enjoy them free of pollution from secondhand smoke.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Ya I asked em for some junk science to back up banning smoking outdoors and was quickly banned.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        New Name New post lol

        Like I said above Im stumped my friend says that theres no death certificates proving SHS kills. Do you guys have any Im in the middle of a debate over the Nola Ban with him. He says Risk Factors are pure junk science I said no its not then he said PROVE a death. It does make it rather hard when our neighbor is 92 and been smoking for 80 years. What am I to do?

    • Joe L. says:

      Secondhand smoke is now considered pollution? At the worst it is an annoyance. I find many things annoying, especially crying babies. Thus, under their apparent criteria, crying babies would be considered noise pollution. Therefore they should also ban people from bringing their babies out in public while they’re at it.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        I agree whole heartedly that’s an exact comparison save a trillion dollars on junk science to prove an annoyance……..

  21. Pingback: Keep NOLA Killjoy-Free | Frank Davis

  22. Pingback: The Changing Guardians of Liberty and Reason | Frank Davis

  23. Pingback: It Couldn’t Happen Here | Frank Davis

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.