Smokers not welcome for long in Bullitt County

Surely, one can wait until they get outside to light up....it really should not be that big a deal.

No- it's NOT that big a deal!- YET!
But this is how EVERY one of the bans start! NO BIG DEAL!- and EVERY election, they start ADDING THINGS

California's ban started the same way - NOW - there are communities where it is ILLEGAL to smoke in YOUR OWN ENCLOSED PORCH OR PATIO!!

The anti smoking movement started out - trying to do some good - informing people that cigarette smoking MAY have some dangers associated with it - and it would be better NOT TO START - I think EVERYONE agrees with that, and so they were well accepted.

But the movement has evolved into something TOTALLY different - Now stating that "SMOKERS ARE GUILTY OF CAPITAL CRIMES" which was (until recently) published on the front page of the A.S.H. website! They have been fully convinced that we should be killed - ONLY because we are smokers.

If you don't see the correlation between them and Hitlers Germany, Then it's TIME TO WAKE UP!

To show this further:

John Banzhaf, you can see who he is here; http://banzhafwatch.org/ - the founder, and undisputed "Voice" of ASH (Action Against Smoking an Health) and the group that most of the Anti's get there info from, made a statement in the 1980's, claiming that "ALL THEY WANTED" was separate smoking sections, that's all, just separate smoking sections. He went on to say, "We don't care if people want to smoke in their offices, or even in hospital rooms, IT'S THEIR RIGHT TO SMOKE."

This is THE VERY SAME MAN who today states: that
......smokers are guilty of CAPITAL crimes.
......THAT SMOKERS HAVE NO RIGHTS!
..... SMOKERS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT CHILDREN
and that PEOPLE WHO SMOKE WITH CHILDREN IN CARS - ARE KILLING THEM!

He has been called - a "Sleazy, ambulance chasing lawyer", who sells CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT KITS, to anyone who wants to start a lawsuit - AGAINST ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH SMOKING!

If you have tried the link I posted above; you will also learn that he is also intrumental in start of all the TRASH LAWSUITS TO SUE THE FAST FOOD JOINTS - FOR MAKING YOUR KIDS FAT!

THIS IS THE WHOLE "BACKBONE" BEHIND THE ANTI-SMOKING MOVEMENT ! THIS IS WHERE THEIR PHILOSOPHY COMES FROM!

Any one who has viewed the posts on this site - has seen almost the EXACT same things said here - Now you know where they get it from!

Gotta love it. "I go there to smoke. It's what I do."

What a self-image.

Total restriction of smoking on ALL City or State property is what I'm working on next. Thoughs who've been around the forum may remember I went for smoking restrictions before others did. I pushed snd forcast such restrictions on beaches, parks, city sidewalks ect. and helped get the restrictions enacted. All city and state property are next.

Second and Third hand smoke may not yet be proven by themselves to kill outright, but they do cause harm. The majority of people don't wish to deal with it or be assaulted by it.

just candid wrote:

Second and Third hand smoke may not yet be proven by themselves to kill outright, but they do cause harm. The majority of people don't wish to deal with it or be assaulted by it.

not everyone is paranoid or drank from the anti smoking mafias cup of big bucks to push big pharmas nicotine products, some of us have brains and if one thinks they will be harmed or assaulted they use that brain to just say no to the owners offer and not enter the owners privately owned property instead of deporabe acts to dummy down our free society

Hugh Jass wrote:

Gotta love it. "I go there to smoke. It's what I do."
What a self-image.

thats the way society works, people like to associate together being who they are, some smoke, some drink, and other activities with like minded owners of business owners who should be left alone on their own privately owned property to best earn their living. I hope you have the intelligence to ony enter the owners private businesses who offer what you want and simply skip along if they do not. Smoking bans are officially declaring citizens to stupid and ignorant to think for themseves on such a simpe task as enter and don't enter a door

Ypou should follow the big bucks money trail from the RWJF /J&J to KY's anti smoking queen Ms Hahn, J&J profits from their own nicotine patches and gum and their RWJF funds anti smoking and smoking bans

Linda wrote:

Ypou should follow the big bucks money trail from the RWJF /J&J to KY's anti smoking queen Ms Hahn, J&J profits from their own nicotine patches and gum and their RWJF funds anti smoking and smoking bans

Here's the money trail;

Johnson and Johnson, owning Pfizer, the makers of Chantix and Nicoderm, fund the bans through their Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-RWJohnsnF...

Many charities have now become tax exempt political action committees, receiving millions to lobby for smoking bans from the RWJ Foundation. These bans are nothing but clever marketing strategy, with lots of highly publicized "sky is falling" hype.

Tobacco control funding sources for "social change" to handle the "tobacco problem"

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp...

Here are their tax exempt Political Action Committees.(PACs)

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals....

Now they are being given grants to enforce their bans, admitting that bans don't help business.

http://www.rwjf.org/applications/solicited/cf...

The bans and taxes are a resounding success, for Pfizer.

http://www.emoneydaily.com/pfizer-nysepfe-dem...

bumstead68 wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW - after thr revealation of your last post
<quoted text>
You are publicly stating that you only fight for the bans - STRICTLY OUT OF HATRED FOR SMOKERS - NOT SMOKING!
You kow - the way you state these things, and the blunders that you are making - reminds me of John Banzhaf - is it really you John??-- you can let me know - I won't tell anyone- really!!

Adult bars probably represent less than one percent of the smoking population, but the ban people always go after BARS, BARS, BARS. It's more of legislating morality than banning smoking.

bumstead68 wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't think I would ever see that one "just candid" - Did you slip there -or did you just ACTUALLY ADMIT the Anti-smoking movement has been lying all these years about SECOND HAND SMOKE KILLS!
"but they do cause harm." Do you have some PROOF??!!
Thanks! now I can include your statement in ALL my posts!!!!!!!!!!

Feel free to post what you wish. I'm not a Medical Dr and make no claim as to it killing people on the spot. There is very strong evidence that SHS may trigger heart attacks and respiratory problems and failure. We also know dried tobacco smoke, "Third Hand Smoke" can form a coating on rugs, drapes clothing ect. and is inhaled when items covered with it are disturbed. Common sense dictates, "rug rats" and pets may suffer most from Third Hand Smoke, as they may come in direct contacet with it on a regular basis

Bumstead...you have called people paid posters simply because they are in favor of the ban, yet you have trolled many many threads, copy pasting this BS propaganda over and over and over!

The nonsense you are copy pasting is not even accurate, factual or contain enough legitimate information to even slightly lend itself to giving you any credibility, in fact it really comes off looking silly and foolish!

By the way...Michael J Mcfadden is not a scientist, not a doctor, not in the medical field...no he is a chemically dependent extremist who is educated and degreed in "peace studies"! He is an unmarried cat guy, which speaks a great deal about this individual and where he really is in the grand scheme of reality and social interaction!

Yes I would say, we have another loon trying to justify and rationalize the silly nonsense coming from an addict in denial!

bumstead68 wrote:

At New York’s 1975 World Conference on Smoking and Health, Antismoking activists were told that to eliminate smoking it would first be...
By Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains

bumstead68 wrote:

Most people that I have run into, ESPECIALLY in the anti-smoking movement simply PARROT what they have seen, heard, or most likely, what they have been taught to say,- VERY mindlessly, and without bothering to look for anything to back it up!

Oh, Righto!

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> Feel free to post what you wish. I'm not a Medical Dr and make no claim as to it killing people on the spot. There is very strong evidence that SHS may trigger heart attacks and respiratory problems and failure. We also know dried tobacco smoke, "Third Hand Smoke" can form a coating on rugs, drapes clothing ect. and is inhaled when items covered with it are disturbed. Common sense dictates, "rug rats" and pets may suffer most from Third Hand Smoke, as they may come in direct contacet with it on a regular basis

Despite the obvious fact that SHS-related deaths (and FHS-related deaths as well, come to that) tend to take place long after exposure, there are a few well-documented fatal asthma attacks from SHS exposure--occurring in real time and while the offending substance hung in the air.

Mist Point wrote:

<quoted text>
Despite the obvious fact that SHS-related deaths (and FHS-related deaths as well, come to that) tend to take place long after exposure, there are a few well-documented fatal asthma attacks from SHS exposure--occurring in real time and while the offending substance hung in the air.

You are 100% corect. For myself and not having formal medical training, I take all sides of the story and sometimes tend to agree or disagre with it or how it's written. There are indeed a number of such deaths reported, and to me they do seem accurate.

bumstead68 wrote:

No- it's NOT that big a deal!- YET!
But this is how EVERY one of the bans start! NO BIG DEAL!

oh, yes. The ability to conveniently inhale the highly toxic fumes of a burning bunch of chemical-impregnated leaves is such a HUGE deal. Absolutely. Yup. Yup.

Mist Point wrote:

<quoted text>
Despite the obvious fact that SHS-related deaths (and FHS-related deaths as well, come to that) tend to take place long after exposure, there are a few well-documented fatal asthma attacks from SHS exposure--occurring in real time and while the offending substance hung in the air.

I had a friend who would be gasping for air if someone with after-shave entered his office.

generalsn1234567 wrote:

<quoted text> Here's the money trail;
Johnson and Johnson, owning Pfizer, the makers of Chantix and Nicoderm, fund the bans through their Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Again with the lie. Johnson and Johnson do NOT own the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

As to your insistence that support of tobacco regulation was/is for the sake of boosting the bottom line, the foundation was backing such regulation years before J&J acquired either ALZA (developers of Nicoderm) or Pfizer (developers of Chantix). THis means that the billions of dollars worth of investment in either one of these two companies must (assuming your bogus implication that these products represent a significant portion of the corporate income of the two) have been thrown in after a decade or so of beefing up the market for their products so as to make the corporations more expensive to acquire.

You are irrational. You are a spammer.

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
Again with the lie. Johnson and Johnson do NOT own the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
As to your insistence that support of tobacco regulation was/is for the sake of boosting the bottom line, the foundation was backing such regulation years before J&J acquired either ALZA (developers of Nicoderm) or Pfizer (developers of Chantix). THis means that the billions of dollars worth of investment in either one of these two companies must (assuming your bogus implication that these products represent a significant portion of the corporate income of the two) have been thrown in after a decade or so of beefing up the market for their products so as to make the corporations more expensive to acquire.
You are irrational. You are a spammer.

http://answers.encyclopedia.co m/question/did-robert-wood-joh nson-foundation-grow-404086.ht ml

2nd try-----http://answers.encyclo pedia.com/question/did-robert- wood-johnson-foundation-grow-4 04086.html