Anti Smoking Laws and the Reality of the Totalitarian Police State

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
60 years ago had you suggested you wouldnt be able to smoke in restaurants, bars, cars or your home people would have laughed you off. Had you told them you will be forced to wear seat belts or face a fine or pee in a cup to keep your job they would say that "commie crap like that can't happen here". Government has access to you banking and medical records, location and know damn near everything about you.

Smoking was the tip of the spear, social behaviors have been molded at the expense of freedom and personal liberty. Few ever saw this coming and those who did were mostly those involved in implementing the control grid we are all vectors in now.

But remember none of this applies to the elite - those who are rich, even just well to do.

They can buy their own house, condo, or whatever and do what they please.

These totalitarian laws are made to exploit the lower classes, the masses, and keep them enslaved.

Picture yourseld as a well to do businessman, say even an owner of one of these HUD assisted apartments
- sitting in your own smoking room in you large home or big condo. Say your wife doesn't like smoking so
you could afford to create your own smoking room, complete wihh humidor.

You light a large $20 stick [slang for cigar], sit back and smile about the poor tenant living in one of your
HUD assisted apartments hiding in the closet to smoke a cheap cigarette and hoping the smoke is not detected
by the management who like the trained dogs that they are, run around sniffing for smoke as instructed
- Sit back and relax and take a long draw on your cigar and marvel at the wonder of how you and the boys
got the so called Liberals to support the agenda that helps you prosper!

Welcome to the New World Order

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Look this guy smokes so what that makes him a troll only fit to live in a box under a bridge . This country is being lead by new dork city and burningfornia down the drain with all these fake pc rules and so called health scare tactics if I wanted a nanny I would hire one the gov has no business getting that involved in our day to day lives you say it's an unfair burden on our health system for all these people smoking tobacco and drinking big gulp cups of soda ,and eating at McDonald's but you all are happy that aliens illegally enter our country and have babies like rabbits that now are citizens by being born in country filling up hospitals. I know several different aliens who each have more than 10 kids with several different baby mommas who is supporting these fifty plus kids well not the guys American tax payers are because everyone of the women are collecting adds and live in hud subsidized homes and are collecting EBT for groceries which the guys make money on by selling food stamps for 200 dollars worth for 100. So yeah smoking bad for you ok but so is lots of other stuff.

a reply to: AlienView

one question - why dont propetrty owners have the right to limit what occurs in thier building ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

We are not talking about 'private property' clearly owned by a property owner - this whole post was talking about
property leased out under government control and regulations.

Even if owned by a private corporation the government 'gives' the money to finance low income rent and does
not give the property owner the right to defy its regulations - Even if the owwner or corporation that owns
the property doesn't give a damn if people smoke in their own apartments or not - the owner is not given a choice
- He is also giving up his Constitutional Right to ownership by getting in bed with the government of "Big Brother
and the Holding Company' by dealing with them.

And here we see government control's ugly side - If not for the government undercutting rentals by buying
control of all these places and offering super cheap rent - There might be more private property owners
who could compete in the middle and low income market for affordable housing.

I say might becuase there are just too many 'slum-lords' around who are driven by nothing but greed
and are partially responsible for the problem as well

And some of these HUD properties are also slumlord class even with the government rules and regulations.
Just on tonight's news they were showing some dilapidated apartments in Connecticut under HUD control
with in some cases the roofs inside the apartment literally falling down - Might be a good place for a smoker
though - If they can't afford to keep the roofs up inside the apartment I doubt they could afford the
time or expense to maintain the no smoking ban !

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

nothing wrong with respecting the wishes of the bar or restaurant owner either is there???

Can't argue for property rights when you don't respect them at all. This is just you wanting to impose your likes/dislikes on your neighbours.

I guantee that this will bite you in the ass. Stop and think of how many precedents have been set by anti-smokers. The biggest one being that government can tax anything and I do mean anything they deem unhealthy.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: proteus33

please get your facts straight

If smokers die 10 years younger than non-smokers, than it is non-smokers who are the burden on society! Think of the cost of pensions and nursing care for senior citizens.

10 years of drooling in your diapers in a nursing home costs alot more than treating a case of lung cancer

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: AlienView

Tobacco demonized itself with every life it took.
From someone who smoked from age 15 to age 55. Then I quit and I immediatly felt healthier so I know the claims are real.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I dont like smelly clothing or standing next to someone who smells like a dirty ashtray. And bad breath.... yeah smoking gives you minty fresh lovely breath. LOL

originally posted by: HolydarknessVA
a reply to: Hecate666

You are missing the simple fact, if you are renting a place then you do not own it and the owner of the property can damn well put any stipulation in the lease.
You can do what ever you want when you OWN the property. But trying to tell a owner you are going to do something to feed your addiction on their property is ridiculous.

Wrong. Here in the UK you can do whatever you like in your flat, especially social housing, as long as you don't structurally change it or destroy it in any other way. Paint the walls pink, as long as you restore it at the end [but nobody ever does].
We are not talking taking a sledge hammer to the walls, we are talking smoke.

Do you not see how ridiculous this is?

Yes, private owners often put restrictions on, such as no animals, mainly dogs, because they bark. Most people are ok with cats or smaller animals. Again, we are talking smoke here.

If you tell me next that tobacco smoke smells, hold on tight, because cooking smells too. Cooking curries over and over will stink a whole block of flats out but strangely enough it's allowed. Even though, certain cooking smells can trigger asthma in some or makes others nauseous.

It's private vs social housing. A flat given by the social is supposed to be safe. A private landlord could in theory chuck you out with a weeks notice at any given time. This is not the case for social housing. As it is supposed to be relied on, especially for the elderly or other vulnerables.

As I said, open a window, smoke on the balcony or even better inside your own safe haven, your home, the place that is yours as long as you pay the rent.


What's next? NO sex because the government has gone puritan, no cooking, no TV [noise], no jewellery or model making [fumes], putting candles on, using aroma oils, having arguments, CHILDREN, having noisy sex? I could come up with a myriad of things that they could ban because they are a nuisance or bad for health but it's only tobacco smoke that gets people's knickers in a twist. Let it go.

From experience I can tell you that it never was a problem until the millennial complainers got their hands on it. Before that you could do whatever you liked bar destruction. Why not make it illegal? Then you'd have a reason.
It ain't though and therefore it's just taking yet another freedom of someone who is supposed to be in their HOME. But it's not a home is it if you have to restrict your habits.
Why not go the full hog and put cameras into each social flat/house, after all the owners [government] can do what they want and it's not anyone's private home, right? They are just scum who smoke, they can die because you hate them.

Right?

Where do people like you draw the line? Serious question, what do you think would be not OK?

Funnily enough, if it is a restriction on personal freedom with threats to your whole existence [being homeless] only the left could come up with something so draconian. The liberal left, ban everything, watch everyone and destroy people's lives for a ciggie.
Pfff.

a reply to: proteus33

That is your opinion??? Smoker's are undeserving of shelter????? Smokers are, in your opinion, subhuman.

I know, maybe you can round up all the smoker's and put them in non-smoking camps and then maybe you will have time to think of the "final solution".

I speak for liberty and individual rights and you think I am a troll and subhuman

What exactly are you?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Sillyolme

There are a lot of things that smell far far worse than tobacco.

Self-rightousness and entitlement are two of them.

If you don't like the way a bar or restaurant smells - don't go in!

If you don't like the way someone's home smells - don't do in!

If you can smell somethink in the hallway of an apartment building - do go in your nice clean apartment as quickly as you can!

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I talked earlier about how history repeats itself.

prohibition of tobacco is a fad (just as smoking is)

There is a 400 year history of tobacco prohibition. The last time was during alcohol prohibition. Cigarette prohibition went so far as to have tobacco banned in 17 states by the anti-cigarette league, led by Lucille Gaston-Page. It ironic but Lucille dies of throat cancer! (God does have a sense of humor)

www.revolvy.com...

The truth is that this round of prohibition was funded by Big Pharma when the invented the patchy, gummy thing. They are now done funding it because vaping was invented.

The government jumped on board because it gave them more taxes and the thing that all governments want control of a scared population that politicians can "save".

Of course all the fake charities jumped on board because well government was funding and it was free money.

But cigarette prohibition only lasts so long before the money runs out. The master settlement agreement provided billions of dollars of smoker money but greedy politions sold the settlement to Wall Street for pennies on the dollar and the interest is coming due. Since there is less money, it is the non-smokers that will have to pay

www.nytimes.com...

The general population is waking up to how anti-smoking has established new government intrusion and that they will have to meat, sugar and pop tax.

Public opinion is changing rapidy and the time of the anti-smoker (like every time for the last 400 years) is coming to an end.

When the pendulum swings, life will be a bitch for the self-rightous, hypocritical anti-smoker

Tire of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy

I dont like smelly clothing or standing next to someone who smells like a dirty ashtray. And bad breath.... yeah smoking gives you minty fresh lovely breath. LOL

I might not like your face but have to look at it.

Anyway I sometimes get asthma from car exhaust fumes but I'll let others drive their massive SUVs and we also have a car.
Sometimes you just have to put up with stuff.
This world doesn't cater for everyone and their preferences. SOme people don't mind cigarette smoke [like me, it reminds me of my childhood and later of many good times in night clubs].

It actually seems nowadays that people think everything has to be perfect for them or else it has to be banned.
That sounds all so wussy and childish to me. I mean even nature stinks sometimes [skunks, methane, certain mushrooms and plants etc] I don't want them banned.
Just learn to put up with some stuff. Car fumes, smoke, bad BO, farmers putting s hit on the fields during summer, full nappies, cheap perfume, who cares, it happens.

It could be worse, we could be at war and be bombed at any time losing everything or other FAR worse things than
meeting a person with a smelly jumper.

Perspective is needed.

The real question is how do your individual rights intersect with other peoples individual rights.

If you live in a multi-unit building what rights do you and your neighbors have?

I don't really care if you smoke or not, but I don't want to smell your smoke.

Also, if you choose to smoke, I think that the public should not have to pay your medical bills should you get a smoking related illness. I think that the tobacco companies should have to pay for your medical bills

a reply to: Wildbob77

If you believe that the public should not pay the medical costs of smokers than you must also believe that the medical costs of druggies, alcoholics, people who ride motorcycles, people who get into at-fault accidents, mountain climbers (most dangerous sport) and people who damage their knees and joints should have have to cover their own health care costs.

how about woman who chose the health risks of carrying children?/

Out of all these people, only smokers pay for their health care costs!

You want the public to only pay for the health care costs of healthy people? Actually, I think you want the sick to pay for the healthy???

How about if we automatically kill non-smokers who age above of 80? Why should smokers pay to keep them alive?
You are a strange strang thinker.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I talked earlier about how history repeats itself.

prohibition of tobacco is a fad (just as smoking is)

There is a 400 year history of tobacco prohibition. The last time was during alcohol prohibition. Cigarette prohibition went so far as to have tobacco banned in 17 states by the anti-cigarette league, led by Lucille Gaston-Page. It ironic but Lucille dies of throat cancer! (God does have a sense of humor)

www.revolvy.com...

The truth is that this round of prohibition was funded by Big Pharma when the invented the patchy, gummy thing. They are now done funding it because vaping was invented.

The government jumped on board because it gave them more taxes and the thing that all governments want control of a scared population that politicians can "save".

Of course all the fake charities jumped on board because well government was funding and it was free money.

But cigarette prohibition only lasts so long before the money runs out. The master settlement agreement provided billions of dollars of smoker money but greedy politions sold the settlement to Wall Street for pennies on the dollar and the interest is coming due. Since there is less money, it is the non-smokers that will have to pay

www.nytimes.com...

The general population is waking up to how anti-smoking has established new government intrusion and that they will have to meat, sugar and pop tax.

Public opinion is changing rapidy and the time of the anti-smoker (like every time for the last 400 years) is coming to an end.

When the pendulum swings, life will be a bitch for the self-rightous, hypocritical anti-smoker

Tire of Control Freaks

As has been said before. I don't care if you smoke, I just don't want to smell it. Don't smoke around me. Don't smoke on my plane, my elevator or the restaruant i'm in. If you can't control yourself, then you're going to have a problem.

I have my own insurance that covers my lifestyle.

Why should I have to pay additional premiums for someone who chooses to use a product that has been shown to cause very expensive health problems?

The concept of insurance is that we all pay in and when someone has a problem, then insurance will cover that cost. I think that if you choose to participate in dangerous activities, at a minimum, you should pay more for your insurance than someone who does not.

Just my opinion.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

originally posted by: Wildbob77
I have my own insurance that covers my lifestyle.

Why should I have to pay additional premiums for someone who chooses to use a product that has been shown to cause very expensive health problems?

The concept of insurance is that we all pay in and when someone has a problem, then insurance will cover that cost. I think that if you choose to participate in dangerous activities, at a minimum, you should pay more for your insurance than someone who does not.

Just my opinion.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You have a point, but everything is dangerous. I do JiuJitsu and Karate, should I pay more than you? I'm going to get more minor injuries, more chiropractic appointments, more xrays, more physical therapy than the average person.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I'm seriously wondering what you're talking about. Who's forcing you to quit smoking? You can smoke all you want as long as you follow the rules of whatever property you are on. No smoking inside a rental? Tough luck, you signed the lease to agree not to smoke inside so you should follow through with your word, if you don't want to follow the rules then risk getting evicted or find a place that does allow smoking inside, or you could just step outside when you smoke. Your choice.

You have 3 choices, you act like there aren't any choices at all. Get over yourself. If you impose rules on your own property that is your right and no one can tell you otherwise. Get it?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Those owners' property rights have been removed in our town. A friend of mine owns a bar/restaurant---the land it sits on, the building in which it is housed and all the equipment. He thought he had the right to say what legal activities could take place inside his personal property but the city council said he doesn't have that right. He cannot allow people to smoke in the separate room he built to accommodate the smokers.

He found out the hard way that personal property rights mean nothing to Authoritarian Nannies who want to run the world.