FORCES Tavern: We welcome you to The Tavern, you are welcome to browse and read, but please register to post.

Bans: What are our choices

It doesn't matter if it is anything from trans fat, second hand smoke, home schooling or gun control - there are those who are using a numbers game and calling it science to pass legislation.

Postby DancingTigerBait » Tue May 22, 2007 3:40 pm

jploughman wrote:How about a special bulletin somewhere, maybe on this site;

Politicians: How they voted on smoking bans.
Restaurants: By location, do they permit smoking
Hotels: That ban smoking
Airports: Do they have smoking areas

I'm sure you can probably come up with some of your own.

As you said, more and more smokers are joining this site. There is only so much we can say to to each other since we are all pretty much in agreement. Give those that don't want to say something a reason to log on .

<b>Politicians: How they voted on smoking bans.</b>

Illinois list: ... &SpecSess=
New York list:
A few in North Dakota: ... 993792.htm
A discussion on a forum of some more: ... sc-20.html

<b>Restaurants: By location, do they permit smoking </b>
[Check with National Restaurant Association—can’t e-mail unless you’re a member. Smial mail and telephone number are at ]
For the most part, you need to call ahead. For one thing, they might have outside seating where smoking is welcome.

<b>Hotels: That ban smoking </b>
Disney went down: ... free/5773/

<b>Airports: Do they have smoking areas.</b>
Site that lists places with bans (no-smoke):

In addition, you need to be aware of smoke-free apartment listings. Here is a scary site on what’s developing:

PS I see more and more smokers getting off their duff--there are some who are stating just that even in the editorials of my own pro-ban newspaper! "An Epidemic of Awakening" is at-hand. There will be quite a backlash as growing numbers of smokers discover that they've been marginalized over fraudulent science.
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:39 pm
Location: Illinois/Florida

Postby jploughman » Fri May 25, 2007 12:22 am

Jim wrote:On the other hand, life with spirit, purpose, and strength has a major effect on health and longevity. The more alive we are, the harder it is to kill us.

I just returned from a fun vacation, sponsored by my wife's employer. The function was a reward for some 500 employees (out of about 10,000)who excelled in their jobs. I would guess it cost the company about $5,000. per employee whose task was only to enjoy. What was amazing was that a vast majority of these employees openly smoked. I would say it speaks volumns on the benefits of smoking.
To whom it may concern: Please stop trying to save me from myself.
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:11 am
Location: Indianapolis United States of America

Postby smokem » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:40 am

It's so sad what happens, fighting "vice," with viciousness. Smoking is soothing yet aids concentration at the same time without the least intoxication. Employers, and everybody, lost a lot when we lost sane and decent accommodation of smoking. Too much of anything can be a vice. Too much is too much. Heavy drinking can be devastating in both the short and the long terms. Heavy smoking can make you clear your throat or really rough up your lungs over decades. Smoking is an exquisite pleasure though. Balance in perspective has been utterly lost in most quarters regarding tobacco. I love tobacco. Lots and lots of people do. Those that don't should refrain, that's all, that's how it's been for centuries. Hysteria and hate have no virtue. This pogrom is atrocious. Support for it is common because senselessness and sadism are common. Acquiescent smokers are certainly numerous and simply pathetic: masochism is common too. Anti is beyond nauseating. Win or lose I'll resist and fight any way I can. I'm past 50. I've never been a big drinker. I do love cigarettes so tend to smoke a pack or two daily. It's more than I should. Honestly, but for Anti, I would have given up smoking by now. My grandfather quit in his forties, my father quit in his seventies. However, given Anti, I've never loved smoking so much, and I'll be damned if I'll quit. If I didn't smoke I'd take it up today. I have never been so angry about anything.
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:13 am
Location: USA

Postby Blad » Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:59 pm

"Living here overseas, I get to hear the opinions on bans from people from the UK. It seems that most of them including smokers are glad for the bans because they claim that they've been smoking their way out of the pubs themselves and that fresh air is welcomed. No one in general UK is protesting at all, at all. This is what we're up against, stark resistance."

So spake longhouse.

longhouse, you are hearing a very narrow band of opinion and I suggest you tune in to

We are attempting to submit the government to a judicial review of its smoking ban. Moreover, lots of publicans, bingo hall owners and other businesses are complaining about loss of income, even on the strings of The Publican (a rag that has been surprisingly pro ban despite the interests of its subscribers). Add to that there are four publicans/club owners who have been defying the ban since day one and their cases are due in court. Two are Freedom to Choose members and all have been very skillful to date in holding their own. On July 1st, we also held a Day of Defiance where lots of us smoked in those establishments right in front of the police. What you are getting over there where you live is not truly representative and yet another anti-ban protest is going off in Bristol on October 20th. Yes, we have certainly rattled the government.

However, you're excused not knowing much as the press has been loathe to report anything contrary to the government and ASH dictums.
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:26 pm

Postby richlady248 » Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:52 am

Fighting bans with facts are simply not enough!

Agreed, Longhouse. While we need to educate ourselves and be prepared to use facts (just as an athlete or other performer needs to hone basic skills with continuous training) there has to be more beyond that in terms of organized effort, "box office appeal," and the development of artistry and creative solutions.

Maybe the willingness to throw a good punch now and then wouldn't hurt either. Just this week I was as rude as Hades to a nonsmoker who came outside to be with us smokers (they always DO that). Then he looked right at me and started telling me I should stop smoking (they always DO that too).

Well, and I can't believe this came out of me, I looked right back at him and very calmly said, "Look, we smokers are out here, because all of YOU have made it very clear that you don't want to be around us; so why don't YOU just take you're antismoking stuff INSIDE? If you want to be out here with us, you are welcome to speak with us on any other topic, but NOT that one."

I was surprised by two things. First, he utterly cowered and adopted an oddly shamed stance as if he had been genuinely unaware that smokers are not appreciative of his all this stop-smoking jibberish. Secondly, since then, he seems to like me better, and has even started treating me with awesome respect.
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:22 pm

Postby djbear » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:15 am

I agree with longhouse and with nightlight.
Belligerence is the proper attitude to take with non-smoking/anti-smoking, and the reason is because smoking is not and never has been a factor in lung cancer or any other disease. The proof is virtually inarguable.

If someone tried to argue that two plus two equalled five, you would have very little patience with them. If they tried to teach your kids this moronic datum, you'd put a quick stop to it, and wouldn't mind getting mad if that's what it took. You would give no credence to his theories and studies "proving" that two plus two equals five. These things would not be hard for you because you have certainty that two plus two equals four. Well, we can all be just as certain that smoking does not cause disease.

The proof is very simple, and we don't really need to get any more complex than a few statistics that can be downloaded from the Centers for Disease Control website. Quickly stated: in 1970 the US population was 170 million, the number of smokers was 50 million. In 2000, the US population was 280 million, the number of smokers still 50 million. The number of cancer deaths has risen IN DIRECT PROPORTION to the increase in population, rather than staying constant with the number of smokers.

This proof is easily understood and easily expressed to others. And it's easily documentable by anyone, just tell them to look up the numbers for themselves.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:53 am
Location: Burbank CA


Return to Why are we refusing to talk about the fraudulant use epidemiology, calling it "science" to promote a political agenda?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest