Mayor Williams of DC was on the radio today, talking about the "smoking bans sweeping the country" and telling local bars and restaurants they might as well get ready, that a ban was coming to Washington. Although he said he was against a ban, from what he's learned, "they don't really hurt business". Guess somebody needs to tell him the real facts.
I'm dismayed with how easily places are falling to the antis with their smoking bans. They have avoided any public debate on this subject and shut out the majority of evidence which shows that SHS is not a health threat and smoking bans are a business threat. There's even talk about a smoking in Baltimore now too where I'd say 70% of the population smokes...Clearly, Joe Cherner and his gang of terrorists must be bribing politicians left and right to get these bans passed and/or making grave threats against them if they don't back his agenda - he must be stopped, but how?
Posts: 600 | Location: VA | Registered: Sun September 26 2004
Originally posted by NickM_71: Clearly, Joe Cherner and his gang of terrorists must be bribing politicians left and right to get these bans passed and/or making grave threats against them if they don't back his agenda - he must be stopped, but how?
Hit him with the truth about smoking. If that doesn't work, you might be out of luck.
Posts: 292 | Location: Minnesota | Registered: Sun February 27 2005
You mean hit him with the truth about ETS, since ostensibly that's what the bans are about (wink).
Actually, the businesses in D.C. already know the truth about how the bans hurt the hospitality industry and that's why they're fighting one for D.C.
The antis already got/spent a cool $25 million trying to get this ban. Unfortunately the bar and restaurant owners don't have that kind of money to spend against those Goliaths.
Originally posted by Wanda Hamilton: You mean hit him with the truth about ETS, since ostensibly that's what the bans are about (wink).
Actually, the businesses in D.C. already know the truth about how the bans hurt the hospitality industry and that's why they're fighting one for D.C.
The antis already got/spent a cool $25 million trying to get this ban. Unfortunately the bar and restaurant owners don't have that kind of money to spend against those Goliaths.
How much does tobacco inc. spend of their team of lawyers and lobbyists to fight smoking bans?
Who is Goliath here? Grassroots support vs. corporate money.
Posts: 292 | Location: Minnesota | Registered: Sun February 27 2005
They have millions upon millions, most of it from Big Pharma, the most profitable legal industry in the world.
Local business people can't begin to match $25 million to fight the professional anti movement. And these days the tobacco industry is kicking in next to nothing--if they help out at all.
A question for the Nazi: Can you let us all know when was the last time Big Tobacco fought a smoking ban, either before the ban or after one is imposed. Philip Morris, the biggest of big tobacco is doing nothing to prevent prohibition from being established in Washington State. The company is also making political contributions to politicians who are writing smoking ban laws and laws to raise the cigarette tax.
Goliath has for a long time been Big Drugs. The tobacco industry is not a factor. Bans have been defeated by many little Davids who have gone head to head with Big Drugs and won. Although smoking bans are still going through they have been slowed down. Big Tobacco deserves none of the credit for this.
Posts: 115 | Location: San Francisco, CA, USA | Registered: Tue October 24 2000
Isnt one of the stipulations of the big law suit settlement that the tobbacco companies have to fund anti-smoking commercials and organisations. Isnt it ironic that when I buy a pack of butts, I am indirectly helping to fund the groups who are busy taking away my rights?
Originally posted by Shrike: Isnt it ironic that when I buy a pack of butts, I am indirectly helping to fund the groups who are busy taking away my rights?
Sort of like: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson
BTW, when trying to find that quote I ran across this one. Remember this next time a bunch of antis celebrate after a smoking ban has been approved:
An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens. Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Melish, January 13, 1813 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
What we need is another Thomas Jefferson. I believe he also raised tobacco (well, there goes his reputation).
I heard a news report on the Irish smoking ban today and the reporter somberly announced that carbon monoxide had been reduced in some bars by 45%. I'm no scientist, but I thought automobiles, trucks, et al, produced CM, too. If some bars, most of which are located in towns and cities next to streets filled with said motorized vehicles, have reduced CM by 45%, they must have finally discovered a way to completely seal their buildings from all outside air.
Originally posted by Andy Ludlow: A question for the Nazi: Can you let us all know when was the last time Big Tobacco fought a smoking ban, either before the ban or after one is imposed.
If not Big Tobacco, who is sponsoring all the lobbyists in Washington and at all the state-level governments? Surely not those poor ma 'n pa outfits.
Tom Daschle, the ousted SD guy, accepted hundreds of thousands of $$ from tobacco interests. The list goes on...
If you believe the tobacco industry takes a "hands off" approach to smoking bans, you need a reality check.
Posts: 292 | Location: Minnesota | Registered: Sun February 27 2005
NicoNazi, you failed to answer Andy Ludlow's question. Do you know of any bans (in this century) that are being fought with major funding from the tobacco industry?
Originally posted by Wanda Hamilton: NicoNazi, you failed to answer Andy Ludlow's question. Do you know of any bans (in this century) that are being fought with major funding from the tobacco industry?
MN's.
Posts: 292 | Location: Minnesota | Registered: Sun February 27 2005
.....as usual, NicoNazi is short on facts..., as per the big tobacco settlement a few years ago, tobacco companies are effectively prohibited from lobbying....., and even if the tobacco companies could lobby against smoking bans, it would be counter productive, they have such a bad name and reputation (deservedly so) that any exposure of their lobbying against smoking bans would backfire...
Posts: 31 | Location: Parker, CO | Registered: Fri March 25 2005
Originally posted by Freedom: I heard a news report on the Irish smoking ban today and the reporter somberly announced that carbon monoxide had been reduced in some bars by 45%. I'm no scientist, but I thought automobiles, trucks, et al, produced CM, too. If some bars, most of which are located in towns and cities next to streets filled with said motorized vehicles, have reduced CM by 45%, they must have finally discovered a way to completely seal their buildings from all outside air.
Excellent critical thinking there, Freedom. Since, Mr NicoNazi keeps claiming his "right" to smokefree air, you might also want to ask him when he plans to lobby for the banning of all combustion for the sake of "his right". Just look at the level of carcinogens one might be exposed to from a neighbor lighting a fire in a fireplace. Betcha there's plenty of carbon monoxide in that.
Also, 45% reduction of a miniscule amount to begin is simply a smaller miniscule amount. Try drowning yourself in a teaspoonful of water. Then try drowning in a teaspoon that is only only filled 55% full with water. Pretty darn hard, isn't it?
Posts: 974 | Location: Virginia | Registered: Tue July 10 2001
I believe major studies (and we know how honest they are) have shown diesel fumes from buses and trucks are a known carcinogen; I would suggest we ban them immediately. For the children.
And then there's my personal pet peeve. It's not a carcinogen, but it kills hundreds of people each year. Natural gas. A house in Maryland blew up the other day. Gone. Instant inferno. Thank goodness no one was home. They had reported smelling gas, the gas company had checked, repaired a line, and left. Then the house blew up. An older couple was killed in a similar explosion a year or two ago. That stuff has to go.
Give me time. I'm thinking of more stuff we can ban, until we all live sterile, quiet little lives with no stress, no excitement. And no joy.
I'm willing to bet my last dollar that if you stand behind a car and breathe normally for a half an hour, then you would get more carcinogens than if you sat in a bar next to me and I blew my cigarette smoke in your face every day for 10 years.
