Thursday, July 23, 2009
Moscow, Idaho Bans Cigarette Smoking
Moscow, Idaho has banned cigarette smoking in bars. The Spokesman:
Here's the thing; research, facts and studies showing that second-hand cigarette smoke poses no or little health risk have been suppressed in favor of the political clout of the Non-Smokers. I've written about this before and you can read the evidence for yourself at The Heartland Institute.
If the No-Smoking Nazis would just admit that what they don't like is the smell of second-hand cigarette smoke on their clothing or hair, at least they would be intellectually honest. But no, they have to lie. And they have to lie because the facts are not on their side. Big surprise not.
Besides, Barack Hussein Obama, Junior is a smoker. How bad can it be? He claims he's "95 percent smoke free," but isn't that like being "a little bit pregnant?"
Oh, Lordy Day how The Left would have a sh*t-screaming fit over any smoker that isn't a Marxist. But Pbama receives the Coveted Free Pass because he's a prodigy of Karl Marx.
Smoking is cool, don't let anyone tell you any different.
©2009
Moscow smoking ban passes: No more lighting up for bar patrons, amendment to allow designated smoking rooms is dropped/David Johnson, Moscow-Pullman Daily News
More Info: Members of the Moscow City Council voted unanimously Monday night to ban smoking in bars and private clubs. The prohibition will go into effect probably within a couple of weeks, City Attorney Randy Fife said. The ordinance will allow smoking outside bars and clubs in designated areas at least 20 feet away from main entrances.
Here's the thing; research, facts and studies showing that second-hand cigarette smoke poses no or little health risk have been suppressed in favor of the political clout of the Non-Smokers. I've written about this before and you can read the evidence for yourself at The Heartland Institute.
If the No-Smoking Nazis would just admit that what they don't like is the smell of second-hand cigarette smoke on their clothing or hair, at least they would be intellectually honest. But no, they have to lie. And they have to lie because the facts are not on their side. Big surprise not.
Besides, Barack Hussein Obama, Junior is a smoker. How bad can it be? He claims he's "95 percent smoke free," but isn't that like being "a little bit pregnant?"
Oh, Lordy Day how The Left would have a sh*t-screaming fit over any smoker that isn't a Marxist. But Pbama receives the Coveted Free Pass because he's a prodigy of Karl Marx.
Smoking is cool, don't let anyone tell you any different.
©2009
Labels: Marxism, No Smoking, Obama Smoker, Smokers are cool
Comments:
<< Home
Don''t think that just passing a ban will get rid of those tobacco control activists. Keep your earplugs. Once they find gullible lawmakers and get a foot in the door, they'll be back for the patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them for their smoking patrons.. This is a quote from page seven of the ban lobbyists instruction book.
"Tobacco control advocates should work 'from the inside out.'
Prior to addressing
outdoor restrictions, communities should first have effective smokefree laws for indoor
environments. Because people are exposed to higher levels of secondhand smoke in
indoor settings than in outdoor ones, it makes sense from a public health perspective to
protect nonsmokers indoors before seeking outdoor air laws.
There is emerging science on the health hazards of outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke"
If they had ANY consideration for local businesses, they would do the patio ban upfront, or at least let people know that that patio bans are coming up BEFORE they spend thousands of dollars to accommodate their smoking customers.These traveling lobbyists have ABSOLUTLY NO concern about local business owners. Here's their instruction book. See page seven.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
"Tobacco control advocates should work 'from the inside out.'
Prior to addressing
outdoor restrictions, communities should first have effective smokefree laws for indoor
environments. Because people are exposed to higher levels of secondhand smoke in
indoor settings than in outdoor ones, it makes sense from a public health perspective to
protect nonsmokers indoors before seeking outdoor air laws.
There is emerging science on the health hazards of outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke"
If they had ANY consideration for local businesses, they would do the patio ban upfront, or at least let people know that that patio bans are coming up BEFORE they spend thousands of dollars to accommodate their smoking customers.These traveling lobbyists have ABSOLUTLY NO concern about local business owners. Here's their instruction book. See page seven.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
# posted by 
: 7:32 PM, July 22, 2009
: 7:32 PM, July 22, 2009 
Talking about freedom violations David, have you heard about this one lately:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/24/first-they-came-for-that-galloway-fellow/
Here is their blog, enjoy:
www.motorhomediaries.com
Regards,
TM
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/24/first-they-came-for-that-galloway-fellow/
Here is their blog, enjoy:
www.motorhomediaries.com
Regards,
TM
Bookmarked, saved and my required reading for tonight Tym. Just time constraints recently that kept me away from updating as often as I like, etc. etc.
So you say that there is research that shows that second hand smoke has little or no effect to those who breathe it in? I would like to have some of that kool aid you are drinking. I know I will get your wrath but I feel that smoking indoors should be banned. I am going to honest and say that I don't like either the smell or the way it clings to your clothes when you leave the bar. However I also think the idea that second hand smoke does not hurt a persons lungs is a crock of crap. Smoke in any form hurts your lungs, just because its not in a huge amount like say a fire doesn't mean it does not do damage. Also only about 20 to 30% of people make up the smoking class. So I would say majority rule on the whole thing to begin with. I am from Moscow and I am happy the ban is in effect. To me the whole state should be smoke free or maybe even the whole country should have a smoking ban for all indoor structures. Last but not least I know your going to give me the whole "it's an infringement on a person's rights" comment. Well smoking is not a right, I have never seen it in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution so I would say it's a person's privilege to smoke if they want to but it is not a given right but rather a choice a person makes.
# posted by : 1:04 PM, August 09, 2009
: 1:04 PM, August 09, 2009
Anony,
There is no solid evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer or contributes to any other disease. Read the Heartland Institute studies.
Here's a question you can't or won't answer: Why not leave it up to the Free Market to decide this issue? One on side of the street you can have an owner of a bar or restaurant who allows indoor smoking. Next to that same establishment or across the street can be the owner of another bar or restaraunt where is it all non-smoking. What's wrong with letting the public choose which one they want to patronize? Gee, it wouldn't be because we all know which one's would go out of business (the non-smoking establishments), would it?
You're not going to be on the receiving end of my "wrath." You don't know me. It is very presumptuous of you to say that. I enjoy a good spirited discussion.
So majority rules? Great. Let's apply that to Nationalized and Rationed healthcare, because most polls reflect 51% or more Americans are against the govt taking over our healthcare system.
Since you are so concerned about even small amounts of particulate matter that enter the lungs of any non-smoker, I sure hope you're not one of those joggers/runners who run alongside the streets. Gee, inhaling all those car exhaust and fumes must really impact your lungs in the most harmful way imagineable.
I never wrote anywhere on this blog that smoking a right. You're just a typical, Militant-non-smoker who thinks you know what you don't know. That's the problem with people like you. You're little Eichmanns. You think you know what's best.
Why aren't the non-smokers patronizing all the bars and restatraunts they said they would if only those places went non-smoking? Why are all the non-smokers still staying home? Because they never intended to go out and hit the town. It's all about Militant Non-Smoking Hitlerian propaganda. That's all it is.
The Militant-non-smokers know they would lose the battle in the free market if bars/restaurants, etc could set-up as "for smokers" and "smoke-free." Minnesota, Wisconsin and other states have all mandated no-smoking indoor policies. What's happening in those states is that businesses are closing, people are losing their jobs.
There is the matter of property rights, and the owner of a property should have the right to permit cigarette smoking in their property if they so wish.
Finally, if smoking is so bad, then cigarettes should be illegal. Are you for that? I hope you are. Then you can start paying more in taxes out of your own pocket...costs that used to be paid by the smokers.
I know I won;t hear from you again and I know you won't answer any of my questions. That's okay, I don't hold a grudge or think less of you. It'd be very difficult to think less of anyone whom I consider a Liberal Militant non-smoker. They're a notch below pedophiles.
There is no solid evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer or contributes to any other disease. Read the Heartland Institute studies.
Here's a question you can't or won't answer: Why not leave it up to the Free Market to decide this issue? One on side of the street you can have an owner of a bar or restaurant who allows indoor smoking. Next to that same establishment or across the street can be the owner of another bar or restaraunt where is it all non-smoking. What's wrong with letting the public choose which one they want to patronize? Gee, it wouldn't be because we all know which one's would go out of business (the non-smoking establishments), would it?
You're not going to be on the receiving end of my "wrath." You don't know me. It is very presumptuous of you to say that. I enjoy a good spirited discussion.
So majority rules? Great. Let's apply that to Nationalized and Rationed healthcare, because most polls reflect 51% or more Americans are against the govt taking over our healthcare system.
Since you are so concerned about even small amounts of particulate matter that enter the lungs of any non-smoker, I sure hope you're not one of those joggers/runners who run alongside the streets. Gee, inhaling all those car exhaust and fumes must really impact your lungs in the most harmful way imagineable.
I never wrote anywhere on this blog that smoking a right. You're just a typical, Militant-non-smoker who thinks you know what you don't know. That's the problem with people like you. You're little Eichmanns. You think you know what's best.
Why aren't the non-smokers patronizing all the bars and restatraunts they said they would if only those places went non-smoking? Why are all the non-smokers still staying home? Because they never intended to go out and hit the town. It's all about Militant Non-Smoking Hitlerian propaganda. That's all it is.
The Militant-non-smokers know they would lose the battle in the free market if bars/restaurants, etc could set-up as "for smokers" and "smoke-free." Minnesota, Wisconsin and other states have all mandated no-smoking indoor policies. What's happening in those states is that businesses are closing, people are losing their jobs.
There is the matter of property rights, and the owner of a property should have the right to permit cigarette smoking in their property if they so wish.
Finally, if smoking is so bad, then cigarettes should be illegal. Are you for that? I hope you are. Then you can start paying more in taxes out of your own pocket...costs that used to be paid by the smokers.
I know I won;t hear from you again and I know you won't answer any of my questions. That's okay, I don't hold a grudge or think less of you. It'd be very difficult to think less of anyone whom I consider a Liberal Militant non-smoker. They're a notch below pedophiles.
Here's a question you can't or won't answer: Why not leave it up to the Free Market to decide this issue? One on side of the street you can have an owner of a bar or restaurant who allows indoor smoking. Next to that same establishment or across the street can be the owner of another bar or restaraunt where is it all non-smoking. What's wrong with letting the public choose which one they want to patronize? Gee, it wouldn't be because we all know which one's would go out of business (the non-smoking establishments), would it?
I'll take a stab at answering that. Because the nonsmokers know that their precious nonsmoking establishments would fail due to a lack of customers. Whenever cities and states outlaw smoking the first businesses to cut staff and jobs and go belly up are the places that used to be patronized by the smokers.
I'll take a stab at answering that. Because the nonsmokers know that their precious nonsmoking establishments would fail due to a lack of customers. Whenever cities and states outlaw smoking the first businesses to cut staff and jobs and go belly up are the places that used to be patronized by the smokers.
# posted by : 5:08 PM, August 22, 2009
: 5:08 PM, August 22, 2009
Nah, Anony, you didn't reply with any good counter-points.
I only question your literacy.
Perhaps you need to read my comments policy, or have a stray dog or cat read them to you. You will find that:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
Besides, this is my blog. You don't have any rights to Free Speech here. If don't like it, I suggest you start your own whining, pissant blog about how second hand smoke is merely annoying to you, not a real health threat.
I only question your literacy.
Perhaps you need to read my comments policy, or have a stray dog or cat read them to you. You will find that:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
Besides, this is my blog. You don't have any rights to Free Speech here. If don't like it, I suggest you start your own whining, pissant blog about how second hand smoke is merely annoying to you, not a real health threat.
Well, unpublished whining little non-smoking anonymous petulant shitwad, you haven't answered the questions posed to you that Nick answered. Until you do, you have lost your commenting privileges.
(Blowing second and third hand smoke directly into your pock-marked ugly face)
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
A good spirited debate? Sure. When you answer the questions previously posed to you.
Until then, DIAF.
(Blowing second and third hand smoke directly into your pock-marked ugly face)
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
A good spirited debate? Sure. When you answer the questions previously posed to you.
Until then, DIAF.
Why is the non smoking anony puss whining Dave? Are you not publishing their comments? That's a shame, eh?
# posted by : 3:02 PM, September 07, 2009
: 3:02 PM, September 07, 2009
Nick,
The non-smoking Nazi is whining that I didn't publish his/her/its comments. That's because he/her/it didn't reply to the questions that I asked; those that you so kindly did.
I love intellectual debate. But Anony refused to answer the private property question and that of allowing both smoking and non establishment. He/she/it won't answer those questions because he/she/it knows they are on the losing side.
The militant non-smokers know they lose their argument if it was up to the Free Market to allow this to play out. That's why I'm not publishing the comments.
You, Nick, have answered and replied in stellar fashion. Thanks for doing so.
Post a Comment
The non-smoking Nazi is whining that I didn't publish his/her/its comments. That's because he/her/it didn't reply to the questions that I asked; those that you so kindly did.
I love intellectual debate. But Anony refused to answer the private property question and that of allowing both smoking and non establishment. He/she/it won't answer those questions because he/she/it knows they are on the losing side.
The militant non-smokers know they lose their argument if it was up to the Free Market to allow this to play out. That's why I'm not publishing the comments.
You, Nick, have answered and replied in stellar fashion. Thanks for doing so.
<< Home
Alabama Internet
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.
