California town to ban smoking even in one's backyard

Feb 26, 2012 Full story: Newkerala.com 113

London, Feb 25: A California town in the US has proposed to ban smoking outside, even for residents lighting up on their own property.

Full Story
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#42 Feb 29, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
Can't believe it 39 pages of anti smoker disease symptoms illustrated on these pages known as ASDS. It is the fastest self inflicted growing disease in the USA. The symtoms vary but the signs of untruthfulness and denial seem to hit first and gets worse when they find out what once worked for them works against them.
It is really horrible in the end.


Need A Light.

I agree. It's tragic. Following the revolution, the revolutionaries *(now in power)* used hard earned taxpayer money to introduce Government "junk science studies". The purpose of those taxpayer funded junk "science" studies was to increase the power and the control of the corrupt self-serving revolutionary tyrants.

The fact of the matter is that most deaths are those of those within the non smoker community. On average, decent "clear minded" tobacco smokers live just as long as do most non tobacco smokers, and longer than do great numbers of them. They are certainly healthier as well. This is especially true of decent cigar smokers who, on average, far outlive their non non smoker friends. In fact the non smokers begin dying from "natural causes" around age 40, as the obituaries in any large metropolitan newspaper shows. This is just as true since revolutionary Government began its war against its own people - the decent tobacco smokers - as it was before corrupt politicians began that war.

As most things ignored by the revolutionaries, the Bible explains it all in simple easy-to-understand language:

"And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Genesis 3:9)

"And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself." (Genesis 3:10)

"And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" (Genesis 3:11)

"And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:12)

"And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:13)

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;" (Genesis 3:17)

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Genesis 3:19)

Ronald


azmac

Kykotsmovi Village, AZ

#43 Feb 29, 2012
Kick azmac In the Crotch wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell it to someone who cares...
Sounds like the truth hurts. I know you can't handle the truth as all you have know is lies.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#44 Feb 29, 2012
TK Lawson CPhT wrote:
<quoted text>. That's a good one. Radon is in cellars and basements Everywhere! It is odorless, scent less, and is highly carcinogenic. Dirt and blowing dust in Central Calif is causing severe valley fever and fungus borne illness. I wasn't discounting kids and sand and things like Lymes disease or west Nile virus or sick children.
Radon is also in yards and parks. It is also in the rock that is crushed to provide phosphate for agrochemicals that are used on tobacco, and there are scientists who think that the resulting radiation exposure is responsible for a large portion of the lung cancer caused by smoking.

Smoking is cited as the #1 source of radiation exposure in the US these days, because of the radioactive particles that lodge in the lungs and continue to spit out radiation over extended periods of time where the body has no defenses in place.

Smoking tops several lists as a "bad thing", and focusing on smoking does not require or imply that anything else be discounted.

Addiction will continue to prop up profit, and the two together will continue to disrupt any real effort to do anything about the corrupt corporate giants that foster that addiction in the name of that profit until a way is found to neutralize the addiction.

When that is found, there will be no need for legal regulation of tobacco products. No one will want them and the industry's muck-a-mucks will move on to some other easy money scheme.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#45 Feb 29, 2012
Ronald wrote:
You limit your argument to sand boxes.
No, I don't. In fact, I keep saying I won't follow you there.

The issue is your claim that not allowing people to force their neighbors to breathe SHS in their own yards is unacceptably telling people what to do in their own yards.

I guess, though, that you are so obviously full of and overflowing with crap on that one that you would rather go on a tangent about how harmful sand is.

Go fish.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#47 Mar 1, 2012
The Government licensed electronic "news" media has announced that Andrew Breitbart,*(the non-smoker)* has died at age 43 of "natural causes". Non-smokers begin dying of "natural causes" around age 40. We can be thankful that Andy,*(as he was affectionately known among his non-smoking friends)* outlived many of them.

Ronald
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#48 Mar 1, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Radon is also in yards and parks. It is also in the rock that is crushed to provide phosphate for agrochemicals that are used on tobacco, and there are scientists who think that the resulting radiation exposure is responsible for a large portion of the lung cancer caused by smoking.
Smoking is cited as the #1 source of radiation exposure in the US these days, because of the radioactive particles that lodge in the lungs and continue to spit out radiation over extended periods of time where the body has no defenses in place.
Smoking tops several lists as a "bad thing", and focusing on smoking does not require or imply that anything else be discounted.
Addiction will continue to prop up profit, and the two together will continue to disrupt any real effort to do anything about the corrupt corporate giants that foster that addiction in the name of that profit until a way is found to neutralize the addiction.
When that is found, there will be no need for legal regulation of tobacco products. No one will want them and the industry's muck-a-mucks will move on to some other easy money scheme.
Hugh Jass.

Instead of staying home and pontificating about what others are doing,*(on the taxpayer's dime at that),* why don't you get a job and take up smoking so you pay Government tobacco taxes that are needed to support the likes of you?

Ronald
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#49 Mar 1, 2012
LostForWords wrote:
Well, well, well, I see the antis keeps on going and way to go all you you freedom lovers. As I have always felt, this is about property rights and our right to choose if we wish to use a business.
Ah, and so you trot out all this tripe that implies it is solely about economics. And you wonder why people fail to take you seriously.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#52 Mar 1, 2012
Ah, typical double-talk.
Harry

Torrance, CA

#53 Mar 2, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
Ah, typical double-talk.
Hi Hugh. It's getting crazy here. I'm heading for greener pastures. here is a better link. Good Luck.

KarlMarx

Denver, NC

#54 Mar 12, 2012
Wait, is,nt the west coast supposed to fall into the ocean soon? I just can,t wait! We,ll be rid of a lot of anti- smoking fanatics. Smog will disappear, crime rates will drop. No more smoke from forest fires.
Sheik Yerbouti

Doylestown, PA

#56 Mar 13, 2012
Ronald, You make some good points but then proceed to destroy your credibility with fantasies about 'revolutionary councils' and other figments of your imagination. You would have a lot of credibility if you would drop the political rants. Remember our founding father were 'revolutionaries.'
Need A Light

Dorchester, Canada

#57 Mar 14, 2012
Sheik Yerbouti good that you understand some of Ronald's points. The politicial question is easily understood since it is reveloutionary for politicians to live off the fears of junk science. Millions upon millions has been spent on producing and pushing junk science to the point it has infiltrated the political way of thought. How much smoker money do you think has been spent on the same junk science? Why does the media push junk science ?
The only way the smoker can fight back is by delving into the junk science finding that which did not fit the agenda of the anti smoker parade. Many non- smokers are just now getting around to having knowledge of this junk science. The danger of junk science even to the non smoker is the fact of being lied to and realising the fact it could inhabit other schemes besides smoking.
To understand a politician takes some knowledge of understanding the ways of FOLLOW THE MONEY and which way the wind is blowing today.When the politician is scraping the bottom of the barrel for tax does it surprise you that your privacy and rights are next???

SHS does not kill, while bans and taxes is not science.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#58 Mar 14, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
Millions upon millions has been spent on producing and pushing junk science to the point it has infiltrated the political way of thought.
That sort of activity and expenditure is precisely what America's tobacco companies were found guilty of in their RICO convictions--"science " that consisted of a scientist taking pay to put their name on documents written by the industry's legal and PR staff.
Need A Light wrote:
How much smoker money do you think has been spent on the same junk science?
Well, you can get a baseline for that if you look at the findings of fact in Judge Gladys Kessler's opinion in that RICO case. If you want to look further, there are internal tobacco industry documents that describe their practices.
One was putting together a list of scientists that meet their criteria--at or near retirement and therefore more likely to value income more than credibility that will no longer put food on the table--since they acknowledged that they would never find an UNbiased scientist who would say SHS had been found harmless.
Another was to set up(through surrogates that would disguise the identity of the people running them) a "scientific symposium" with an impressive name where only those on that list were invited. That way they had a list of papers read at a prestigious-sounding gathering of scientists.

Then again, there was having their Madison Avenue boys come up with a term like "Junk Science" to help them make those NOT on their list sound unreliable and further the impression that there is still significant "scientific debate" over the matter.

Oh, wait, though--that wasn't SMOKERS' money being spent, was it? They had already used that Hoover called "nicotine addiction" to suck that money out of smokers' pockets so by the time they spent it it was THEIR money.
Need A Light

Dorchester, Canada

#59 Mar 14, 2012
Sheik has not answered for himself, Jass does it for him in his typical ASDS fashion ....B.ll S..t !
The independant anti smoker person has not spent a dime
in this senerio and knows it, and will never Follow the Money until they get over their self inflicted ASDS.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#60 Mar 14, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
Sheik has not answered for himself, Jass does it for him in his typical ASDS fashion ....B.ll S..t !
The independant anti smoker person has not spent a dime
in this senerio and knows it, and will never Follow the Money until they get over their self inflicted ASDS.
Hang out a stupid question like "How much money have smokers put into fraudulent science at a level that impacts politics?" and you can count your blessings that someone as soft as I am responded.

Clearly you needed the light of reason, as you are woefully short on that.
TK Lawson CPhT

Escalon, CA

#61 Apr 8, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Hang out a stupid question like "How much money have smokers put into fraudulent science at a level that impacts politics?" and you can count your blessings that someone as soft as I am responded.
Clearly you needed the light of reason, as you are woefully short on that.
. Smoking in backyards really isn't the issue. Ever note how disgusting ashtrays are? Health of our children is the issue. Carbon Monoxide and potassium cyanide are just two toxic components. Once they start, they often continue. I for one are a proponent of clean air and healthy lungs. It's quite imperative to continue the improvement of the environment. There is always relocation if you cannot tolerate your areas uninforceable ordinances, or wear filtration masks or ventilators.
HowzBoutDat

Frederick, MD

#62 Apr 8, 2012
TK Lawson CPhT wrote:
<quoted text>. Smoking in backyards really isn't the issue. Ever note how disgusting ashtrays are? Health of our children is the issue. Carbon Monoxide and potassium cyanide are just two toxic components. Once they start, they often continue. I for one are a proponent of clean air and healthy lungs. It's quite imperative to continue the improvement of the environment. There is always relocation if you cannot tolerate your areas uninforceable ordinances, or wear filtration masks or ventilators.
And you personally should have to pay for all relocation costs. Not the government, not the taxpayers, but you personally. You got that PUNK.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#63 Apr 8, 2012
Government spends no one knows how much hard earned taxpayer money promoting its "junk science" based anti-tobacco smoker scam. Government promotes that scam for the purpose of increased taxation and Government control over its ultimate victims - the already heavily taxed and overly controlled non-smokers.

Even so, Government junk science is based on a kernel of truth. Ever since Government seized control of the medical industry, millions of sickly non-smokers have simply "dropped dead" after getting a whiff or two of "secondhand smoke".

Ronald
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#64 Apr 8, 2012
HowzBoutDat wrote:
<quoted text>And you personally should have to pay for all relocation costs. Not the government, not the taxpayers, but you personally. You got that PUNK.
Oh, my! How FORCEFUL you are!
Perhaps YOU should be paying for the relocation of every nonsmoker who wants to get away from all the SHS coming into his/her home from the smoker(s) in the apartment(s) nextdoor? You got those for us, do you?
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#65 Apr 8, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, my! How FORCEFUL you are!
Perhaps YOU should be paying for the relocation of every nonsmoker who wants to get away from all the SHS coming into his/her home from the smoker(s) in the apartment(s) nextdoor? You got those for us, do you?
Hugh Jass.

Such individuals are suggestible hysterics who are suffering from deep seated psychological conflicts that are usually related to overly permissive "potty training". Hard earned taxpayer money can be better spent confining these individuals in Government institutions where they might be kept under close supervision by qualified Government medical personnel. Besides being cranks and nuisances, these people pose a clear and present danger to themselves and others.

Ronald

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Smoking Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
As Statewide Smoking Ban Burns Out in Capitol, ... 6 hr Pete 2
Algoma Public Health prepares to buttsmack outd... 10 hr spaaqua19 3
Bourbon County smoke-free advocates push for sm... (Nov '11) Sun Daryl 241
Petaluma City Council OKs tough smoking ban (Jan '13) Sat lukyvc 69
Smoking causes many different types of cancer Dec 19 Vaccine Caused 4
golden virginia Dec 18 derek hughes 1
Do you think people should be banned from smoki... Dec 17 LELA 14
More from around the web