It had to happen one day.
A Chicago business owner slapped a 79-year-old African American woman, spat in her face, and called her “Rosa Parks,” after becoming angry that she had the audacity to smoke near him outside the Daley Center – and to his dismay, it turned out his victim was a judge.
I’ll bet that was a shock.
Cook County prosecutors said that Judge Arnette Hubbard was enjoying a cigarette when she walked past David C. Nicosia, who became incensed that she was smoking near him. Nicosia initiated an argument with Judge Hubbard, got “in-your-face” with the elderly woman, and said, “Rosa Parks, move.” Then he spat on her, according to prosecutors. Nicosia then walked away, but Hubbard followed him and called out for assistance.
The totally not racist white guy then turned and slapped the Judge on the left side of her face, according to prosecutors. Nicosia was arrested by Sheriff’s deputies and charged with four counts of aggravated battery and a hate crime.
But I suppose she won’t be allowed to be the judge that sends him down.
Frank Davis 
I wonder how many others he abused and spat on who were non-authority-figure smokers?
Perhaps the police should appeal to victims to come forward …
What a weird and unkind thing to-do.
The thing is, these mentally ill retards have been given “permission” by authority to attack smokers. They just make sure it’s an elderly woman, so they don’t get a good kicking themselves.
I have to agree… I smoke and often get looked at like I’m some kind of Social Leper.
The whole point of banning smoking indoors. it’s the most important social denormalisation strategy.
“Gilmore explains that people choosing to stand outside to smoke, shivering in the cold, demonstrates that tobacco is a “drug of addiction”
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Gilmore-One-could-end-up-looking-evangelical
If you google “huddled smokers” it’s almost used as a collective noun.
Painful reading, but a summary of how they conspired to turn normal people into outcasts from Simon Chapman himself.
Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry
“Goffman described stigmatisation as the transformation “from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one”,
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25.full
Knowing what they are up to, I won’t give them the satisfaction.
Thank-You, I’ll take a look at those Articles. The Government are doing all they can to gradually remove our liberties.
I doubt that it’s a coincidence that this elderly lady just happened to be black. A lot of anti-smokers are just racists/homophobics/sexists in disguise, but as most of the groups which they actually feel they should be entitled to despise/feel superior to are now “off limits,” they’ve had to conceal their prejudices for many years. Then, like manna from Heaven, a brand-new “permitted” group of targets appeared for them – smokers. Well, beggers can’t be choosers, I guess, so these types of people have latched with great enthusiasm (and, no doubt, with no small measure of relief: “At last! Someone I can bully!”) onto this opportunity. The sheer hatred and bile spouted in many comments sections is testament to this – most are way out of proportion to any rational dislike of smoke – to the extent that, reading them, one has to wonder how long all that pent-up anger has been simmering away under the surface, just waiting for an escape valve. I bet this guy couldn’t believe his luck when a person of colour came past and gave him (so he thought) a golden opportunity to express his real prejudice, under the guise of a “permitted” one. Epic fail! What an a*se!
Except, there was an incident, I saw it in SF, with my own two eyes, as I was approaching a corner to cross to one direction, crossing in another direction, what I hardly noticed, was an elderly white gentleman smoking a cigarette and a younger professional black gentleman walked up to the corner, going to cross in the same direction as the smoker, and the younger black guy went off on the older white guy, telling him to get that smoke out of his face and did he want punched out and so forth – to which the elderly white guy just put this impish grin on his face and kept smoking and walking, as the light changed just at that moment in order to cross. So yes, but yes, too, it works both ways and I don’t know racism or racial reactions are necessarily the sole or only or main reason why anti-smokers exist to hunt down smokers outdoors on the streets and threaten them with violence or do that half-witted fake-cough/choke and hand-waving from across the street with six lanes of traffic in-between.
Every community always needed scapegoats, and so you are right. I have discovered this long time ago.
A Chicago business owner slapped a 79-year-old African American woman, spat in her face, and called her “Rosa Parks,” after becoming angry that she had the audacity to smoke near him outside the Daley Center – and to his dismay, it turned out his victim was a judge.
There is a god!!
Funnily enough, the BBC did not report this incident. After all, the BBC is sh*thot on discrimination!!!! (Except for smokers, of course. It’s ok for the BBC to be tobacco control’s blurt).
The smoker-bashing movement encountered a set back. Now they have to make sure they attack only “unimportant” people.
Nice!!!!
Her race is immaterial, these people are just bullies plain and simple. They usually end up in jobs like Community enforcement officers, great at giving mothers with children or old people a hard time, not quite so good when it comes to an 18st tattooed skinhead…
That said, let’s not just take her word for what happened, but if there’s witnesses to support the incident, he’s looking at time. So let’s hope he finds himself bunking up with a big black chap who happens to be a heavy smoker named Mary…
Yes, Jax, I agree. After all the PC stuff since the New labour 13 years of passing laws against anything and everything you say or do, it is not surprising that smokers, the overweight etc. are the only way people can reveal their pent-up prejudices.
Before the smoking ban statute was passed I used to spend many happy evenings in pubs,not to get drunk but to socialise and meet people of my acquaintance rather than each of us invite others to our homes. Not once did anyone mention smoking.
And then the Christmas and New Year before the smoking ban was enforced I was continually aware of quite a close acquaintance who moaned that she had a cold and would everybody stop smoking as it was making her ill!
It went on all evening, her drifting around complaining to anyone who would listen, that smokers were anti social, even to my husband (who is a non-smoker). He told her,in no uncertain terms, to go home, she had a cold and was spreading her germs which was even more anti social.
She then came and sat beside me as i was smoking and chatted but within 5 minutes started to complain again about everyone smoking.
i am afraid, more than occasionally, being aware of her all evening complaining to most of the people in pub, told her “where to go” and not in nice way. By the way, she was quite happy to accept invitations for a meal (with drinks) at our house and never complained about me smoking once before the ban was announced. She then announced about 4 months after the ban came into effect that hardly anyone came into the pub any more. Several people said that it was the smoking ban and she said ” maybe it shouldn’t have been banned, then as I miss my friends!
I’m trying to understand people like this.
I think there is a desire for some people to be part of the “in” group. They are fearful of being “outsiders.” In some respects this dynamic a survival technique since experience shows that the “outsiders” are persecuted. The same dynamic occurs in the prosecution of smokers.
Coercion is a learnt activity. If Antismoking is viewed through the lens of a cult, once group is designated deviant from the ideal mainstream (i.e., like heretics to a cult) there is a tendency for a militant group of true believers to arise to enforce dogma. These enforcers view those who dissent as outsiders–essentially a threat that must be neutralized. So first you see discrimination (i.e., smoking bans), stigmatizing, punishing, terrorizing, and ultimately physically eliminating smokers who are the antithesis of the militant Antismokers. Stigmatizing and punishing are embodied in the exile of smokers outside (initially outside pubs and bars, now outside mainstream society).
Once this process begins violence is implicitly a tool of persecution.
The comments in the linked article are timed as 5 months ago. So this is not a recent incident.
As Bemused states, this is not a recent incident, but we need to be reminded of this sort of stuff every now and again. Here is another that we should not forget;
Many will be aware of old experiments into conformity and deference to authority. This may be a good time to highlight them again to remind us how the anti-smoker industry works. Using cleverly crafted psychological manipulation, populations can be controlled by exploiting common human survival traits of conformity and deference to authority (amongst others). The anti-smoker industry will be fully conversant with these experiments, what they teach us about human psychology and how that knowledge can be used to their advantage. If we are to counter them, WE also need to be fully aware of the science that shows how the anti-smoker industry exploits those who are easily manipulated, resulting in incidents as shown above. I have split three following video links into three comments so they do not end up in the spam box.
ASCH conformity study
Next time you hear the anti-smoker propaganda machine claiming that ‘everyone knows’ that…; ‘everyone agrees’ that… ’80% of smokers want to quit’; ’90% of people think smoking in cars should be illegal’ etc. etc. Then you know they are appealing to your conformity with the group – to go along with the rest of the sheep – (or else be exiled etc.)
There’s more to it than that. “Asch also examined whether the removal of a partner (that he instructed to give correct answers) halfway through the experiment would influence the participants’ level of conformity. He found that there was a low level of conformity during the first half of the experiment. However, once the partner left the room, the level of conformity increased dramatically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
Media censorship of our views imposes an involuntary “withdrawal” of nonconformity.
And there’s even more that nobody has investigated. Namely, the anti-smoker media use fake opponents to trick people into believing that they allowed other views, when in fact they censored what is most important. The fakes are all those who never attack the anti-smokers’ scientific frauds, and merely whine about “nannyism.”
Milgram experiment;
How easy was it to get apparently intelligent human beings to comply with authority!!Next time you hear how thousands of experts, scientists and Doctors claim that SHS kills millions etc – you know they are appealing for your deference to authority.
An extreme result of this psychological exploitation;
jayne deville almond – They’ll just have to die!
It is very possible that deville almond believed she was doing the right thing here, and she may well just be another victim of anti-smoker brainwashing as a result of her exposure to anti-smoker propaganda! (OTOH – she may just be evil!) If a so-called ‘health professional’ like her can be exploited such that she was confident enough to voice this, what chance an ordinary member of the public, particularly those who are easily influenced and directed by others?
These people have more issues than just smoking. They have much deeper pet peaves about everything. The noun Im looking for escapes me,but the Gladys Kravitz syndrome seems to cover it nicely.
Harley, you might start with “psychological displacement”. In my view, that’s kind of where the root of the problem lies: rather than these poisonous little people confronting and addressing their own little problems, they turn their energies and frustrations away from themselves, and attack outsiders – they only need a little incentive, and they need a visible target.
Merely shows another source of harm created by so called tobacco control policies again.There have been many assaults (including rape) plus the death & financial harm. I’ve seen cctv footage of 2 men who chased a smoker into a gov. liquor store so that they could continue beating him. They claimed his smoke came near them but I suspect these cowardly bigots just saw him smoking outdoors & began verbally abusing him.Then,as all bullies do when they think they’re being “clever”,they began beating him into submission when he replied.Police were called but these “heroes” ran away-don’t know if they were caught.(should have been as the cops had the video & a licence number iirc)
Another attack in July that also made it to the media:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Mission-Beach-Stabbing-Attack-Stranger-Smoking-267734971.html
And this from India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Man-stabbed-in-Nangloi-for-smoking/articleshow/40943317.cms
[Check the comments. Quite a few defy sane description]
It’s nothing new:
http://www.nycclash.com/hate.html
A U.S. 20/20 Report (1999) highlighted that there are gangs of thugs in the United States of America that distinguish themselves as non-drinkers and nonsmokers. To these gangs, their non-drinking and non-smoking elevates them into a “pure” or “superior” status and where smoking in their vicinity is perceived as a “sign of disrespect.” In these minds it is quite appropriate to either physically beat such “disrespectful persons” or even kill them. To this contorted, upside-down thinking, exposure to ETS becomes a major violation while murder is trivialized.
Mag ya gotta remember the Nazis babysit these stories to no end………….The comments are likely activists not the general Public at large. That’s not to say a few aren’t but we know better.
True enough, Harley, remember Cage Canada’s brilliant find?
INSIDE THE TOBACCO CONTROL INDUSTRY AND THEIR DECEITFUL TACTICS
“We strongly suspected that this hostile attitude demonstrated toward individuals or associations with differing opinions were not the doings of ordinary citizens, however one must always give the benefit of doubt: perhaps public opinion had changed overnight when public smoking bans were adopted?
Well, you can relax folks. All this time, it was not your next door neighbor, co-worker, friend or relative who was turning into an aggressive “Mr. Hyde” when protected by the cover of anonymity. We now have tangible proof that most of the people who are posting obnoxious and hateful material are simply following orders from the anti-tobacco industry:
We have obtained the manual on how to effectively implement outdoor bans published in September 2010 by Physicians For A Smoke-Free Canada (PSFC) : SMOKEFREE OUTDOOR PUBLIC SPACES: A COMMUNITY ADVOCACY TOOLKIT.
http://cagecanada.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/inside-tobacco-control-industry-and.html
Edited highlights
…….. For the next few months, strive to ensure there are positive media stories, letters to the editor, etc., that tout how well the bylaw changes are working. There will no doubt be a backlash from smokers in the beginning until they get used to the changes. In the meantime, you have to counter their negative comments in the media, in comment sections of online news pieces and blogs, on radio call-in shows, etc. Your job is to make politicians continue to believe that they did the right thing. It is not unheard of for councillors to backtrack on their decision and water down legislation. (page 48)
Click to access Smoke-free%20outdoor%20spaces%20advocacy%20-sept2010.pdf
I spotted them in the first couple of weeks after the smoking ban, they all seemed simultaneously to take a different tack every week.
I noticed that “the grey faced smoker” imported from America didn’t go down too well here and was soon dropped, but the deeply irritating, false comparison of breathing secondhand smoke in a pub, to them, as non-smokers standing on a chair and urinating on everyone, went on interminably.
Wow! It’s still going!
Almost word for word, just as I remember it from newspaper comment threads in 2007.
BBC Breakfast
Should smoking be banned in parks and other public spaces?
14th October – 15th comment up from the bottom of the page.
“I too have a pleasure, I like a beer now and then, the product of my pleasure is urine, how would you feel if I stood on a chair and p****ed on your head
and your clothes.”
Oh yes indeed it was full of great info……….lol
My fav part was even when it appears to the advocates that a ban is in trouble proceed as if you were positive it will pass and create all schemes in the public view such as letters to the editor as if a ban was sure to pass.
Then it goes further that if he ban does pass keep up continued opinion and news pieces formulating how well it is accepted by everyone regardless of proof to the contrary.
It has a million more dubious advocacy tricks to play out too,like faked polling!
The North Carolina Health Nazis have been pushing the 5 year analversary of their ban and poor slackers had nothing to use for propaganda save the great N.C. AMI FRAUD study done by Stantonitis Glanz and the asthma lowered hospitalization fraud.
Then they whipped out the CDC pharma paid for 9 states economic harm study. The one where Friedeman gave the outcome away the day he announced the studys start date!
Problem is we don’t have any economic data for NC as a state. Ive been there 3 times since the ban and have seen all the restaraunts and coffee house closings in the mountains……….It wasn’t a pretty site. Im talking places I was taken as a kid by my dad in the 60s that had been still in business in the 2000s………….all gone now!
I just remembered after the NC ban wafflehouse within 6-8 months had to buy up independently owned restaraunts due to losses in business. Waycross Ga at WH headquarters could likely give a real good account on the losses via their own tax records and other records across the nation…………WH is PRO-SMOKING all the way.
Even Huddle House if any still exists as I know in Fla after the ban they mostly folded or were bought out.
Even IHOP took a massive hit in Fla and other states after bans. But they had enough size to overcome losses.
There will no doubt be a backlash from smokers in the beginning until they get used to the changes.
Some of us will never “get used” to them.
This is great stuff. It needs to get disseminated widely.
Add to the tobacco control trolls the media sites running antismoking articles without comments sections or holding dissenting comments in limbo, or just deleting them!
The slap happened last year not yesterday………….
July 16, 2014, 7:46 AM
A North Side business owner slapped a 79-year-old Cook County judge in the face, spit on her and called her “Rosa Parks” after becoming angry that she was smoking near him outside the Daley Center, authorities said
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-man-charged-for-slapping-spitting-on-judge-outside-daley-center-20140715-story.html
This happened in July of last year, and it’s the first I’ve heard of it. Of course the media downplayed it, because the judge was a smoker. And not even Jesse Jackson et al. will stand up for smokers. That would displease their wealthy liberal friends.
Ole Jessie still makes a good living off rental fees for his renta-riot demonstrators bussed in to any cause or agenda needing paid for supporters. Rainbow Push!
DP’s got some good Chit Mon………….
Clueless Nonsense That DOES Receive Attention In Public Consultations
It speaks volumes about the vast duplication of resources in the lucrative public health industry that I’ve never heard of The Association of Directors of Public Health (@ADPHUK) before today.However, if you responded to the Scottish consultation earlier in the week – or if you find it sinister that
http://nblo.gs/12tfFc
And why is it bad to vape?
Many nicotine vapourisers look similar to regular cigarettes, therefore sending mixed messages to the public about acceptance of smoking, with the potential of re-normalising smoking behaviours. Evidence supports the need for consistency in messages in trying to support behaviour change and culture change.
We are concerned over the second hand effects of vapour on those with respiratory conditions (such as asthma), particularly when nicotine vapourisers are used in enclosed and substantially enclosed public places.
Funny thing on the way to the Hospital grounds it was discovered the NHS had been spraying the public with
Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).
In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.
Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)
So my friends the DHS and NHS have a lot to answer for having children born in such conditions and poor asthmatic children entering the ER for Jill Pells flagrant study on lower asthma admissions to hospitals. Poor things it was safer for them to be home around smokers than that awful E-CIG juice being sprayed 24/7 as a disinfectant for hospitals!
Oh ya and the nicotine poor asthmatics:
In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.
The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”
Who knows perhaps Pharma wants to own ecigs and rebrand it a asthma reliever product! lol
Or maybe Big Tobacco is getting into the pharma market for inhalers for asthmatics since they are buying up ecig companies faster than anything………..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11280504/Has-Stanford-University-found-a-cure-for-Alzheimers-disease.html
On a completely different matter I need some help.a friend of mine who runs a shishi bar is being harassed by the police.the question is,does an environmental officer need to be there for him to be prosecuted.
I think we need more facts. Whats it for smoking or environmental releases from grill smoke or what. Then in what country or township. Local laws ar written differently on many things along with who enforces such.
Thanks.its in Yorkshire England.its for the fumes emanating from a shishi pipe.
If he’s allowing people to smoke shisha pipes indoors then he’s breaking the law and he’ll get nailed.
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/leeds-shisha-bar-owners-get-13-000-court-bills-1-5660954
If they’re puffing away outdoors and generally making life unpleasant for people who live nearby (noise, smoke etc.) then the police will be acting on those complaints.
In both cases the police can indeed charge him. The do not need an environmental officer to initiate a prosecution.
(if it’s the later I’d suggest he places a curfew on the outdoor space. 9 pm is the norm in most heavily built up areas. And lots of notices about respecting neighbours.)
No idea at all myself.
Thanks for your reply.however I always thought that smoking in an enclosed public space was an environmental matter .the police were there to protect the environmental officer in case it turned nasty.
And just one further comment.it is the council who initiate prosecution not the police.that is my understanding.
One Nazi can ruin a whole barrel…………….of fun
Let’s get one thing very clear here Steven. Like it or not, smoking in an enclosed public space is illegal. Finish. Done. Dusted.
Every single business owner has an obligation to trade within the limits of his her respective license.
If at 9 o’clock at night a citizen sees a crime being committed then s/he will invariably do the same as anyone else and report it to the police.
You are however perfectly correct in stating that enforcement is a matter for the local authority and they do that through their environmental departments, usually as a part of a routine inspection, or a specific complaint.
However they do not work 24/7 and if your pal was allowing people to smoke inside the premises then yes the police will act. It is a national law and the police have an obligation to enforce it when notified.
Semantics don’t hack it and if your pal’s getting hassle the best thing is to not play the smart Alex. It just pisses them off.
As Harley points out there are police officers (thankfully very few) who do things off their own bat, simply because they’re anti’s and they can. But that’s now very rare indeed because of mobile camera’s. I very much doubt that’s the case in Yorkshire. Far more likely is it’s a competitor.
When you read the news stories and the posted comments it seems that everyone in Ontario is pleased with the new outdoor smoking ban (which includes a ban on smoking patios).
However if you look at polls at the same media sites (which seem to elude wide notice) the story somewhat changes:
From Sun News Network: 2015-01-03
Do you agree with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act changes that took effect January 1st?
Yes 34%
No 66%
VOTERS 1817
(Source: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/poll/ )
—- —- —-
And at another site (quintenews.com) :
More on new smoking regulations
Posted 2 days ago
Fri, Jan 2nd, ’15 – 3:13 am
We’ve had a great response to a poll regarding new smoking regulations now in effect in Ontario.
The latest rules ban smoking on bar and restaurant patios, as well as on sport fields, and on playgrounds.
Our poll, with almost 600 responses, shows that there’s a split in opinion on whether these regulations are good, or not.
About 55% support the new regulations, while about 45% think they’re bad.
We’d like to do another poll, sparked by a readers’ comment that there should be different regulations regarding patios at establishments well-known as bars, and those that are primarily known as dining businesses.
The new poll asks: “Would you agree businesses known as bars should be permitted to allow smoking on patios, while dining establishments should ban smoking on patios.”
As of today the results are:
yes 61.94% (345 votes)
no 38.06% (212 votes)
Total Votes: 557
(Source: http://www.quintenews.com/2015/01/more-on-new-smoking-regulations/78278/ )
Support is not as strong as reported. This suggests there is an opportunity to counter the Antismoking propaganda.
Pingback: Tobacco Control is Driven by Hatred | Frank Davis
Pingback: Quora