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

Saturday, January 31, 2009

No Smoking Nazis Target Cars

The No Smoking Nazis are still at it.

And really, there is no exaggeration or embellishment in calling this fine, miserable, anal-retentive group Nazis, for they are Nazis. Hitler loathed cigarettes. Not to mention being a vegetarian and a failed artist.

The No Smoking Nazis are targeting adults in private vehicles and if there are children present in the car. MSNBObama:

    Smoking opponents who pushed for Minnesota's statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants are now taking their fight to a new level.

    Legislation expected to be introduced Thursday would ban smoking in vehicles when children are riding along.

    Rep. Nora Slawik, a Maplewood Democrat, is the bill's author in the House. She said versions of it have passed in California, Arkansas, Louisiana and Maine. She says she's concerned about the children.

Slawik is one of those good, God-fearing Catholics who Worshops At The Altar of Abortion because it helps her in getting re-elected by those Pro-Baby-Killers who comprise her voting bloc.

"We don't ever want police officers chasing smokers. That's not their job," [said Jeanne Weigum of the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota], of whom I refer to her as the Queen Bee of Social Engineering due to her Nazi-like leadership in the No Smoking movement.

You know who these people are, don't you...the No Smoking Nazis? They're just like Jeanne Weigum. They're the ones who will whip out their cell phone, dial 911 and report some dad driving his car with all the windows rolled down - who is smoking a cigarette, holding it in his left hand which is resting on the outside review mirror - with his family on the way to Dairy Queen on a cool, summer night.

If one molecule of cigarette smoke is so explosively dangerous - and The No Smoking Nazis tell us this is true, that there's no debate about it - then why is an actor on the theatrical stage still permitted to smoke a cigarette? Surely someone in the front rows or balcony seats may inhale a molecule of carcinogenic cigarette smoke and their health be forever adversely affected.

I see too many fat kids. I don't mean just overweight, I mean roly-poly Michelin Man fat kids And they always seem to have snot rolling out of their nose and are shoving a donut or candy bar in their mouths. They are dangerously overweight.

I'm concerned about the children, too. We need to do something for the obese children. It's for their own good. It's for the children.

We should apply the same to parents who have fat children under the age of 18. Parents of fat kids should be fined.

Bring your kids down to the Official Poliburo Weighing Station and have the Nanny Government verify that your child's weight is within medically accepted standards for their age, gender and body type. The parents will be fined $100 for every pound their child is overweight.

I want "our children" to be as healthy as possible and if they're overweight, then of course the parents are at fault and should be fined.

It's for the children. Those that we don't abort, that is.


Coming Attractions, related to this issue, to be published at a later date:
* Why Being A Teen Cigarette Smoker is Still Way Fucking Cool and The Ultimate Rebellious Act.
* Encouraging Youth Cigarette Smoking As A Fun, Family Activity.
* Hot Girls Always Date The Smokers.
* Hollywood Makes Cigarette Smoking Glamorous, So You Should, Too!
* Cigarettes? Booze? Car keys? Sounds Like Teen Party Time!
* Teen Smoking: How to get past those initial coughing fits, learning to like it and more!
* Advanced Teen Smoking: Smoking and Brooding, The Symbiotic Relationship

Labels: , , , ,

Obama the liberal smoker is going to be really pissed off about this one.


By the way did you discuss the last protectionist measures Obama wants to take that are going to be really hurtful for Canada's natural ressource based economy such as in the case of steel.

As for smoking I totally approve such measures, smoking as killed far more than all genocides reunited and caused all kinds of cancers, hearts and lung disease in both smokers and non-smokers (passive smoking). One can never be too harsh on smoking and if it takes fascism to make some dumbass careless and unconcious smokers understand how they hurt others with their smoke, so be it.

Best regards,

I wonder if Pbama has ever smoked a cig while in the car with his kids?

I don't know for a fact that cig smoking has killed far more than all the genocides tallied up. It depends what you classify as a cigarette related death.

For instance, someone who dies of a heart attack today - who quit smoking 20 years ago - can still have cigaratte smoking listed as an agent involved in his death. This same person may have spent the past 10 years 50-75 pounds overweight. Is the heart attack due to the cigarette smoke or the fat or both?

I think the No Smoking Nazis are fascists and over-reaching.

And that's okay if we agree to disagree Tym. I know if you were a guest in my house or my car, and I felt like smoking, I'd do just that. And if I was in your home or car, and you asked me not to smoke, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
By the way Ontario in Canada has already implemented this measure.

We also have smoking bans in restaurants, bars and so on.

I agree there are lots of very intelligent smokers that have to pay for a minority of ignorants but that's why laws are passed. For the small idiot minority who dare to smoke with windows closed with their own kids in the car. With all asthma and smoking related illnesses in children, it's way dumber than let's say let your kid eat at McDonalds everyday.

But you want to know what's overboard David? Having to pay a 10 000$ US dollars fine and almost going to jail for trying to "import" 0,00000001 g of marijuhana in USA (a tear drop of pot that was in my ashtray and I don't even smoke tobacco either),. that happened to me at Montana-Saskatchewan in december 2004. Fortunately, my lawyer that I could not even afford made it drop to 500$ which was still 800$, that's a whole 2 weeks of good pay that went up to smoke due to those fascists pigs who treated me like a criminal (which I was according to the law).

When the time will come that tobacco will be treated as such in USA, I'll be down in the street on your side demonstrating. In the meantime, those smoking banners can be a little overboard if they want to, smoking is still legal and the fines cannot bring you a criminal record but only piss some off for displaying bad behaviours a little more.
Tym, I agree smoking around children may not be the best thing for them. But I personally don't consider it a health hazard. I don't consider second-hand smoke risky. I base this on a lot of various reading I've done over the years, but especially


The Heartland report, which revealed that many studies are far from being in agreement that second-hand cig smoke poses any real significant health threat.

That being said, the No Smoking Nazis refused to accept a bar or restaurant that have divided and separated smoking sections from nons. No interaction from the Nons with the Smokers would ever have occurred. No, The Nazis refused that compromise.

The economic result is that bars and restaurants closed, people lost their jobs.

I feel badly for what you went through re the ganja. It is another reason why part of my Libertarian beliefs is that all drugs should be legalized, regulated and taxed in the same manner as is booze.
In Quebec, there is a hell lot of smokers perhaps the worse place in all North America. Smuggling is also epidemic over here as most smokers buy outlawed tobacco due to high taxes on legal products.

However the ban worked really well for bars and restaurants.

I think your nazi parallel is a little overboard since most smokers prefer a non-smoking environment to eat however, I understand that it is quite different for bars.

Although the so-called catastrophic economic impact that was supposed to happen did not occur although some bars may have noticed a little shortage in revenues.

Getting back on restaurants. As a non-smoker it happened to me a few times during the time that you were still allow to smoke in restaurants that I had to go into the smoking section to eat since the non-smoking section was full. Therefore my choice was to accept that or wait a few more hours to hope to get a place in the non-smoking section.

I agree that closed sections work best since open sections are just like a pool where you would have a section where urination is allowed and another where it would not be. Smoke in air is like urine in water, it travels fast enough.

What is true though is that nazis were keen as a regime to introduce smoking bans in different places like trains, busses, airports, planes and what not. However, just because nazis have influenced some anti-smoking policies does not make it a relevant connection. Just as just because most people on welfare smoke and most smokers are on welfare over here, doesn't make it a sine-qua-non condition.

Besides each regimes have their good sides and there bad sides. I consider myself to be influenced by the libertarian ideology of less government in our lives. However, on some issues like smoking and crime I can be quite conservative most of the time.

Besides it does not have to be about government. Regarding smoking, segregation occurs naturally since most non-smokers don't like to be around people who smoke. My belief is that the market works well in that case though I deplore a lot of greed on bar and restaurants owners in a completely free market ruled by private property who are going to cry crocodile tears for every smoker they loose when they don't even consider the number of non-smokers they loose.

There used to be a time over here when we would go out a few friends. Let's say we would be 10 friends and out of the 10, 2 would be regular smokers. We would have to sit in the smoking section of the restaurant just because of those 2 and endure all that smoke while eating. I just see the current situation as a good turn around of events. Those who were pissed off to be bothered by smoke while eating have been replaced by disgrunted smokers who have to go outside in the blistering cold to froze their nuts while having another nasty cigarette.

I would have to lie to you if I said I was going to cry over this.
About second hand smoke, I think you ain't seen nothing yet about those so-called anti-tobacco nazis. You've probably already heard about third hand smoke. Yes, that disgusting smell smokers have on their clothes while coming back from their cigarette break. It's called third hand smoke, it gives cancer too and it's on the radar of nazis tobacco control freaks.


I mostly agree with you. I think smokers and non-smokers were getting things worked out in a fair and equitable manner when the Smoking Nazis stepped in, realized there was money available for personal enrichment via the U.S. tobacco lawsuits, and that's when the dollar signs lit up in their eyes. They don't give a fuck if I or you or anyone else out there dies from cigarette-related illnesses.

I was always willing to sit in non-smoking sections for dinner if the prevailing number in the group wanted that. I could always step into an adjoining bar, walled off separately from the diners, to have a smoke.

I think it's the "I don't want to smell like smoke" more that it's about inhaling second hand smoke.

I've actually tasted cologne and perfume on my tongue just from the smell wafting by from some people who bathed in it and then went out in public places. I'd like a Smell Patrol so protect me from this, since many of the chemicals in cologne and perfume are indeed carcinogens.

The hardest hit businesses from the No Smoking Nazis are the small bar, tavern and restaurant owners.

It was the No Smoking Nazis who told us they would go out on the town, hit the bars and nightclubs, go out to dinner if only the didn't have to put up with us smokers. Well, the no-smoking Nazis aren;t going out, thus bars and such are closing. The rate in MN is higher than projected. It's a legal product.

Read the Heartland report on second hand smoke, there is no consensus on it being harmful. The US Surgeon Warning report(s) intentionally left out critical information that stated no correlation between smoke and diseases made by several independent groups.

Thanks for your comments.

There are lots of contradictory studies and I think there is lots of propaganda going on on both sides of the issue. It's not as if the tobacco industry never lied to us, deceived us never told us it was THAT addictive, lethal and deadly. It's not either as if the tobacco giants never financed their so-called "scientific" studies in order to make us believe that tobacco is not dammaging for health when indeed it is.

But you're right, whether or not it's deadly and lethal, though very concerning it's not the central issue. The point is to me it smells bad, it's disgusting, it makes me want to puke and I don't want to be around that stuff or at least, the least amount possible. It's my choice and I'll live with it. It's a health and quality of life issue.

Now, I don't oppose smokers having THEIR places to go to just as long as they assure me as a non-smoker that I will have my own places to go to and not being confined to the 2-3 places that accept to be 100% smoke free since businesses have taken a long time before realizing that lots of non-smokers would rather stay at home than going to restaurants where you had no choice but going there and getting back home with your share of cancer and nasty smell on your clothes that you had to wash 3-4 times to get rid of the smell.

Now if the non-smoking majority has been suffering in silence for so long, I agree that two wrongs don't make a right. Therefore, what I think the state of Minnesota should do I think is take in charge the responsibility to deliver permits for different places to smoke and distribute it proportionnally according to the percentage of people who would have answered yes to having smoking places like bars and restaurants.


It's not either as if the tobacco giants never financed their so-called "scientific" studies in order to make us believe that tobacco is not dammaging for health when indeed it is.

Oh, I would never debate you that cig companies funded studies that resulted in a biased or favorable view that was pro-tobacco.

I agree customers and consumers should have had a choice to spend their money at a place that caters to specifically non-smokers. Boy, you think there would be a huge market there for restaurants, nightclubs etc. But at least here in MN, that was not an option. All HAD to go non-smoking and businesses closed. The non smokers are not going out on the town or bellying up to the bar. They're still staying home. Mind you, I don't mean guys like you who enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere for dinner or drinks. I'm talking about the hardcore No Smoking Nazis - THEY'RE the ones who SAID they'd go out but didn't because of the smoke. Now there's no smoke, and they're not out spending their money. They're hypocrites.

I don't disagree with you at all that the smoke smell on clothing can become annoying and disgusting, and I'm a smoker. I probably notice it less because I do smoke, but nothing compares to someone who's doused themselves in Joop or Azzaro 9. ;-)
I don't want to sound too much like I approve those laws, I would like things to be otherwise but I cannot come up with a better solution than this one.

Unfortunately when it comes to drugs, tobacco and alcohol, people act in such a childish behavior than the disturbing minority needs laws to control them. Laws indeed are usually made for the minority.

As you might be aware and as I told you before, in Québec, in Ontario, in BC and most other provinces, smoking bans have been adopted by causing not so much hurt to businesses, people have adapted their conducts to the laws in place. I also know that in some states in USA and such states that could be described as progressive such as California, anti-smoking laws have been passed that are even more restricting for smokers. In some places, they will give you a ticket for smoking in the street and another if you drop your top on the concrete and not in the ashtray.

But just between you and me, you don't get a criminal record for not having respected such a law like smoking in your cars while your children are in the car. You just get a fine and if you pay it, you're supposed to be fine. Now, you would have to tell me whether or not the fine gets higher if you get caught a second, a third or more times.

I got a ticket for doing what we call an american stop (you don't fully break but you check everything. 95% of people will do that indeed and if I would end up doing full stops like the law tells me to do so, I would get beeped everytime as it takes forever (according to the law, your wheels have to be at rest for full 3 seconds, a 3 seconds that seems to be forever when you have 10 to 20 stops to do on your way to the store or to a friend in the town. So, I got a ticket for that, 154$ for absolutely nothing since I was no danger to nobody.

To me, smoking in a car with kids is more dangerous since you are not only affecting your health but the health of others as well. And you get 100$ for that for a first time offense. It's not that much compared to other situations like a speeding ticket or what not. Over here, we have a real tickets industry. Cops are not there to serve and protect first and foremost but first and foremost to catch you in some booby trap as the provincial government budget ticket revenues in his budget. Therefore, they have to catch you on something.

I understand though that smoking when it's your own personal choice and your not affecting the health of others is a personal choice and you should be free to do so. Not so likely in Canada with our infamous universal health care where if you ride your bike without a helmet, you get a fine and the same goes for not buckling your seatbelt in your car. In USA, the model is more on a user-payer basis. Cigarettes packs are cheaper in the states and the model is based more on personal freedoms rather than on public social so-called choices. In the end, smoking rates are less in USA despite there seems to be more bans in Canada. My understading is that when you smoke, your health insurances get way higher than if you stay non-smoker. Therefore, this is usually a powerful incitative not to smoke whereas overhere, if you get sick, the nanny state will take care of everything so that's why they have to maternize us.

But since Pbama wants to implement public universal health care in USA, get ready for some big troubles.

By the way, where did you came up with the Pbama idea, I find it great and I end up using it all the time. Where does it come from?


Hi Tym,

I think laws restricting or prohibiting smoking in the outdoors are insane. Some States have them regarding parks, playgrounds, etc.

So much of the anti-smoking legislation - U.S., Canada or elsewhere - seems to me to be just a revenue raiser as opposed to enforcing a law that is supposedly designed to allow people to breath clean air. If breathing clean air was the priority, as I have written, people who douse themselves in cologne and perfume would be ticketed.

If health was the priority, then the States would be weighing children and, if overweight, fining the parents on an increasing scale until the child was within the accepted medical weight standard for their age group, gender, body type.

Of course, I know you know my sarcasm related to the above, but I really do mean what I write. Let's start weighing the kids and fining the parents.

It's absurd that I am supposed to be wearing my seatbelt, but, depending on which state I am in, I may or may not be required to wear a helmet.

The spelling of Obama as Pbama - for me - comes from the spelling error of "Owned".

See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwned

A corruption of the word "Owned." This originated in an online game called Warcraft, where a map designer misspelled "owned." When the computer beat a player, it was supposed to say, so-and-so "has been owned."

Instead, it said, so-and-so "has been pwned."

It basically means "to own" or to be dominated by an opponent or situation, especially by some god-like or computer-like force.


1. The origins of "pwned" are debated but there are two possible sources:
a. A prominent quake player mis spelled "owned" and the new word "pwned" was adopted by people who thought it was "1337".
b. A warcraft map designer misspelled "owned" and thus people started using "pwned" instead.

The definitions are as follows:
In video games:
1. Completely annihilated or dominated.
2. Perfectly owned, meaning the other player did not do any damage.

So one day, I just thought of the "Pwned" error and applied it to Obama and deemed him Pbama.
Post a Comment

<< 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.