.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, August 07, 2009

Iraq Considers No-Smoking Policies

American No-Smoking Nazis have infiltrated Iraq. JFC! APee via Yahoo News:

    After six years of war and terrorist bombings, Iraq is moving against a different killer in its midst — smoking. Sweeping curbs unveiled by the government Thursday suggest that as the violence subsides, authorities have more time to worry about normal quality-of-life issues. The legislation to go before parliament would ban smoking in public buildings, outlaw sales to under-18s, prohibit advertising, limit tar content and mandate health warnings on cigarette packs.


    "The government should solve the problems of electricity, the lack of drinking water and get rid of financial corruption. This smoking law should be last on its list," griped Mohammed Hussein, 45, an oil ministry employee who said he smoked for 25 years before quitting.

Yeah...I'd say Iraq has far more pressing problems of higher importance to solve than cigarette smoking. But you know how those Militant American No-Smoking Nazis are, they have to IMPOSE their ideals onto a sovereign nation. The No-Smoking Nazis love them their Adolf Hitler. Remember, Hitler loathed smoking, absolutely loathed it. And he was a vegetarian. And a failed artist.

I encourage youths everywhere around the world to take up cigarette smoking. It's cool. Way cool. Don't ever let anyone tell you it's not.

Hey, why doesn't the Kenyan-born anus in the White House SET A FUKCING EXAMPLE FOR EVERYONE AND QUIT SMOKING? Oh, that's right...he can't. He doesn't have the willpower. He's addicted.


Labels: , , ,

" Hitler loathed smoking, absolutely loathed it."

I loath smoking too, it's a very disgusting and harmful habit, but I don't care about the harm smokers are doing to themselves, that's their business as long as they pay for it. However, I am a non-smoker and like 99% of non-smokers, I hate being smoked around and I do not want to inhale second hand smoke, it's already disgusting enough to endure third hand smoke over the smokers themselves. Anyhow, it's déjà-vu all over again David so I am not sure if we want to go this dead end path again.

Anyhow, I do agree that there are more important problems in Iraq because even if smoking kill, car bomb suicide attacks will kill you a million time faster and in even more atrocious pain than any cancer or heart attack tobacco smoking can do. And also, smoking will kill you but in 20,25, 30 years who knows but car bomb will surely kill you in the nearby seconds it explodes.

As for Hitler goes, some say he was an ex-smoker and as far as ex-smokers go, they are surely the worst anti-smoking machines ever out there since they realize how addictive this product is.

"And he was a vegetarian."

Once again, it's another myth. At some point, he was thinking to kill even vegetarian since they were too humane and not enough warriors as he wanted people to be. He despises judaism as well who were not eating pork so to Hitler, eating pork was fine in that regard. The fact that he was vegetarian at the end of his life was following a doctor recommandation that told him it would be better for his heart and his global health not to eat meat especially red meat. However, he cheated sometimes and was a secret meat eater.

"And a failed artist."

Again partially true. One thing he could not do was draw humans and that is why he was refused at the Art Academy of Munich (I believe it was that town but I am unsure on that one). However, like Speer, he was a brilliant architect and his the founder of the Beatle, the Volks car.
Drake, I am a smoker have been for many years, but I do not smoke in my home, car or around my children, this is exactly what “they” want done here in good ole US of A. I personally believe it’s my choice and believe it or not my right as a free American to partake of smoking. Obama the liar and thief will keep smoking and people will ok his smoking with him being the anti-Christ and all, but as for the rest of us, the four henchmen of the apocalypse (Reid, frank, Pelosi and Dodd) will continue to dictate from their thrones made of bullshit.

Second-hand smoke is not a health hazard. Read the Heartland Institute study on the suppression of evidence stating just that.

Now, if you and other non-smokers want to say you don't like the SMELL of cigarette smoke, that's fine, I will accept that. It's honest. But don't hide behind the false science that second hand smoke is a health hazard. It's not.

Hitler's vegetarianism:

"One may regret living at a period when it's impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there's one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian."
- Adolf Hitler. November 11, 1941. Section 66, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

"The only thing of which I shall be incapable is to share the sheiks' mutton with them. I'm a vegetarian, and they must spare me from their meat."
- Adolf Hitler. January 12, 1942. Section 105, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

"At the time when I ate meat, I used to sweat a lot. I used to drink four pots of beer and six bottles of water during a meeting. … When I became a vegetarian, a mouthful of water was enough."
- Adolf Hitler. January 22, 1942. Section 117, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

"When I later gave up eating meat, I immediately began to perspire much less, and within a fortnight to perspire hardly at all. My thirst, too, decreased considerably, and an occasional sip of water was all I required. Vegetarian diet, therefore, has some obvious advantages."
- Adolf Hitler. July 8, 1942. Section 256, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

"I am no admirer of the poacher, particularly as I am a vegetarian."
- Adolf Hitler. August 20, 1942. Section 293, HITLER'S TABLE TALK

Source: HITLER'S TABLE TALK: 1941-1944. Enigma Books.

I don't know how you can prove he was a "secret meat eater." Any evidence of that?

I used "failed artist" somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because art is so subjective. There are those in the art world who agree his art was, at best, amateurish.

I'm not trying to argue with you, just letting you know that I am not writing what I write without any basis or reference.

I admire you for not smoking around your kids, home and car. That is what your choice is, and you are to be commended for it.

There are far greater issues going on in Iraq than second-hand smoke, which is my point.

As I replied to Tym, if non-smokers would only be honest and say they don't like the SMELL of smoke, I would accept their words. Read the Heartland Institute report about how evidence was supporessed that second-hand smoke poses no health risk.

The MILITANT non-smokers are not being intellectually honest, because if they were, they know they'd have no standing, no case, no argument.

Second hand smoke causes cancer, I now far too many cases of second hand smoke deaths that affected me personnally to state otherwise.

Now, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions.

I don't like the smell as much as I don't like to smell a fart but that's not the point. The point, it's that it is a health hasard, it kills people each year and that's it.

For all that, I appeciate smokers who don't smoke around me and around non-smokers as well.



You and I are going to respectfully disagree on this issue. I'm OK with that.

There is no conclusive proof that second-hand cigarette smoke causes cancer. It may have an effect. It may not.

Here's the link to the Heartland Institute report:


I don't want to get into a prolonged discussion on this issue.

We both probably know of people who smoked 2 packs of cigarettes for 80 years and died of natural causes completely unrelated to smoking.

We both probably know of people who never were around cigarette smoke, first, second or third hand who, for reasons unknown, died from lung cancer.

All I am saying is this: there is substantiated evidence that was suppressed that second-hand smoke is not a health risk. Read the Heartland report. Read it.

I'm fine with nonsmokers who are honest enough to say they don't like the smell. But they could not advance their cause using smell as their reasoning, hence, they had to turn 2nd-hand smoke into health scare when there is evidence supporting that and evidence that was suppressed.

Shouldn't science present all sides of an issue objectively, honestly and without bias? Of course it should. It didn't with 2nd-hand smoke.
"Shouldn't science present all sides of an issue objectively, honestly and without bias? Of course it should. It didn't with 2nd-hand smoke."

And that obviously goes both sides. There were lots of biased reports for tobacco companies.

I just wonder that if tobacco doesn't affect health as the cought and short breathing suppose it does like you seem to pretend, I just wonder how come tobacco companies such as Phillip Morris had to pay millions of dollars in reparation to smokers who got ill or died from tobacco related diseases. All the jury was bought off?

Get real David. I know there are exageration in the non-smoking speech but to pretend there are no link between tobacco and lung cancer is a little exagerated isn't it.

And if it pissed off people around for whatever reason, why would people still continue to piss off other people just because "it smells bad".
As for the so-called institute report, it is biased to the bone. I know the same movement in French Canada and is often close to libertarians (or wants to be) now that state has turned against them for health reasons.

The thing I wonder though is that are they in the libertarian movement because they are smokers and feel affected in their so-called liberties? Otherwise, they wouldn't be in it? I think that's a legitimate question.

Anyhow, there are thousands of other reports who are going to state otherwise (state sponsored or not).


Let's just say off the record that I am not an anti-smoker activist. However, I don't want any business to do with smokers as much as I have quited long ago the pot friends and so on.


Drake, Christ was a great AG for Florida when we had the orgy of hurricanes he stepped up and fought the gouging that happened afterwards, that’s pretty much how he got to the governors mansion. He fought for the people not the government. Since being elected governor he has become a RINO he flip flops and waffles on things. I believe this is do to the GOP taking an ass whooping last election year, so he’s trying to come off as a moderate. I am a conservative but I break from the GOP with a lot of things. I vote according to their voting record (FYI I hate jeb bush) I did disagree with G.W. Bush on things like his stance on abortion, stem cell and TARP, just to name a few. I did vote for McCain because he was the lesser of the two evils a vote for Keyes or Ron Paul was a vote for Obama. Yes, the republicans do have their share of problems and those problems are getting exposed and weeded out hopefully, I don’t like Christian police who don’t follow their own policies!

There were lots of biased reports for tobacco companies.

Did I write there weren't? No. Nor did I write that they were. I don't know because I haven't read every single report released from the tobacco companies. You, on the other hand, appear to be adopting the "I'll believe it" because you dislike smoking. I deal in facts, not beliefs.

I just wonder that if tobacco doesn't affect health as the cought and short breathing suppose it does like you seem to pretend, I just wonder how come tobacco companies such as Phillip Morris had to pay millions of dollars in reparation to smokers who got ill or died from tobacco related diseases. All the jury was bought off?

Really? Second-hand smoke causes coughs and shortness of breathing in non-smokers? So do people who bathe in cologne and perfume. Using your standard, we should out-law second-hand fragrance. I'm in all in favor of that because too many people douse themselves with too much.

but to pretend there are no link between tobacco and lung cancer is a little exagerated isn't it.

I never said that. You are putting words into my mouth. I wrote the Heartland Institute cites that stuides showing second-hand smoke is not a health hazard were suppressed.

why would people still continue to piss off other people just because "it smells bad".

Well...I can only vouch for the Twin Cities No smoking nazis who said they would "go out" more to restaurants, bars, clubs, bowling alleys, etc if only those venues were smoke-free. They have been smoke free for quite some time. What's happening? Many of those venues closed due to a lack of business. I guess the non-smokers were lying; they're NOT going out. They're not spendning money. They're Little Eichmanns who are all about control, not health, not science.

I anxiously await your SPECIFIC EXAMPLES IN CITING WHERE THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE "IS BIASED TO THE BONE." You made a broad and sweeping generalization, and I don't accept broad and sweeping generalizations because they are just that.

You cite the American Lung Assoc? Pffffffffffffffft. Gee, no bias there, huh? The gospel handed down to non-smokers from Moses himself. That's bullshit, dude, and you know it.

You seem to think I should acquiesce to your beliefs. That's not going to happen. Don't take it personally. I shot holes in your rebuttals about Hitler's vegetarianism and about him being rabidly against tobacco use.

I shot holes in your arguments about second-hand smoke. I'm using facts. You're using what you want to believe.

You force me to think, you often challenge me. That's good, I like it. Sometimes I think you border on being a bit pissy (sorry for the word choice and no offense implied or intended, I've been told the same by others).

You say you're not one of the militant anti-smokers. I wouldn't agree with that. You seem very militantly against cigarette smoking, and you have every right to be. But not everyone is going to agree with you. And certainly I realize everyone is not going to agree with me.

I'd rather not go down what you earlier called "an endless road," with you because it is just that, and endless road. I don't have to have the last word, I admit when I'm wrong, I admit when I don't know something, I try as best as I can to support what I write using factual data.

Factual data is a funny thing, too. Cigarettes were once considered rather harmless. So was asbestos. Science is a subject often in a state of flux. People once thought the earth was flat. Science proved them wrong.

It's fine with me that people don't want to be around second-hand smoke. But I'd prefer they simply be honest and say they don't want to be around it because they don't like the smell instead of using the pseudo-science that second-hand smoke is a health hazard. It's not.

I meant to address your comment:

I just wonder how come tobacco companies such as Phillip Morris had to pay millions of dollars in reparation to smokers who got ill or died from tobacco related diseases. All the jury was bought off?

Hey, line up enough lawyers and enough doctors and enough skewed so-called "science" with the government backing your case and you can indict a ham sandwich as a serial killer.

Why do some people who've never smoked, never been around smoke ever, die from lung cancer and others who smoke 2-3 packs a day for 60 years die from something completely unrelated to smoking? I don't know the answer. The medical community can't provide an answer. If you can, hell, you're much further (farther?) ahead of the game than the rest of us, so let know.

Please believe me when I say that when I was a non-smoker, I had the exact same outlook on smoking and 2nd-hand smoke as I do now as a smoker.

I hear you. Repubs often seem to begin as true Conservatives and gradually move to the Moderate and RINO areas. I hate when they do this. I think it's pandering and posturing, and I object to it as much as I do when Dems do it.

There are plenty of areas where I disagree with the Repub party and with how W. Bush approached many issues.

I think all all illegal drugs should be legalized (pot, cocaine, meth, all of it). That's not a Republican ideal.

I'm not 100% solidly pro-life. I think there are cases where abortion needs to be a option. (Hell, the Libs can abort away as far as I'm concerned).

I'm not a bible-thumper (not using that term to be derogatory, just as a descriptive phrase). I'm agnostic. Didn't always used to be, but gradually moved there. If others choose to believe in a Creator or God, great for them, I support their choice to do just that.

My mom is a Traditional Dem. So was my late dad. So were my grandparents. Ditto most of my relatives. I was Democrat during my youth and college years.

I'm basically against the death penalty, although for years I was for it. Too many people have been wrongly convicted and executed who - we later find out - were innocent, and advances in science and DNA-testing was the reason for my switch on this issue.

There's plenty of areas I disagree with Repubs. There is fucking NOWHERE I agree with Liberals and Progressives.

And the Repubs keep pushing me away and I move closer and closer to the Libertarian party. The Repubs are too ignorant to acknowledge they have lost touch with their own base.

Small government, much lower taxes on individuals and corporations, a strong nation defense, adherence to the Constitution, as little judicial activism from the bench as possible and the Fed Govt keeping its nose out of issues not specifically designated to it; thus those issues fall to the states. That's where I'm a Conservative. Example: California (or any other state) wants to legalize marijuana, the Feds have no fukcing business injecting themselves into the issue.

The rest of me is Libertarian. Didn't mean to go on and on. Just letting you know where I'm at on some issues that are supposedly "Republican" ideals.

"Hey, line up enough lawyers and enough doctors and enough skewed so-called "science" with the government backing your case and you can indict a ham sandwich as a serial killer."

The reverse is also true and this is why tobacco will NEVER be illegal.

Guess who are amongts the 10 largest contributors of the democrats and the republicans? Tobacco companies.

They have litterally trillions of dollars to fight on your side David and an army of lawyers that can postpone up to a thousand years any tries to outlaw the product.

Therefore, the end of the world will happen before any chance to get that product banned.

As for not being affected by second hand smoke while being a non-smoker, I can believe that. Non-smokers are affected at different levels. Maybe there is a part in their head but lots of that is physical as well.

I'm letting you have the last word on this issue.

We agree to disagree.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker

Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
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.