Thursday, November 13, 2008
No-Smoking Nazis Continue War;
Seek Banning Outdoor Cigs
From The Minneapolis Red Star North Korean Tribune:
Matt Evans is 20 years old. Young enough to expect -- and accept -- that he can't smoke in class, at the student union or even in restaurants.
But campus sidewalks?
"Man, give us some freedom," the University of Minnesota junior said.
The U is studying whether it might ban smoking -- inside and out. Over the years, many colleges and universities have outlawed smoking indoors and around building entrances. Now, bans are going campus-wide.
"More people are saying that it's just not OK to have to live in somebody else's smoke," [said Katherine Morris, director of health services at the University of Minnesota, Duluth].
"...campus-wide bans "just do not make sense to me. They're not about protecting nonsmokers' health. They're about trying to change people's lifestyles. And that's a line which I don't think is appropriate to cross," [said Dr. Michael Siegel, professor at Boston University School of Public Health].
The Arkansas City Traveler has the following story:
The Winfield City Commission voted unanimously to ban smoking in all publicly accessible places in Winfield at their regular meeting on Monday night.
The move did not come without resistance. Several citizens opposed to the ban finally spoke up after months of revisions to the proposal, which was first brought in front of the commission on Feb. 28 by Clean Air Cowley County.
Clean Air member Kathy Swain, who was on hand for the meeting, said she is pleased with the decision and thinks it will bring a brighter outcome to the future generations of Winfield.
"Out of consideration for the health of every person, I look forward to a time when we can all enjoy clean air," said Swain.
BL'eus Cafe proprietor Blain Evans said there is no reason for the city to ban smoking in all buildings, especially since he would like to see both sides of the issue come to a point of satisfaction.
"Personally, I like to cater to both," said Evans. "Why can we not make a separate smoking area that's completely closed off? To me, the total ban is not the way to go."
Jumpin' Jukebox bar owner Kristy Tovar said the ban will hurt bars the most, since almost everyone who goes into her bar smokes.
"Almost everybody that comes into a bar smokes," said Tovar. "You have a choice to come and drink, and if you already have a ventilation system pulling the smoke out, who is it really affecting at that point? Nobody is going to want to come to the bar when they can stay at home and drink and be allowed to smoke. Besides that, most of the health conscious people who are for the smoking ban don't go the bars, and they don't eat out regularly anyway."
The Militant Non-Smokers use the same false argument every time; they'd go out on the town more often, hit the bars and restaurants if only they didn't have to deal with second-hand cigarette smoke. Well, study the cities and towns and states that have no-smoking bans and you will find that the Militant Non-Smokers are not bellying up to the bar as promised. They are staying home in their perfectly smoke-free environment, peering out the curtains waiting...just waiting to view someone smoking a cigarette where they shouldn't be.
The Military Non-Smoking Crowd is a bunch of cowards and crybabies. There is no fun in their lives, and they don't want anyone else to have fun either. If they suffer in self-imposed misery, they want everyone else to suffer with them.
See, Clean Air is an organization funded by profits that were confiscated from tobacco companies during the Big Tobacco lawsuit. Kathy Swain, I'm guessing, has never held a real job. Like so many other Clean Air members she is a Douche bag. Nobody is denying her her clean air. Ever hear of holding your breath, Ms. Swain? Give it a try for...oh, about six hours.
It isn't about smoking and it isn't about heath. There is no link - despite what the No-Smoking Nazis say - between second-hand smoke and disease. None. The No-Smoking Nazis are lying. It's all about control and social engineering and because a group of people don't like their hair or clothing smelling like cigarette smoke.
Every college student who smokes should be organizing a "smoke-in" if their college or university seeks to ban outdoor smoking. They paid their tuition and have every right to smoke outdoors.
Do you know what historical figure hated cigarette smoking and tobacco? The person was a failed artist and a vegetarian. His initials are A.H. Anyone want to guess who it is?
Smoking is NOT a right, but as many courts gave now found, is no more than a chosen personal habit, comparable with picking your nose, farting and spitting. These acts are not welcomed in public, and neither is smoking. To force others to see and smell you smoking is an act of assault and should be restrained.
There is no evident second-hand smoke causes any disease or harms non-smokers.
Is it an assault to have to breath in someone who has overly perfumed or cologned themselves? Fragrances contain carcinogens. I await your answer, but know damn well you will never reply.
I am currently blowing cigarette smoke directly in your face. Ha HA!
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.