Smoking ban: Ban on smoking in Wisconsin facing intense debate ...

Lil, Discusseded is an anonymous poster with unknown background who consistently posts the buzz words out of the antismoking playbook. You'll note how consistently he/she/it pulls up images of the tobacco industry: that's a classic move pushed by Stanton Glantz since the 80s. Everyone hates Big Tobacco, so if you can find a way to paint your enemy's motives, methods, language, or anything else with a possible Big Tobacco label you've got them half beaten before the argument even starts.

Discusseded other feature you should be aware of is its tendency to make scientific/medical claims that it can't back up and then run away when called on them. D was posting over in the Indianapolis media, a real hotspot for the antismoking lobby at the moment because they know it's a vital win if they're to take over Indiana, and he claimed that he had plenty of studies showing that "very low levels of ETS" caused circulatory damage.

When he was challenged to produce those studies he ran away and disappeared from the boards. When I ran across him here and brought it up his initial response was to tell me to "Bugger Off!" and then later, after another challenge, he presented a study based on exposure levels of almost 400 micrograms of FPM per cubic meter. That is most certainly NOT a "very low level" of exposure and he knew that perfectly well.

So far he still hasn't managed to back up his words, either under his Discusseded persona or his other cutout name, Mazed.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Way to call them out "MMF"! I am glad that you wrote that book.
Yes, the do like to use the "buzz" words and post their faulty "data". They like to say things like "micrograms" and "Fine Particulate Matter" in the hopes that people will not fully comprehend the bull that they are spewing. They ignore all other types of smoke or call them a "necessity" and smoking a "frivolity" . They use every dirty trick that they can come up with to try and rob people of their freedom.

Smoking is so sad. Smokers spend a fortune on cigarettes, slowly killing themselves and depriving their families of needed essentials in order to support such a dirty habit.

Alice, I think you should help solve that problem. Over 60% of the cost of cigarettes in many states are taxes pushed by greedy antismoking groups and Big Pharma NicoGummyPatchyProduct makers.

Stand up for the smokers you want to defend and demand a reduction in discriminatory and extortionate taxes!

- MJM

MichaelJMcFadden wrote:

Alice, I think you should help solve that problem. Over 60% of the cost of cigarettes in many states are taxes pushed by greedy antismoking groups and Big Pharma NicoGummyPatchyProduct makers.
Stand up for the smokers you want to defend and demand a reduction in discriminatory and extortionate taxes!
- MJM

I was wondering, what would the cost of cigarettes be if they only carried the normal sales tax like any other product?

Lil, it's hard to say exactly, and to a fair extent it would vary a lot depending on "name brands" vs. "off brands." I have a friend in Kentucky who smoked "Red Bucks" (?) which I think are sort of in the "small cigar" category and ducked a lot of taxes. She gets them on sale for about $7 per CARTON! So that gives a rough idea of what cheap cigarettes might run without the taxes.

- MJM

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>I was wondering, what would the cost of cigarettes be if they only carried the normal sales tax like any other product?

Perhaps 9 or 10 million lives a year.

I see the anonymous Discusseded is back. Did he possibly dig up the studies showing circulatory damage from "very low levels of ETS" that he claimed exists?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

- MJM

MichaelJMcFadden wrote:

Alice, I think you should help solve that problem. Over 60% of the cost of cigarettes in many states are taxes pushed by greedy antismoking groups and Big Pharma NicoGummyPatchyProduct makers.
Stand up for the smokers you want to defend and demand a reduction in discriminatory and extortionate taxes!
- MJM

Smokers are addicts, suckers one and all.

just candid is a troll, she sucks one and all.

Way to stay on topic, folks! Congrats!

I still think Wisconsin will regret the preemption clause.

discusseded wrote:

Way to stay on topic, folks! Congrats!
I still think Wisconsin will regret the preemption clause.

Still running from logical questions...eh?

Just what other forms of smoke have "no safe level"?

You have been asked to provide a list of your personal top 10 for...how long now?

At what point does your lack of a logical answer become embarrassing to you?

discusseded wrote:

Way to stay on topic, folks! Congrats!
I still think Wisconsin will regret the preemption clause.

Oh sorry we forgot you run the forum.

discusseded wrote:

Way to stay on topic, folks! Congrats!
I still think Wisconsin will regret the preemption clause.

You have been "called out", now wghy dont you put up or shut up?
M.J.McFadden and many others (myself included) have ask you many time,s to post you,re "proof" on SHS exposure. And to date you have not come throgh with anything. If you are so sure of you're "knowlage" then providing these "proof,s" you claim should be easy for you. Or are you willing to just admit you are not very truthful in most if not all of you,re claims.

D-RM wrote:

<quoted text>
You have been "called out", now wghy dont you put up or shut up?
M.J.McFadden and many others (myself included) have ask you many time,s to post you,re "proof" on SHS exposure. And to date you have not come throgh with anything. If you are so sure of you're "knowlage" then providing these "proof,s" you claim should be easy for you. Or are you willing to just admit you are not very truthful in most if not all of you,re claims.

Is your "D" for dum? That must be it, because you sure fit the format.

PreachingToTheGarbage wrote:

<quoted text>Oh sorry we forgot you run the forum.

Smoking must have reduced the O2 getting to your little bitty brain Garbage boy. That's OK, we understand.

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> Is your "D" for dum? That must be it, because you sure fit the format.

No, no. It's "Dodging Relevant Medication"

MichaelJMcFadden wrote:

Lil, it's hard to say exactly, and to a fair extent it would vary a lot depending on "name brands" vs. "off brands." I have a friend in Kentucky who smoked "Red Bucks" (?) which I think are sort of in the "small cigar" category and ducked a lot of taxes. She gets them on sale for about $7 per CARTON! So that gives a rough idea of what cheap cigarettes might run without the taxes.
- MJM

I have a friend who smoked those little cigars. He died of pancreatic cancer. Damn shame. He was a nice guy.

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Still running from logical questions...eh?
Just what other forms of smoke have "no safe level"?
You have been asked to provide a list of your personal top 10 for...how long now?
At what point does your lack of a logical answer become embarrassing to you?

I highly doubt you have enough common sense left to be embarrased by your stupid posts. You obviously don't have the sense that God gave a fly. A fly will go away from smoke. Even with its teeny, tiny brain it knows what is bad for it. There is no hope for people like you.

On the bright side of things, you do prove Darwin right. Smokers get ED and are less likely to be able to reproduce. Additionally, since smokers are fewer in number by a huge amount when compared to non smokers, and kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray, even smokers that are fortunate enough not to get ED are unlikely to get the girl. Plain and simple, smokers stink and there is not enough perfume in the world to cover up that stench.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
No, no. It's "Dodging Relevant Medication"

You are just as bad at humor as you are at providing the links to the proof you claim of SHS.
Dont quit you,re day job. I would enjoy a battle of wit,s with you,
But unfortunily you,re unarmed. Still waiting for this proof of SHS you have been asked for.