patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

First Smoking Forum Draws Few at Kent State

Tobacco-free campus committee asking public for input; series of public meetings planned at all 8 campuses

 

The Kent State University committee reviewing the idea of possibly banning smoking on all eight campuses Tuesday held the first of 21 public forums scheduled to gather feedback on the issue.

The first meeting Tuesday morning, one of three held yesterday on the Kent campus, drew less than 20 members of the campus community, including members of the committee, press and university administration.

Evan Gildenblatt, executive director of Kent State's Undergraduate Student Government, said the committee is merely gathering information at this point in order to make a recommendation to Kent State President Lester Lefton's cabinet after all the public meetings are held.

"We are not making binding decisions, but we are gathering input on how this will effect our campus community here at Kent State University," he said.

The public forums are scheduled through March 14 across all eight campuses and include two more set for the Kent campus on Thursday. See the flier attached to this article for a complete list of times and dates.

Part of the feedback-gathering process included a survey distributed late last year about the idea of banning tobacco use. More than 8,300 people responded to the survey.

Take our poll. Should Kent State ban smoking?

Greg Jarvie, vice president of enrollment management and student affairs and co-chair of the committee, said they're withholding the results of the survey until after all the meetings are held.

He said the committee is on track to make its recommendation to the president's cabinet this summer.

The first meeting Tuesday morning revolved more around the idea of adjusting the university's existing smoking policy to create designated smoking spaces and increasing the distance smokers must stay away from building entrances instead of focusing on banning smoking completely.

Marianne Warzinski, director of academic programming for the College of Communication and Information at Olson Hall, said the university should consider a policy that creates a more harmonious balance between smokers and non-smokers.

"If you ask me if I think it should be smoke-free, the answer is yes," she said. "I feel like the current policy isn’t working quite well.”

Warzinski said her office is constantly flooded with secondhand smoke by people who light up on their way outside or who ignore the buffer of 20 feet required between smokers and building entrances.

“I’m getting secondhand smoke pretty much every day," she said. "Our campus, to be blunt, looks like an ash tray."

So to address litter and secondhand smoke issues she and several others at Tuesday's meeting suggested increasing the buffer distance or building an outdoor pavilion or other designated smoking area.

"We haven't ruled anything out," Gildenblatt said.

Thursday's public forums are at 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. in the governance chambers on the second floor of the Kent State Student Center.

Related Topics: Kent State University, Smoking Ban, and Tobacco Free Campus
Should Kent State ban tobacco use on campus? Tell us in the comments.

Mars

10:18 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Make it smoke free. Heck, make everywhere smoke free. You can only smoke in your home. Cigarette smokers have an inability to properly dispose of their butts. Something they needed so bad a moment ago and suddenly, it's on the ground. Make them have to stay on their property to smoke. I've got enough problems trying to breath the air we're messing up without having to dodge second hand smoke.

Reply

Thomas Collins

12:02 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

what is that with smokers- I had friends over a few weeks ago- afterwards I picked up 29 butts in the front yard? I used to smoke but I didn't do that!

Reply
Comment_arrow

Mars

12:10 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

I fear it's actually seen as cool to toss the butt rather than treat it like the garbage/litter it really is.
Did you know:
The core of most cigarette filters -- the part that looks like white cotton, is actually a form of plastic called cellulose acetate. By itself, cellulose acetate is very slow to degrade in our environment. Depending on the conditions of the area the cigarette butt is discarded in, it can take 18 months to 10 years for a cigarette filter to decompose. But that isn't the worst of it. Used cigarette filters are full of toxins known as tar, and those chemicals leach into the ground and waterways, damaging living organisms that contact them. And, most filters are discarded with bits of tobacco still attached to them as well, further polluting our environment with nicotine.

Comment_arrow

Mars

12:11 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Also:
Chemicals are added to cigarette paper to control the burn rate, and calcium carbonate is added as a whitener, in part to create an appealing ash as the cigarette burns.

Comment_arrow

Mars

12:12 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Discarded cigarette butts pose a significant threat to our environment in terms of fire. Every year, forest fires ravage vast areas, killing off wildlife and vegetation that take years to return. Some of those fires are started by natural causes; drought, lightening and the like. But according to the National Fire Protection Agency, upwards of 90,000 fires every year in the United States alone are caused by cigarettes. Cigarette-induced fires claim hundreds of lives in the United States each year, and injure thousands more, not to mention the millions of dollars that go up in smoke in property damage.

Magnetic

5:30 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their recent history.
Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of it predating even the semblance of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, and bigotry. It’s unfortunate that Americans are clueless as to even their recent history. One of the two major antismoking (and anti-alcohol) crusades early last century was in America. [The other crusade was in Nazi Germany and the two crusades were intimately connected]. The USA has been down this twisted, divisive path before. Consider the following. The bulk of claims made about smoking/tobacco were erroneous, baseless, but highly inflammatory. Unfortunately, the propaganda did its destructive job in the short term, producing mass hysteria or a bigotry bandwagon. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=18
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5339
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf

Reply
Comment_arrow

Mars

6:41 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Yeah, and if you pick up an old magazine it will have cigarettes ads telling you which brand your doctor most likely smokes. Even so far as to say they're good for your health. Let's head back into the cave, shall we? Dark ages here we come...

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:16 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Hey, Mars, from your comments, that are no more than parroted propaganda, you seem to be one of the successfully brainwashed. You’re one of the gullible, easily-manipulated ones. If you’d bothered reading the references provided, you might be able to discern fact from inflammatory fiction. You’re right about one thing – we’ve regressed about a century to a moralizing zealotry that poses its own serious risks and dangers.

Magnetic

5:30 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

The current antismoking crusade is much like previous crusades. It is a moralizing, social-engineering, eradication crusade decided upon in the 1970s by a small, self-installed clique of fanatics operating under the auspices of the World Health Organization (the Godber Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ). This little, unelected group decided for everyone that tobacco-use should be eradicated from the world. These fanatics were speaking of secondhand smoke “danger” years before the first study on SHS, together with advocating indoor and OUTDOOR smoking bans: Secondhand smoke “danger” is a concoction to advance the social-engineering agenda, i.e., inflammatory propaganda. The zealots’ goal this time is not to ban the sale of tobacco but to ban smoking in essentially all the places that people smoke. Up until recently the social-engineering intent has been masqueraded as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. But even this fraud is no longer viable in that bans are now being instituted for large outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, campuses.

The leader in this antismoking insanity is America, continuing the derangement of earlier last century. We haven’t learned a thing from very painful lessons of only the recent past.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Mars

6:43 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/tobaccousepregnancy/

Smoking makes it harder for a woman to get pregnant.
Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely than other women to have a miscarriage.
Smoking can cause problems with the placentaExternal Web Site Icon—the source of the baby's food and oxygen during pregnancy. For example, the placenta can separate from the womb too early, causing bleeding, which is dangerous to the mother and baby.
Pregnant coupleSmoking during pregnancy can cause a baby to be born too early or to have low birth weight—making it more likely the baby will be sick and have to stay in the hospital longer. A few babies may even die.
Smoking during and after pregnancy is a risk factor of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), deaths among babies of no immediately obvious cause.
Babies born to women who smoke are more likely to have certain birth defects, like a cleft lip or cleft palate.
When you stop smoking—

Your baby will get more oxygen, even after just one day of not smoking.
There is less risk that your baby will be born too early.
There is a better chance that your baby will come home from the hospital with you.
You will be less likely to develop heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic lung disease, and other smoke-related diseases.
You will be more likely to live to know your grandchildren.
You will have more energy and breathe more easily.

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:25 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

1.
Antismoking concerning pregnancy predates the current wave, and inflammatory lies are the typical concoction of antismoking zealots. For example, early in the 1900’s it was some church groups (e.g., Methodist Episcopal Church’s Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals) that considered nicotine as a “killer of babies.” The “controversy” was picked up by the New York Times in two stories. In one story it was claimed that 40 babies from a New York maternity hospital “suffered from tobacco heart caused by the cigaret smoking of their mothers.” In the other it was claimed that “sixty percent of all babies born of cigaret-smoking mothers die before they reach the age of two, due primarily to nicotine poisoning.” (quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.53; Journal of the American Medical Association, 1929, p.123) The American Tobacco Trust was viewed by the church board as “conscienceless baby-killers” that by promoting cigarettes to women were directing a “lying murderous campaign.”
From “Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger”, p.306

The book also has a considerable section on the history of issues relating to smoking and pregnancy/early childhood, p.305-335. The book is available free to download at
http://www.rampant-antismoking.com

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:26 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

2.
The physician-led eugenicists (American & Nazi) also had their sights on pregnancy (reproductive hygiene). Women should not smoke, especially while pregnant, and the danger of “passive smoking” (passivrauchen) was a Nazi concoction particularly concerning pregnant women.

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:28 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

3.
Mars, your comment is no more than information that reflects a terrible abuse…. a torturing….. of statistical information to shove the antismoking agenda on everyone.

The following should provide you with an insight into antismoking zealotry where facts play very little or no part. The only goal of zealotry is to coerce (usually through terrorizing propaganda) the populace into conformity. The following is from the World Conferences on Smoking & Health which is a congregation of international antismoking zealots that has been the basis for the current antismoking “crusade”:

From the 4th World Conference on Smoking & Health, 1979 (see Godber Blueprint)

“Donovan's most interesting remarks related to smoking and pregnancy . He admitted that he couldn't explain how or why smoking harmed the fetus but suggested that, instead of worrying about such fine points, women be told that all unborn children of smoking women will be hurt . Donovan urged every participant to go back to their countries and publish estimates of the lethality of smoking and pregnancy based on the number of pregnant smokers . He urged this as an effective method to get women to stop smoking.” (p.14)

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:29 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

4. (cont'd)

“Julian Peto - brother of Richard Peto who collaborates with Sir Richard Doll - challenged Donovan on his smoking and pregnancy remarks . He said that Donovan couldn't establish how many pregnancies are harmed by smoking and that it is unscientific to estimate this simply estimating the number of pregnant smokers . He then showed a slide from his own study supporting his view that smoking has not been established as a cause of neonatal mortality . Donovan vigorously disagreed with Peto's view . Fletcher came to the rescue, noting there was yet room for disagreement in some areas over smoking and health.” (p.14, 15)

Magnetic

5:31 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

1. “Smoking is a filthy, disgusting habit, and why do (smokers) feel they have the right to ruin someone else’s meal?”

2. “The use of tobacco, in any form, is a dirty, filthy, disgusting, degrading habit….
You have no more right to pollute with tobacco smoke the atmosphere which clean people have to breathe than you have to spit in the water which they have to drink.
…. use of the filthy, nasty, stinking stuff [tobacco]”
…….

These sorts of statements are typical of what we hear from antismoking. However, one of the statements is from 2013, the other from 1915.

The first quote is from:
http://www.whig.com/story/20512454/five-years-later-no-smoking-law-seems-to-be-working-for-both-sides

The second quote is from an anti-tobacco billboard (photo circa 1915) on the road leading into Zion, Illinois, USA. When considering the sentiments appearing on the billboard, it must be remembered that this was many, many decades before the concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Zion City was a “utopian” community established in the early-1900s by John Alexander Dowie representing a so-called (questionable) “Christian” sect (Christian Catholic Church). Tobacco, alcohol, and gambling were banned within Zion.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullimage.asp?id=55422
http://yeskarthi.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/1915-anti-smoking-sign-zion-illinois/
……

Reply
Comment_arrow

Magnetic

5:32 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Serious, dangerous fanaticism/extremism was rife in America right up to WWII. The Temperance (religious leanings) and Eugenics (physicians, physicalists) Movements, both having dictatorial tendencies and a delusional emphasis on and obsession with physical health at the expense of all other dimensions of health, wreaked considerable damage in America. The EM was by far the most influential in America and eventually produced catastrophe in Nazi Germany with global consequences. The Temperance and Eugenics Movements shared the anti-tobacco sentiments in the quote above. While they attempted to change society with destructive consequences, Dowie chose to create his own “protected”, albeit highly dysfunctional, community.

Comment_arrow

Mars

6:43 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Ah, there it is, Nazi Germany. Always a reference to it somewhere. Thanks!

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:35 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Why this inane comment?

Of all the countries in the world, early last century there were only two countries that pursued an antismoking agenda – America and Nazi Germany. The connecting thread between the two was physician-led eugenics. Eugenics is anti-tobacco/alcohol. Eugenics didn’t originate with the Nazis. It was popularized in America. The Germans, including Hitler, were students of American eugenics. There was an intimate relationship between American and German eugenicists, particularly through California, and American and German industrialists that were supporters/funders of eugenics, e.g., Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie.

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:54 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Mars, again, you’re just demonstrating that you really don’t understand too much at all. And yet you're most enthusiastic to offer your utterly uninformed opinion. You should be ashamed - at the very least.

Comment_arrow

Mars

4:39 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

The immediate health benefits of quitting smoking are substantial:

Heart rate and blood pressure, which are abnormally high while smoking, begin to return to normal.
Within a few hours, the level of carbon monoxide in the blood begins to decline. (Carbon monoxide reduces the blood’s ability to carry oxygen.)
Within a few weeks, people who quit smoking have improved circulation, produce less phlegm, and don’t cough or wheeze as often.
Within several months of quitting, people can expect substantial improvements in lung function (17).
In addition, people who quit smoking will have an improved sense of smell, and food will taste better.

Magnetic

5:34 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

1.
From Bayer & Stuber
“…..In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.”
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886

Reply
Comment_arrow

Mars

4:38 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Smoking is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer. It causes cancers of the lung, esophagus, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, bladder, pancreas, stomach, and cervix, as well as acute myeloid leukemia (1, 2).

Smoking also causes heart disease, stroke, aortic aneurysm (a balloon-like bulge in an artery in the chest), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (chronic bronchitis and emphysema), asthma, hip fractures, and cataracts. Smokers are at higher risk of developing pneumonia and other airway infections (1, 2).

A pregnant smoker is at higher risk of having her baby born too early and with an abnormally low birth weight. A woman who smokes during or after pregnancy increases her infant’s risk of death from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) (1, 2). Men who smoke are at greater risk of erectile dysfunction (5).

Cigarette smoking and exposure to tobacco smoke cause more than 440,000 premature deaths each year in the United States (1). Of these premature deaths, about 40 percent are from cancer, 35 percent are from heart disease and stroke, and 25 percent are from lung disease (6). Smoking is the leading cause of premature, preventable death in this country.

Magnetic

5:35 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

2.
This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a background phenomenon. Now exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS) has been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon like, say, sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the “stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”; there are now those, hand cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute remnants of smoke – even outdoors. There are those that claim that, arriving from a night out, they had to put all of their clothes in the washing machine and scrape the “smoke” off their skin in the shower. There are even those that claim they are “allergic” to tobacco smoke. Yet there are no allergens (proteins) in tobacco smoke to be allergic to.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Mars

6:46 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

http://www.tricountycessation.org/tobaccofacts/Cigarette-Ingredients.html#list
here are over 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke and at least 69 of those chemicals are known to cause cancer.
The list of 599 additives approved by the US Government for use in the manufacture of cigarettes is something every smoker should see.
While these ingredients are approved as additives for foods, they were not tested by burning them, and it is the burning of many of these substances which changes their properties, often for the worse. Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette – 69 of those chemicals are known to cause cancer. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanides and ammonia are all present in cigarette smoke. Forty-three known carcinogens are in mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke or both. It's chilling to think about not only how smokers poison themselves, but what others are exposed to by breathing in the secondhand smoke. The next time you're missing your old buddy, the cigarette, take a good long look at this list and see them for what they are: a delivery system for toxic chemical and carcinogens.
http://www.tricountycessation.org/tobaccofacts/Cigarette-Ingredients.html#list

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:37 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

1.
Mars, you link to this “information” obviously believing that it actually means something. Well, actually it doesn’t. The first part of the page presents the Chapman Trick (see below). You’ll also find this trick in Surgeon General reports, on the CDC website, and a plethora of so-called “health promotion” websites. It’s inflammatory propaganda. It must be noted that organizations such as the Office of the SG and the CDC are not regulatory authorities. Concerning tobacco, they conduct themselves as activist/propaganda groups. Without a context of dosimetry – a concept utterly brutalized by antismoking zealotry - the second part of the linked page (a list of chemicals) is meaningless.

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:39 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

2.
We’ve all seen some variation of this “information” - What's in a cigarette:
Acetone (nail varnish remover), Ammonia (cleaning agent), Arsenic (ant poison in the USA), Benzene (petrol fumes), Cadmium (car battery fluid), DDT (insecticide), Ethanol (anti-freeze), Formaldehyde (embalming fluid), Hydrogen Cyanide (industrial pollutant), Lead (batteries, petrol fumes), Methanol (rocket fuel), Tar (road surface tar).

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:40 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

3.
This trick was suggested by Simon Chapman (an antismoker) at the Fifth World Conference on Smoking & Health (1983) while presenting his “manual of underhanded tricks & tactics”, i.e., how to do propaganda.

“A glance through any copy of the Smoking and Health Bulletin of the U S Department of Health and Human Services shows an entire indexed, section on ‘Tobacco Product Additives’ . Citations are included from patent office registrations of new chemical applications to tobacco processing and from the specialist chemical literature. Both these sources are virtually unintelligible, let alone normally accessible to the average person but are rich in potential for anyone willing to translate them into news items with popular interest . Polysyllabic chemical names should be checked through a reference book that lists common usages and toxicological data for chemicals . Look for usages that will connote revulsion or concern . For example, well known chemicals found in tobacco include cadmium (as in car batteries), ammonia (as in toilet cleaners), cyanides, formaldehyde and so on ……” (p.15)
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gjq72f00

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:42 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

4.
The Chapman Trick is to associate trace levels of particular chemicals in tobacco smoke with industrial-type uses of the same chemicals that involve extraordinarily larger quantities of these chemicals and involving entirely different compounds. It is lying by omission by removing any coherent context. It violates the toxicological maxim that “the dose makes the toxicity”. It plays on the public’s ignorance and fear, knowing that people will typically read from right to left, e.g., there is ant poison in cigarettes, there is embalming fluid in cigarettes, there is road tar in cigarettes, etc. This is not true. The only purpose of this trick is to deceive. It is intended to promote outrage or revulsion in, particularly, gullible nonsmokers at whom it’s directed. This trick has been used, ad nauseam, since the mid-1980’s by medical organizations, antismoking groups, and governments because it is highly effective. It is highly effective because, like most antismoking propaganda, it is inflammatory and false: It outrages BECAUSE it is misleading. Its ONLY PURPOSE is to mislead, i.e., inflammatory propaganda. This trick has been instrumental in manufacturing tobacco smoke into a bio-weapon-like substance akin to, say, sarin gas.

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:43 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

5.
Just to be sure, the air we typically breathe has many of the same chemicals as in tobacco smoke, and more, and in higher concentrations.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/mapconc.html

Again, these chemicals are typically at trace levels and are not problematic.
If you do a google search, you’ll find similar chemicals in raw food and from cooking, and in drinking water.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm

Magnetic

5:35 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

3.
And it didn’t stop with just the smoke. Cigarette butts – heretofore unheard of – suddenly became a “monumental problem” too. These are all recent phenomena born of toxic propaganda; it is an expanding hysteria. It says nothing about the physical properties/propensities of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Typical symptoms of anxiety disorder are heart palpitations, chest tightness, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, etc. These capnophobics (smokephobics) are no different to those irrationally attempting to avoid cracks in the pavement lest their mental world come crashing down. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda. It is the fanatics/zealots/extremists and their toxic mentality and propaganda that have long been in need of urgent scrutiny.

Reply

Magnetic

5:36 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

1.
Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.
The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Mars

4:30 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

So how much do you get paid to do this?

Magnetic

5:37 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

2.
While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.

Reply

Magnetic

5:38 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

3.
On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA, where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside.

At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).

Reply
Comment_arrow

Mars

6:47 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

I like your words. Prostituted. Brainwashing. Involuntary mental patients. Antismoking. Ideology. Tobacco-extermination. This is all so fun.

Comment_arrow

Magnetic

11:48 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

“This is all so fun.”

Mars, you’re just demonstrating how utterly clueless, gullible, and arrogant you are.
You should be doing much work correcting your propaganda-addled mind.

Comment_arrow

Mars

4:29 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Oh yes, call me more names. It feels so good!!

Trans Plant

8:13 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Some folk wear tin-foil hats when they smoke.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Mars

6:39 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Your comment made me smile. Thanks.

Mars

6:46 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

http://www.tricountycessation.org/tobaccofacts/Cigarette-Ingredients.html#list
here are over 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke and at least 69 of those chemicals are known to cause cancer.
The list of 599 additives approved by the US Government for use in the manufacture of cigarettes is something every smoker should see.
While these ingredients are approved as additives for foods, they were not tested by burning them, and it is the burning of many of these substances which changes their properties, often for the worse. Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette – 69 of those chemicals are known to cause cancer. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanides and ammonia are all present in cigarette smoke. Forty-three known carcinogens are in mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke or both. It's chilling to think about not only how smokers poison themselves, but what others are exposed to by breathing in the secondhand smoke. The next time you're missing your old buddy, the cigarette, take a good long look at this list and see them for what they are: a delivery system for toxic chemical and carcinogens.
http://www.tricountycessation.org/tobaccofacts/Cigarette-Ingredients.html#list

Reply

Mars

4:25 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Magnetic, you've got me laughing so hard I'm crying. Go back to west hollywood, smoke your healthy cigarettes, and enjoy your cancer and emphysema. You should give lectures on how ignorance is truly bliss.

Reply

Mars

4:41 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Oh man, this is too much. I really must get back to my cigarette free lifestyle. Wow. You are a fun one Magnetic. A little whacked and way too into denial, but fun none the less.

Reply

Leave a comment