Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS

From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org

by James W. Harris

Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?

Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?

Maybe. Fully 45% of Americans would support a federal law making cigarettes
illegal in the next five to ten years, according to a new Zogby
International poll, commissioned by the anti-Drug War Drug Policy
Foundation (DPF).

Furthermore, young voters in particular favor the idea. An amazing 57% of
18-29 year olds supported it.

A new tobacco Prohibition would be a terrible thing, the Drug Policy
Foundation points out.

"Many Americans would continue to smoke, and Big Tobacco would be replaced
by a violent black market," DPF wrote. "'Tobacco-related murders' would
increase dramatically as criminal organizations competed with one another
for turf and markets, and ordinary crime would skyrocket as millions of
tobacco junkies sought ways to feed their costly addiction. Prohibition
would pave the way for a costly governmental "war on tobacco" that would
put tobacco producers, pushers and users in prison."

DPF's Nathan Edelman further notes: "Mexico's and Colombia's
narco-traficantes would rejoice at the opportunities for new markets and
profits. ... And just imagine the government's "war on tobacco": hundreds
of thousands of new jobs for federal, state and local police, and hundreds
of thousands of new prison cells for tobacco producers, pushers and users;
government helicopters spraying herbicides on illicit tobacco fields here
and abroad; people rewarded for informing on tobacco-growing, -selling, and
-smoking neighbors; police seizing the cars of people caught smoking; urine
tests commonplace to identify users; tobacco courts compelling addicts to
quit or go to jail; and an ever bigger federal police agency -- the Tobacco
Enforcement Administration (the T.E.A.) -- employing undercover agents,
informants, and wire-taps to get the bad guys."

Further, smugglers would create and sell extremely dangerous new forms of
tobacco -- the nicotine equivalents of crack cocaine and bathtub gin,
argues libertarian journalist Jack Wheeler in the Washington Times.

The idea of a War on Cigarettes may seem far-fetched. However, DPF points
out:
"Drug prohibitions tend to be embraced not when a drug is most popular but
rather when use is declining, as tobacco use is now. We've become
accustomed to restrictions on smoking -- sale to minors, and bans on
smoking in more and more workplaces and public spaces -- and on
advertising."

Also, longtime readers of the Liberator Online will remember our report in
1998 on the startling comments Drug Enforcement Administration head Tom
Constantine made during the John Stossel ABC special report "Sex, Drugs and
Consenting Adults." Said Constantine: "When we look down the road, I would
say 10, 15, 20 years from now, in a gradual fashion, smoking will probably
be outlawed in the United States."

For friends of liberty, the lesson should be obvious. We must vigorously
defend the rights of those whose peaceful lifestyle practices we disagree
with or consider unwise. Otherwise, the same arguments that today outlaw
some peaceful but risky practices (smoking marijuana, for example), will
one day be used against millions of other people who engage in other risky
but currently legal behavior, like selling foods cooked in trans-fat oils
(a ban is already being discussed in New York city), bungee jumping, or
taking megadoses of vitamin C.
Or, obviously, smoking.

(Sources: Drug Policy Foundation:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugbydrug/tobacco/
Ethan Nadelman:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-...ep-cigarettes-
legal_b_32477.html
"Nightmare of Crack Nicotine" Wheeler, Jack, Washington Times:
http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2002nn/02...0829nn.htm#315 )

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:cnilk2tnd0k7c5e53jshiir8pv21ju41fj@news.easyn ews.com...
> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
>
> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
>
> by James W. Harris
>
> Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?
>
> Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?
>
> Maybe. Fully 45% of Americans would support a federal law making
cigarettes
> illegal in the next five to ten years, according to a new Zogby
> International poll, commissioned by the anti-Drug War Drug Policy
> Foundation (DPF).
>
> Furthermore, young voters in particular favor the idea. An amazing 57% of
> 18-29 year olds supported it.
>
> A new tobacco Prohibition would be a terrible thing, the Drug Policy
> Foundation points out.
>
> "Many Americans would continue to smoke, and Big Tobacco would be replaced
> by a violent black market," DPF wrote. "'Tobacco-related murders' would
> increase dramatically as criminal organizations competed with one another
> for turf and markets, and ordinary crime would skyrocket as millions of
> tobacco junkies sought ways to feed their costly addiction. Prohibition
> would pave the way for a costly governmental "war on tobacco" that would
> put tobacco producers, pushers and users in prison."
>
> DPF's Nathan Edelman further notes: "Mexico's and Colombia's
> narco-traficantes would rejoice at the opportunities for new markets and
> profits. ... And just imagine the government's "war on tobacco": hundreds
> of thousands of new jobs for federal, state and local police, and hundreds
> of thousands of new prison cells for tobacco producers, pushers and users;
> government helicopters spraying herbicides on illicit tobacco fields here
> and abroad; people rewarded for informing on tobacco-growing, -selling,
and
> -smoking neighbors; police seizing the cars of people caught smoking;
urine
> tests commonplace to identify users; tobacco courts compelling addicts to
> quit or go to jail; and an ever bigger federal police agency -- the
Tobacco
> Enforcement Administration (the T.E.A.) -- employing undercover agents,
> informants, and wire-taps to get the bad guys."
>
> Further, smugglers would create and sell extremely dangerous new forms of
> tobacco -- the nicotine equivalents of crack cocaine and bathtub gin,
> argues libertarian journalist Jack Wheeler in the Washington Times.
>
> The idea of a War on Cigarettes may seem far-fetched. However, DPF points
> out:
> "Drug prohibitions tend to be embraced not when a drug is most popular but
> rather when use is declining, as tobacco use is now. We've become
> accustomed to restrictions on smoking -- sale to minors, and bans on
> smoking in more and more workplaces and public spaces -- and on
> advertising."
>
> Also, longtime readers of the Liberator Online will remember our report in
> 1998 on the startling comments Drug Enforcement Administration head Tom
> Constantine made during the John Stossel ABC special report "Sex, Drugs
and
> Consenting Adults." Said Constantine: "When we look down the road, I would
> say 10, 15, 20 years from now, in a gradual fashion, smoking will probably
> be outlawed in the United States."
>
> For friends of liberty, the lesson should be obvious. We must vigorously
> defend the rights of those whose peaceful lifestyle practices we disagree
> with or consider unwise. Otherwise, the same arguments that today outlaw
> some peaceful but risky practices (smoking marijuana, for example), will
> one day be used against millions of other people who engage in other risky
> but currently legal behavior, like selling foods cooked in trans-fat oils
> (a ban is already being discussed in New York city), bungee jumping, or
> taking megadoses of vitamin C.
> Or, obviously, smoking.
>
> (Sources: Drug Policy Foundation:
> http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugbydrug/tobacco/
> Ethan Nadelman:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-...ep-cigarettes-
> legal_b_32477.html
> "Nightmare of Crack Nicotine" Wheeler, Jack, Washington Times:
> http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2002nn/02...0829nn.htm#315 )


good thing most of the people in the world don't live in the U.S.

% wrote:
> "CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
> news:cnilk2tnd0k7c5e53jshiir8pv21ju41fj@news.easyn ews.com...
>> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
>>
>> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
>>
>> by James W. Harris
>>
>> Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?
>>
>> Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?
>>
>> Maybe. Fully 45% of Americans would support a federal law making
> cigarettes
>> illegal in the next five to ten years, according to a new Zogby
>> International poll, commissioned by the anti-Drug War Drug Policy
>> Foundation (DPF).
>>
>> Furthermore, young voters in particular favor the idea. An amazing 57% of
>> 18-29 year olds supported it.
>>
>> A new tobacco Prohibition would be a terrible thing, the Drug Policy
>> Foundation points out.
>>
>> "Many Americans would continue to smoke, and Big Tobacco would be replaced
>> by a violent black market," DPF wrote. "'Tobacco-related murders' would
>> increase dramatically as criminal organizations competed with one another
>> for turf and markets, and ordinary crime would skyrocket as millions of
>> tobacco junkies sought ways to feed their costly addiction. Prohibition
>> would pave the way for a costly governmental "war on tobacco" that would
>> put tobacco producers, pushers and users in prison."
>>
>> DPF's Nathan Edelman further notes: "Mexico's and Colombia's
>> narco-traficantes would rejoice at the opportunities for new markets and
>> profits. ... And just imagine the government's "war on tobacco": hundreds
>> of thousands of new jobs for federal, state and local police, and hundreds
>> of thousands of new prison cells for tobacco producers, pushers and users;
>> government helicopters spraying herbicides on illicit tobacco fields here
>> and abroad; people rewarded for informing on tobacco-growing, -selling,
> and
>> -smoking neighbors; police seizing the cars of people caught smoking;
> urine
>> tests commonplace to identify users; tobacco courts compelling addicts to
>> quit or go to jail; and an ever bigger federal police agency -- the
> Tobacco
>> Enforcement Administration (the T.E.A.) -- employing undercover agents,
>> informants, and wire-taps to get the bad guys."
>>
>> Further, smugglers would create and sell extremely dangerous new forms of
>> tobacco -- the nicotine equivalents of crack cocaine and bathtub gin,
>> argues libertarian journalist Jack Wheeler in the Washington Times.
>>
>> The idea of a War on Cigarettes may seem far-fetched. However, DPF points
>> out:
>> "Drug prohibitions tend to be embraced not when a drug is most popular but
>> rather when use is declining, as tobacco use is now. We've become
>> accustomed to restrictions on smoking -- sale to minors, and bans on
>> smoking in more and more workplaces and public spaces -- and on
>> advertising."
>>
>> Also, longtime readers of the Liberator Online will remember our report in
>> 1998 on the startling comments Drug Enforcement Administration head Tom
>> Constantine made during the John Stossel ABC special report "Sex, Drugs
> and
>> Consenting Adults." Said Constantine: "When we look down the road, I would
>> say 10, 15, 20 years from now, in a gradual fashion, smoking will probably
>> be outlawed in the United States."
>>
>> For friends of liberty, the lesson should be obvious. We must vigorously
>> defend the rights of those whose peaceful lifestyle practices we disagree
>> with or consider unwise. Otherwise, the same arguments that today outlaw
>> some peaceful but risky practices (smoking marijuana, for example), will
>> one day be used against millions of other people who engage in other risky
>> but currently legal behavior, like selling foods cooked in trans-fat oils
>> (a ban is already being discussed in New York city), bungee jumping, or
>> taking megadoses of vitamin C.
>> Or, obviously, smoking.
>>
>> (Sources: Drug Policy Foundation:
>> http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugbydrug/tobacco/
>> Ethan Nadelman:
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-...ep-cigarettes-
>> legal_b_32477.html
>> "Nightmare of Crack Nicotine" Wheeler, Jack, Washington Times:
>> http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2002nn/02...0829nn.htm#315 )
>
>
> good thing most of the people in the world don't live in the U.S.
>
>

Doesn't mean the US won't be flying over the fields in other countries
spraying "to kill", just like in Colombia and Afghanistan.

"Franz Bestuchev" <franz.bestuchev@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4r2oflFpefp7U1@individual.net...
> % wrote:
> > "CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
> > news:cnilk2tnd0k7c5e53jshiir8pv21ju41fj@news.easyn ews.com...
> >> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
> >>
> >> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
> >>
> >> by James W. Harris
> >>
> >> Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?
> >>
> >> Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?
> >>
> >> Maybe. Fully 45% of Americans would support a federal law making
> > cigarettes
> >> illegal in the next five to ten years, according to a new Zogby
> >> International poll, commissioned by the anti-Drug War Drug Policy
> >> Foundation (DPF).
> >>
> >> Furthermore, young voters in particular favor the idea. An amazing 57%
of
> >> 18-29 year olds supported it.
> >>
> >> A new tobacco Prohibition would be a terrible thing, the Drug Policy
> >> Foundation points out.
> >>
> >> "Many Americans would continue to smoke, and Big Tobacco would be
replaced
> >> by a violent black market," DPF wrote. "'Tobacco-related murders' would
> >> increase dramatically as criminal organizations competed with one
another
> >> for turf and markets, and ordinary crime would skyrocket as millions of
> >> tobacco junkies sought ways to feed their costly addiction. Prohibition
> >> would pave the way for a costly governmental "war on tobacco" that
would
> >> put tobacco producers, pushers and users in prison."
> >>
> >> DPF's Nathan Edelman further notes: "Mexico's and Colombia's
> >> narco-traficantes would rejoice at the opportunities for new markets
and
> >> profits. ... And just imagine the government's "war on tobacco":
hundreds
> >> of thousands of new jobs for federal, state and local police, and
hundreds
> >> of thousands of new prison cells for tobacco producers, pushers and
users;
> >> government helicopters spraying herbicides on illicit tobacco fields
here
> >> and abroad; people rewarded for informing on tobacco-growing, -selling,
> > and
> >> -smoking neighbors; police seizing the cars of people caught smoking;
> > urine
> >> tests commonplace to identify users; tobacco courts compelling addicts
to
> >> quit or go to jail; and an ever bigger federal police agency -- the
> > Tobacco
> >> Enforcement Administration (the T.E.A.) -- employing undercover agents,
> >> informants, and wire-taps to get the bad guys."
> >>
> >> Further, smugglers would create and sell extremely dangerous new forms
of
> >> tobacco -- the nicotine equivalents of crack cocaine and bathtub gin,
> >> argues libertarian journalist Jack Wheeler in the Washington Times.
> >>
> >> The idea of a War on Cigarettes may seem far-fetched. However, DPF
points
> >> out:
> >> "Drug prohibitions tend to be embraced not when a drug is most popular
but
> >> rather when use is declining, as tobacco use is now. We've become
> >> accustomed to restrictions on smoking -- sale to minors, and bans on
> >> smoking in more and more workplaces and public spaces -- and on
> >> advertising."
> >>
> >> Also, longtime readers of the Liberator Online will remember our report
in
> >> 1998 on the startling comments Drug Enforcement Administration head Tom
> >> Constantine made during the John Stossel ABC special report "Sex, Drugs
> > and
> >> Consenting Adults." Said Constantine: "When we look down the road, I
would
> >> say 10, 15, 20 years from now, in a gradual fashion, smoking will
probably
> >> be outlawed in the United States."
> >>
> >> For friends of liberty, the lesson should be obvious. We must
vigorously
> >> defend the rights of those whose peaceful lifestyle practices we
disagree
> >> with or consider unwise. Otherwise, the same arguments that today
outlaw
> >> some peaceful but risky practices (smoking marijuana, for example),
will
> >> one day be used against millions of other people who engage in other
risky
> >> but currently legal behavior, like selling foods cooked in trans-fat
oils
> >> (a ban is already being discussed in New York city), bungee jumping, or
> >> taking megadoses of vitamin C.
> >> Or, obviously, smoking.
> >>
> >> (Sources: Drug Policy Foundation:
> >> http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugbydrug/tobacco/
> >> Ethan Nadelman:
> >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-...ep-cigarettes-
> >> legal_b_32477.html
> >> "Nightmare of Crack Nicotine" Wheeler, Jack, Washington Times:
> >> http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2002nn/02...0829nn.htm#315 )
> >
> >
> > good thing most of the people in the world don't live in the U.S.
> >
> >
>
> Doesn't mean the US won't be flying over the fields in other countries
> spraying "to kill", just like in Colombia and Afghanistan.


oh ok , like another we blew it again war ,
fk you guys need a fear reality check ,
no one sweats the US anymore , ask North Veit Nam ,
ask anyone one you're the laugh on the planet

% wrote:
> "Franz Bestuchev" <franz.bestuchev@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4r2oflFpefp7U1@individual.net...
>> % wrote:
>>> "CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cnilk2tnd0k7c5e53jshiir8pv21ju41fj@news.easyn ews.com...
>>>> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
>>>>
>>>> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
>>>>
>>>> by James W. Harris
>>>>
>>>> Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?
>>>>
>>>> Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. Fully 45% of Americans would support a federal law making
>>> cigarettes
>>>> illegal in the next five to ten years, according to a new Zogby
>>>> International poll, commissioned by the anti-Drug War Drug Policy
>>>> Foundation (DPF).
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, young voters in particular favor the idea. An amazing 57%
> of
>>>> 18-29 year olds supported it.
>>>>
>>>> A new tobacco Prohibition would be a terrible thing, the Drug Policy
>>>> Foundation points out.
>>>>
>>>> "Many Americans would continue to smoke, and Big Tobacco would be
> replaced
>>>> by a violent black market," DPF wrote. "'Tobacco-related murders' would
>>>> increase dramatically as criminal organizations competed with one
> another
>>>> for turf and markets, and ordinary crime would skyrocket as millions of
>>>> tobacco junkies sought ways to feed their costly addiction. Prohibition
>>>> would pave the way for a costly governmental "war on tobacco" that
> would
>>>> put tobacco producers, pushers and users in prison."
>>>>
>>>> DPF's Nathan Edelman further notes: "Mexico's and Colombia's
>>>> narco-traficantes would rejoice at the opportunities for new markets
> and
>>>> profits. ... And just imagine the government's "war on tobacco":
> hundreds
>>>> of thousands of new jobs for federal, state and local police, and
> hundreds
>>>> of thousands of new prison cells for tobacco producers, pushers and
> users;
>>>> government helicopters spraying herbicides on illicit tobacco fields
> here
>>>> and abroad; people rewarded for informing on tobacco-growing, -selling,
>>> and
>>>> -smoking neighbors; police seizing the cars of people caught smoking;
>>> urine
>>>> tests commonplace to identify users; tobacco courts compelling addicts
> to
>>>> quit or go to jail; and an ever bigger federal police agency -- the
>>> Tobacco
>>>> Enforcement Administration (the T.E.A.) -- employing undercover agents,
>>>> informants, and wire-taps to get the bad guys."
>>>>
>>>> Further, smugglers would create and sell extremely dangerous new forms
> of
>>>> tobacco -- the nicotine equivalents of crack cocaine and bathtub gin,
>>>> argues libertarian journalist Jack Wheeler in the Washington Times.
>>>>
>>>> The idea of a War on Cigarettes may seem far-fetched. However, DPF
> points
>>>> out:
>>>> "Drug prohibitions tend to be embraced not when a drug is most popular
> but
>>>> rather when use is declining, as tobacco use is now. We've become
>>>> accustomed to restrictions on smoking -- sale to minors, and bans on
>>>> smoking in more and more workplaces and public spaces -- and on
>>>> advertising."
>>>>
>>>> Also, longtime readers of the Liberator Online will remember our report
> in
>>>> 1998 on the startling comments Drug Enforcement Administration head Tom
>>>> Constantine made during the John Stossel ABC special report "Sex, Drugs
>>> and
>>>> Consenting Adults." Said Constantine: "When we look down the road, I
> would
>>>> say 10, 15, 20 years from now, in a gradual fashion, smoking will
> probably
>>>> be outlawed in the United States."
>>>>
>>>> For friends of liberty, the lesson should be obvious. We must
> vigorously
>>>> defend the rights of those whose peaceful lifestyle practices we
> disagree
>>>> with or consider unwise. Otherwise, the same arguments that today
> outlaw
>>>> some peaceful but risky practices (smoking marijuana, for example),
> will
>>>> one day be used against millions of other people who engage in other
> risky
>>>> but currently legal behavior, like selling foods cooked in trans-fat
> oils
>>>> (a ban is already being discussed in New York city), bungee jumping, or
>>>> taking megadoses of vitamin C.
>>>> Or, obviously, smoking.
>>>>
>>>> (Sources: Drug Policy Foundation:
>>>> http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugbydrug/tobacco/
>>>> Ethan Nadelman:
>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-...ep-cigarettes-
>>>> legal_b_32477.html
>>>> "Nightmare of Crack Nicotine" Wheeler, Jack, Washington Times:
>>>> http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2002nn/02...0829nn.htm#315 )
>>>
>>> good thing most of the people in the world don't live in the U.S.
>>>
>>>
>> Doesn't mean the US won't be flying over the fields in other countries
>> spraying "to kill", just like in Colombia and Afghanistan.
>
>
> oh ok , like another we blew it again war ,
> fk you guys need a fear reality check ,
> no one sweats the US anymore , ask North Veit Nam ,
> ask anyone one you're the laugh on the planet
>
>

Me, personally?

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:cnilk2tnd0k7c5e53jshiir8pv21ju41fj@news.easyn ews.com...
> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
>
> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
>
> by James W. Harris
>
> Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?
>
> Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?
>
> Maybe. Fully 45% of Americans would support a federal law making
> cigarettes
> illegal in the next five to ten years, according to a new Zogby
> International poll, commissioned by the anti-Drug War Drug Policy
> Foundation (DPF).
>
> Furthermore, young voters in particular favor the idea. An amazing 57% of
> 18-29 year olds supported it.
>
> A new tobacco Prohibition would be a terrible thing, the Drug Policy
> Foundation points out.
>
> "Many Americans would continue to smoke, and Big Tobacco would be replaced
> by a violent black market," DPF wrote.

in the 90s, when canada was trying to outpace the US in raising the price of
tobacco by taxation, the explosion in black-market smokes from the US forced
the government to abruptly slash the price of the legal stuff by almost
half. since then it has climbed more or less in sync with american prices.
now it's risen well past the point where it was scaled back, but it's ok
because there's no longer a significant profit in smuggling them in, and a
lot fewer people are smoking now than were 15 years ago. i guess it's the
slow-boil method in action.

legislated bans on alcohol and recreational drugs don't work, but education
and disincentives do. it's especially nice to read about the statistical
message from the 18-29 yo bunch. the message we've been sending back to them
in the schools from about grade 5 on has obviously been heard. but too many
kids are still getting hooked.

<snip>

> Also, longtime readers of the Liberator Online will remember our report in
> 1998 on the startling comments Drug Enforcement Administration head Tom
> Constantine made during the John Stossel ABC special report "Sex, Drugs
> and
> Consenting Adults." Said Constantine: "When we look down the road, I would
> say 10, 15, 20 years from now, in a gradual fashion, smoking will probably
> be outlawed in the United States."
>
> For friends of liberty, the lesson should be obvious. We must vigorously
> defend the rights of those whose peaceful lifestyle practices we disagree
> with or consider unwise.

it's possible that smoking in public places will be outlawed completely at
some point. i see that as more likely in dense population areas than
elsewhere. it's not because we consider it unwise, but because it's a social
nuisance and because there's evidence that ambient tobacco smoke is harmful
to people who breathe it for prolonged periods of time.

> Otherwise, the same arguments that today outlaw
> some peaceful but risky practices (smoking marijuana, for example), will
> one day be used against millions of other people who engage in other risky
> but currently legal behavior, like selling foods cooked in trans-fat oils
> (a ban is already being discussed in New York city), bungee jumping, or
> taking megadoses of vitamin C.

interestingly, research hasn't been able to establish a correlation between
marijuana smoke and cancer the way it has with tobacco. but making people
around you inhale objectionable odors, tars and chemical substances you
exhale could be construed as antisocial regardless.

> Or, obviously, smoking.

nonsense. the difference between smoking in public and the other behaviors
is obvious.

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:59:49 -0700, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote:

>good thing most of the people in the world don't live in the U.S.

Huh? Most of the people in the world do live in the U.S. I know this for a
fact because I go out quite a bit and virtually every person I see on the
street lives in the U.S.

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:11:49 -0700, Franz Bestuchev
<franz.bestuchev@gmail.com> wrote:

>% wrote:
>> "Franz Bestuchev" <franz.bestuchev@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4r2oflFpefp7U1@individual.net...
>>>>
>>> Doesn't mean the US won't be flying over the fields in other countries
>>> spraying "to kill", just like in Colombia and Afghanistan.
>>
>> oh ok , like another we blew it again war ,
>> fk you guys need a fear reality check ,
>> no one sweats the US anymore , ask North Veit Nam ,
>> ask anyone one you're the laugh on the planet
>>
>
>Me, personally?

I sense a contradiction in %'s statement.

1. The U.S. is the laughing stock of the planet.

2. The U.S. is the biggest threat to the planet.

That seems to be a contradiction unless many of these fictitious
non-Americans he speaks of quake in their boots and laugh at the same time.

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 04:28:18 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:

>legislated bans on alcohol and recreational drugs don't work, but education
>and disincentives do. it's especially nice to read about the statistical
>message from the 18-29 yo bunch. the message we've been sending back to them
>in the schools from about grade 5 on has obviously been heard. but too many
>kids are still getting hooked.

"Education" in the manner of TheTruth.com commercials isn't working much.
Not with so many teens having internet connection that allow them to look
up the lies and half-truths being spouted by TheTruth.com.

>it's possible that smoking in public places will be outlawed completely at
>some point. i see that as more likely in dense population areas than
>elsewhere. it's not because we consider it unwise, but because it's a social
>nuisance and because there's evidence that ambient tobacco smoke is harmful
>to people who breathe it for prolonged periods of time.

Public places? Perhaps. But I don't consider private businesses such as
bars and restaurants to be public places. They are private property and
whether or not smoking is allowed should rightfully be up to the owner.

Also, there is no evidence that ambient tobacco smoke is harmful to
relatively healthy people. All studies on the matter seem to refer back to
the EPA study that was tossed in the waste basket by a federal judge who
found the study to be hopelessly, and intentionally, flawed.

Tobacco smoke is, of course, harmful to anyone who already has a lung
problem that is exacerbated by airborne particulate matter.

>interestingly, research hasn't been able to establish a correlation between
>marijuana smoke and cancer the way it has with tobacco. but making people
>around you inhale objectionable odors, tars and chemical substances you
>exhale could be construed as antisocial regardless.

That depends on where you are. On private property, the offended person is
free to move elsewhere. In public, in the open air, the offended person can
also move elsewhere, perhaps to find a life. I mean really, I'm intensely
offended by stupid women who douse themselves with a quart of perfume
before they leave the house. Are we going to ban perfume now?

Don't laugh. Some people are suggesting it because those people with lung
problems are harmed as much by perfume as they are by tobacco smoke. There
are many others with no apparent condition other than a severe adverse
reaction to perfumes or chemical odors.

>> Or, obviously, smoking.
>
>nonsense. the difference between smoking in public and the other behaviors
>is obvious.

Again, what do you mean by public?

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:04ltk2t9vi1srkbdhk8iqsmfsvj4rtbbp9@news.easyn ews.com...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 04:28:18 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
>
>>legislated bans on alcohol and recreational drugs don't work, but
>>education and disincentives do. it's especially nice to read about the
>>statistical message from the 18-29 yo bunch. the message we've been
>>sending back to them in the schools from about grade 5 on has obviously
>>been heard. but too many kids are still getting hooked.
>
> "Education" in the manner of TheTruth.com commercials isn't working much.
> Not with so many teens having internet connection that allow them to look
> up the lies and half-truths being spouted by TheTruth.com.

the number of smokers in canada is currently at around 20% of the
population, the lowest level ever, much of that achieved in the past 10
years. education and disincentive campaigns are definitely working, but
other factors include smokers who have died and smokers who have quit with
the onset of chronic bronchitis, heart disease, hypertension, and other
smoking-induced or smoking-exacerbated illness.

>>it's possible that smoking in public places will be outlawed completely at
>>some point. i see that as more likely in dense population areas than
>>elsewhere. it's not because we consider it unwise, but because it's a
>>social nuisance and because there's evidence that ambient tobacco smoke is
>>harmful to people who breathe it for prolonged periods of time.
>
> Public places? Perhaps. But I don't consider private businesses such as
> bars and restaurants to be public places. They are private property and
> whether or not smoking is allowed should rightfully be up to the owner.

well, that's too bad. they're business establishments which operate under
government license. the license is issued subject to certain environmental
conditions which the owner has to meet. making clean air a condition is
perfectly reasonable. and hey, guess what? i elect the government that
issues the licenses. so i get a say in what's reasonable on those private
properties.

> Also, there is no evidence that ambient tobacco smoke is harmful to
> relatively healthy people.

maybe not in the short term. but there's plenty of evidence that it's
annoying as hell to a significant number of them, causing teary eyes,
coughing, scratchy throats, stinking clothes, stinking hair, and a distinct
loss of enjoyment of food and drink. and there is evidence that non-smoking
employees who work in smoke-filled environments for years on end succumb to
smoking-related illness at a comparable rate to smokers.

> All studies on the matter seem to refer back to
> the EPA study that was tossed in the waste basket by a federal judge who
> found the study to be hopelessly, and intentionally, flawed.

we've done our own studies. the opinion of one of your federal judges, no
doubt a stooge in the pay of the tobacco lobby, means nothing here.

> Tobacco smoke is, of course, harmful to anyone who already has a lung
> problem that is exacerbated by airborne particulate matter.

so what you're saying is, bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, pool halls,
cinemas, public transportation and such are only for the "relatively
healthy".

>>interestingly, research hasn't been able to establish a correlation
>>between marijuana smoke and cancer the way it has with tobacco. but making
>>people around you inhale objectionable odors, tars and chemical substances
>>you exhale could be construed as antisocial regardless.
>
> That depends on where you are. On private property, the offended person is
> free to move elsewhere.

when i was a smoker, i used to think so too. now that i'm not, i can see
what bullshit this is. farts, you can get away from. tobacco smoke, no. it's
unbelievably strong, foul, and pervasive. i've been in restaurants that had
a "designated smoking area" enclosed by plexiglass walls and equipped with
special ceiling vents that supposedly sucked all the smoke out and blew it
into the stratosphere or fuck knows where. the stink still came through,
loud & clear. so i'm glad they got rid of those here and just don't let
people smoke in those places any more, period. never has a pint with a
burger and fries tasted so good.

in defence of my former self, i should say that i never objected to being
asked to remove myself from the local environment while smoking. i always
saw the fairness of the request, even before i could directly experience the
unpleasantness. by what logic is it the non-smoker who should move
elsewhere?

> In public, in the open air, the offended person can
> also move elsewhere, perhaps to find a life. I mean really, I'm intensely
> offended by stupid women who douse themselves with a quart of perfume
> before they leave the house. Are we going to ban perfume now?
>
> Don't laugh. Some people are suggesting it because those people with lung
> problems are harmed as much by perfume as they are by tobacco smoke. There
> are many others with no apparent condition other than a severe adverse
> reaction to perfumes or chemical odors.

i'm content to fence-sit in the perfume debate for the time being, but i
don't think i'd be opposed to laws that made excessive use of scent (by some
definition of excessive, like "knocks out a squirrel at 100 yards")
punishable by compulsory classes in body aesthetics.

>>> Or, obviously, smoking.
>>
>>nonsense. the difference between smoking in public and the other behaviors
>>is obvious.
>
> Again, what do you mean by public?

places where the public is.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 04:07:24 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:

>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>news:04ltk2t9vi1srkbdhk8iqsmfsvj4rtbbp9@news.easy news.com...
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 04:28:18 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Education" in the manner of TheTruth.com commercials isn't working much.
>> Not with so many teens having internet connection that allow them to look
>> up the lies and half-truths being spouted by TheTruth.com.
>
>the number of smokers in canada is currently at around 20% of the
>population, the lowest level ever, much of that achieved in the past 10
>years. education and disincentive campaigns are definitely working, but
>other factors include smokers who have died and smokers who have quit with
>the onset of chronic bronchitis, heart disease, hypertension, and other
>smoking-induced or smoking-exacerbated illness.

Did Canada have a higher percentage of smokers than the U.S. for some time?
The U.S. has been around 20% for a very long time. May of the polls finding
a reduction in ten smoking in the U.S. are bullshit in my opinion. In my
experience there are just as many teen smokers now as there were when I was
a teen. It goes in and out of vogue regardless of the education campaigns.
Hollywood is more on an influence than any government sponsored
anti-smoking campaign.

>> Public places? Perhaps. But I don't consider private businesses such as
>> bars and restaurants to be public places. They are private property and
>> whether or not smoking is allowed should rightfully be up to the owner.
>
>well, that's too bad. they're business establishments which operate under
>government license. the license is issued subject to certain environmental
>conditions which the owner has to meet. making clean air a condition is
>perfectly reasonable. and hey, guess what? i elect the government that
>issues the licenses. so i get a say in what's reasonable on those private
>properties.

I know you do. That is the inherent flaw and curse of Democracy. The
majority has full license to subject the minority to whatever ridiculous
legislation they come up with. That is why people are having their homes
confiscated by the government and given to businesses such as Walmart and
the like.

If you don't like smoke, then don't go to the bar or restaurant. It's that
simple. You don't like being subjected against your will to tobacco smoke,
but you have no problem preventing a private business owner from running
his establishment as he sees fit. That is hypocrisy.

>> Also, there is no evidence that ambient tobacco smoke is harmful to
>> relatively healthy people.
>
>maybe not in the short term. but there's plenty of evidence that it's
>annoying as hell to a significant number of them, causing teary eyes,
>coughing, scratchy throats, stinking clothes, stinking hair, and a distinct
>loss of enjoyment of food and drink. and there is evidence that non-smoking
>employees who work in smoke-filled environments for years on end succumb to
>smoking-related illness at a comparable rate to smokers.

As for most of this, again you have a choice as to which bars and
restaurants you go to. The employees also have a choice as to where to
work. Most smoking establishments do cater to people at least as far as
having smoking sections, or installing smoke eaters to minimize ambient
smoke.

And no, there is no evidence showing that long term exposure to send hand
smoke is linked to cancer. That was a find in the bogus EPA study - the
results of which, curiously, they released six months prior to the study's
completion.

Do you also support the real hard liners who are demanding that the
government pass a law against people smoking in their own homes if they
have children?

>> All studies on the matter seem to refer back to
>> the EPA study that was tossed in the waste basket by a federal judge who
>> found the study to be hopelessly, and intentionally, flawed.
>
>we've done our own studies. the opinion of one of your federal judges, no
>doubt a stooge in the pay of the tobacco lobby, means nothing here.

Your studies are bullshit. Any scientific study has to be rigorously tested
and replicated by other independent researchers.

A judge in the pocket of the tobacco lobby? That's a hoot. The case has
gotten nowhere on appeal. How about the EPA and CDC in the pocket of
anti-tobacco crusaders who now have a boatload of cash thanks to the
lawsuits against tobacco companies? They also have the money to create the
most untruthful "truth" ad campaigns in the history of man.

>> Tobacco smoke is, of course, harmful to anyone who already has a lung
>> problem that is exacerbated by airborne particulate matter.
>
>so what you're saying is, bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, pool halls,
>cinemas, public transportation and such are only for the "relatively
>healthy".

Not at all. It has occurred to you that smokers only make up about 20% of
society, right? Many business owners are non-smokers themselves and make
their establishments non-smoking of their own free will.

And as I said before, even those places that allow smoking will install
smoke eaters to make the environment cleaner for the comfort of everybody.
This is nothing new. My favorite village pub (named the Village Pub...) had
a smoke eater in the place over twenty years ago and it worked
fantastically. It was never a smoke filled bar. I'm sure the technology has
greatly improved since then.

In short, there are options other than relieving people of their right to
private property.

>> That depends on where you are. On private property, the offended person is
>> free to move elsewhere.
>
>when i was a smoker, i used to think so too. now that i'm not, i can see
>what bullshit this is. farts, you can get away from. tobacco smoke, no. it's

Ah, you are an ex-smoker. End of discussion. It's like trying to have a
reasonable discussion of Judaism with Osama bin Laden.

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:gb1uk2pfio9fv8ng7c3fida5fs1psqo930@news.easyn ews.com...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 04:07:24 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
>
>>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>>news:04ltk2t9vi1srkbdhk8iqsmfsvj4rtbbp9@news.eas ynews.com...
>>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 04:28:18 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Education" in the manner of TheTruth.com commercials isn't working
>>> much. Not with so many teens having internet connection that allow them
>>> to look up the lies and half-truths being spouted by TheTruth.com.
>>
>>the number of smokers in canada is currently at around 20% of the
>>population, the lowest level ever, much of that achieved in the past 10
>>years. education and disincentive campaigns are definitely working, but
>>other factors include smokers who have died and smokers who have quit with
>>the onset of chronic bronchitis, heart disease, hypertension, and other
>>smoking-induced or smoking-exacerbated illness.
>
> Did Canada have a higher percentage of smokers than the U.S. for some
> time? The U.S. has been around 20% for a very long time.

it was 28% in 1999, 25% in 2000, 23% in 2003, and 20% in 2005.
in 1965 it was 50%.

> May of the polls finding
> a reduction in ten smoking in the U.S. are bullshit in my opinion. In my
> experience there are just as many teen smokers now as there were when I
> was a teen. It goes in and out of vogue regardless of the education
> campaigns. Hollywood is more on an influence than any government sponsored
> anti-smoking campaign.

in 2001, 73% of people aged 12 to17 reported they had never smoked
cigarettes. by 2005, it was 82%. the trend has been continuous.

>>> Public places? Perhaps. But I don't consider private businesses such as
>>> bars and restaurants to be public places. They are private property and
>>> whether or not smoking is allowed should rightfully be up to the owner.
>>
>>well, that's too bad. they're business establishments which operate under
>>government license. the license is issued subject to certain environmental
>>conditions which the owner has to meet. making clean air a condition is
>>perfectly reasonable. and hey, guess what? i elect the government that
>>issues the licenses. so i get a say in what's reasonable on those private
>>properties.
>
> I know you do. That is the inherent flaw and curse of Democracy. The
> majority has full license to subject the minority to whatever ridiculous
> legislation they come up with. That is why people are having their homes
> confiscated by the government and given to businesses such as Walmart and
> the like.

apples and oranges.

> If you don't like smoke, then don't go to the bar or restaurant. It's that
> simple.

no, it's this simple: if you want to smoke, go outside.

>You don't like being subjected against your will to tobacco smoke,
> but you have no problem preventing a private business owner from running
> his establishment as he sees fit. That is hypocrisy.

we've never let business owners run their establishments any way they see
fit, especially if they serve the public on their premises. we've always
required adherence to standards of cleanliness and non-toxicity. specifying
the clean-air requirement is perfectly consistent with this. no cockroaches
in the soup. no rat shit in the sandwich. no ciggie smoke in the air.

this one's a clear case of dogs barking while the caravan moves on.

<snip more content previously covered>

>>when i was a smoker, i used to think so too. now that i'm not, i can see
>>what bullshit this is. farts, you can get away from. tobacco smoke, no.
>
> Ah, you are an ex-smoker. End of discussion. It's like trying to have a
> reasonable discussion of Judaism with Osama bin Laden.

oh that osama, tsk. he sure is a typical ex-jew.

cal wrote:
> "CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
> news:gb1uk2pfio9fv8ng7c3fida5fs1psqo930@news.easyn ews.com...
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 04:07:24 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
> >>news:04ltk2t9vi1srkbdhk8iqsmfsvj4rtbbp9@news.eas ynews.com...
> >>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 04:28:18 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Education" in the manner of TheTruth.com commercials isn't working
> >>> much. Not with so many teens having internet connection that allow them
> >>> to look up the lies and half-truths being spouted by TheTruth.com.
> >>
> >>the number of smokers in canada is currently at around 20% of the
> >>population, the lowest level ever, much of that achieved in the past 10
> >>years. education and disincentive campaigns are definitely working, but
> >>other factors include smokers who have died and smokers who have quit with
> >>the onset of chronic bronchitis, heart disease, hypertension, and other
> >>smoking-induced or smoking-exacerbated illness.
> >
> > Did Canada have a higher percentage of smokers than the U.S. for some
> > time? The U.S. has been around 20% for a very long time.
>
> it was 28% in 1999, 25% in 2000, 23% in 2003, and 20% in 2005.
> in 1965 it was 50%.
>
> > May of the polls finding
> > a reduction in ten smoking in the U.S. are bullshit in my opinion. In my
> > experience there are just as many teen smokers now as there were when I
> > was a teen. It goes in and out of vogue regardless of the education
> > campaigns. Hollywood is more on an influence than any government sponsored
> > anti-smoking campaign.
>
> in 2001, 73% of people aged 12 to17 reported they had never smoked
> cigarettes. by 2005, it was 82%. the trend has been continuous.
>
> >>> Public places? Perhaps. But I don't consider private businesses such as
> >>> bars and restaurants to be public places. They are private property and
> >>> whether or not smoking is allowed should rightfully be up to the owner.
> >>
> >>well, that's too bad. they're business establishments which operate under
> >>government license. the license is issued subject to certain environmental
> >>conditions which the owner has to meet. making clean air a condition is
> >>perfectly reasonable. and hey, guess what? i elect the government that
> >>issues the licenses. so i get a say in what's reasonable on those private
> >>properties.
> >
> > I know you do. That is the inherent flaw and curse of Democracy. The
> > majority has full license to subject the minority to whatever ridiculous
> > legislation they come up with. That is why people are having their homes
> > confiscated by the government and given to businesses such as Walmart and
> > the like.
>
> apples and oranges.
>
> > If you don't like smoke, then don't go to the bar or restaurant. It's that
> > simple.
>
> no, it's this simple: if you want to smoke, go outside.
>
> >You don't like being subjected against your will to tobacco smoke,
> > but you have no problem preventing a private business owner from running
> > his establishment as he sees fit. That is hypocrisy.
>
> we've never let business owners run their establishments any way they see
> fit, especially if they serve the public on their premises. we've always
> required adherence to standards of cleanliness and non-toxicity. specifying
> the clean-air requirement is perfectly consistent with this. no cockroaches
> in the soup. no rat shit in the sandwich. no ciggie smoke in the air.
>
> this one's a clear case of dogs barking while the caravan moves on.
>
> <snip more content previously covered>
>
> >>when i was a smoker, i used to think so too. now that i'm not, i can see
> >>what bullshit this is. farts, you can get away from. tobacco smoke, no.
> >
> > Ah, you are an ex-smoker. End of discussion. It's like trying to have a
> > reasonable discussion of Judaism with Osama bin Laden.
>
> oh that osama, tsk. he sure is a typical ex-jew.

how can he be an ex jew?

has he had his nobtip sown back on?

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 04:53:52 +0000, CyberDroog wrote:

> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
>
> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
>
> by James W. Harris
>
> Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?
>
> Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?

I WILL start killing people.

CyberDroog wrote:
> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
>
> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
>
> by James W. Harris
>
> Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?
>
> Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?
>

It's so ridiculous...cigarettes are terrible things, though I
occasionally smoke them myself... I'm paticularly angry with them
because someone I like, who smoked, is dying of lung cancer... However,
despite that, what people chose to do is there own buissness... There
needs to be as much freedom as possible... limiting and restricting
what people chose to with there own bodies, whether it involves
alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, abortion, sex etc... is NOT right...

-"Jordy"

On 6 Nov 2006 11:24:17 -0800, Icnh@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>CyberDroog wrote:
>> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
>>
>> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
>>
>> by James W. Harris
>>
>> Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?
>>
>> Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?
>>
>
> It's so ridiculous...cigarettes are terrible things, though I
>occasionally smoke them myself... I'm paticularly angry with them
>because someone I like, who smoked, is dying of lung cancer... However,
>despite that, what people chose to do is there own buissness... There
>needs to be as much freedom as possible... limiting and restricting
>what people chose to with there own bodies, whether it involves
>alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, abortion, sex etc... is NOT right...
>
> -"Jordy"


Does that freedom matter if other people are affected? If a person
endangers himself and I have to pay for the consequences, is it still
okay? Does consideration for his family come into play at any time?

Charles wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2006 11:24:17 -0800, Icnh@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >CyberDroog wrote:
> >> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
> >>
> >> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
> >>
> >> by James W. Harris
> >>
> >> Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?
> >>
> >> Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?
> >>
> >
> > It's so ridiculous...cigarettes are terrible things, though I
> >occasionally smoke them myself... I'm paticularly angry with them
> >because someone I like, who smoked, is dying of lung cancer... However,
> >despite that, what people chose to do is there own buissness... There
> >needs to be as much freedom as possible... limiting and restricting
> >what people chose to with there own bodies, whether it involves
> >alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, abortion, sex etc... is NOT right...
> >
> > -"Jordy"
>
>
> Does that freedom matter if other people are affected? If a person
> endangers himself and I have to pay for the consequences, is it still
> okay? Does consideration for his family come into play at any time?

yes... but people need to have choices...and that's an imporant
thing to hold onto... I think everyone knows that cigarettes are
unhealthy... When people smoke heavily and get lung cancer it's
extremly sad, to say the least... certainly cigarettes cause much
misery in people's lives... but should cigarettes be illegal? I don't
think so... the same applies to alcohol for example... obviously, an
enormous amount of deaths and illnesses and accidents etc... can be
linked to drinking alcohol. but should alcohol therefore be made
illegal? I don't think so...

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:gb1uk2pfio9fv8ng7c3fida5fs1psqo930@news.easyn ews.com...

> Ah, you are an ex-smoker. End of discussion. It's like trying to have a
> reasonable discussion of Judaism with Osama bin Laden.

Ah, well this should stir the pot then, I AM a smoker and I agree with the
laws as they are. It is as simple as smoking outside. I do and I have no
problem with it. That said, if they try to take outside from me or attempt
to make them illegal I will only tolerate so much and will declare war.

--
Rhi

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:30:09 +0000, Charles wrote:

> On 6 Nov 2006 11:24:17 -0800, Icnh@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>CyberDroog wrote:
>>> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
>>>
>>> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
>>>
>>> by James W. Harris
>>>
>>> Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?
>>>
>>> Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?
>>>
>>>
>> It's so ridiculous...cigarettes are terrible things, though I
>>occasionally smoke them myself... I'm paticularly angry with them
>>because someone I like, who smoked, is dying of lung cancer... However,
>>despite that, what people chose to do is there own buissness... There
>>needs to be as much freedom as possible... limiting and restricting what
>>people chose to with there own bodies, whether it involves alcohol,
>>drugs, cigarettes, abortion, sex etc... is NOT right...
>>
>>
> Does that freedom matter if other people are affected? If a person
> endangers himself and I have to pay for the consequences, is it still
> okay? Does consideration for his family come into play at any time?

Okay... let's ban cars immediately.

"purpleveggie" <purpleveggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162824840.441843.271560@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> cal wrote:
>> oh that osama, tsk. he sure is a typical ex-jew.
>
> how can he be an ex jew?
>
> has he had his nobtip sown back on?

he didn't have to, pv. muslims get it nipped too.

"Charles" <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
news:s63vk25lqhrt9afegplp8q2efmtu7s402q@4ax.com...
> On 6 Nov 2006 11:24:17 -0800, Icnh@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>CyberDroog wrote:
>>> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
>>>
>>> From: The Liberator Online - http://www.theadvocates.org
>>>
>>> by James W. Harris
>>>
>>> Poll Shocker: