Throw all people who are anti-smoking and of German ancestry into concentration camps

So, I've learned from Swampbubbles that if you agree with the smoking ban, you are like a nazi. So to avoid any resemblance of naziism, we should create concetration camps and throw all anti-smokers and people of german ancestry into concentration camps. I think that's a fair solution to it all. We'll teach those anti-smokers and germans a real lesson. (and for those of you who take me too seriously, this was meant as a joke).

No votes yet

Propoganda goes both ways, ehh Darkseid?

junta that wouldn't work because if people who were against bans threw those who were for bans into concentration camps, it'd make US nazis, and we aren't nazis. We simply don't believe in bans of any kind - for legal substances & activities. Yes, I know you're joking, but you brought it up.

*

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/250407antismoking.htm

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

"- The Nazi Reich Health Office warned that smoking caused impotence and produced posters depicting smoking as a dirty habit of Jews, Gypsies, blacks, intellectuals and Indians."

Was it not just another reason for the final solution?

Wasn't the Nazi party more about Fascism than Socialism in the end, if we look at the blaming of the others for problems of the German people.

Do we believe that the new campaigns to put in place anti-smoking rules is some how similar to the goals of the Nazi's in the bigger picture of their goal?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Smokers like to inhale smoke and non-smokers don't. Both groups have these "rights". There has to be some regulation if they are going to co-exist. What's the compromise?

What's the compromise?

That was an easy one, if your a smoker and you dont wish to go to an establishment that doesn't allow it, then dont. If your a non smoker and dont widh to be around smoke, then dont go to an establishment that allowed it.

It was pretty simple that way, but no, people need to tell other people how to live and how to run their own businesses.

What about public space? In your vision, who gets to exercise their "right" in public?

seems so simple to me. wonder why nobody thought of that.

What about public space? In your vision, who gets to exercise their "right" in public?

It depends on what your definition of a "public space" is. For example, the resteraunt that i OWN, i do not consider it public. The park, now that i consider public becasue it is run by the city (or county or whatever) but i DONT consider a private business that is open to the public, a public space.

roak said "public space to me is property that is owned and/or managed by the government or is subsidized with tax payer's money". I agree with that definition. I never had a problem with smoking bans in government buildings (courthouses, libraries, {post offices,etc.). I also never had a problem with no smoking in stores - that seemed fair to not allow smoking in places that sold products that could pick up the smoke scent. I didn't think it was right that the airlines banned all smoking - especially on very long flights, because the airplane air cleaning systems were of the same caliber that was used in labs that dealt with highly dangerous, contagious diseases & bio-hazardous fumes, and if they could clean the air enough to make the air safe from plagues, etc. - and because there is such a frequent & constant air exchange that effectively removed any irritants or hazards, then it was silly to assume they couldn't handle shs. (there are actual studies available that prove this) I read an article about why the airlines really enforced smoking bans (my sister works for American Airlines, I'll have to ask her to find the article for me again). And it had nothing to do with whether their air cleaning equipment could't handle shs - but more to do with rolling over to conform to the anti's paranoias, and more to save money by being able to cut back on the air cleaning machines, which saved them money. There ARE still some airlines in the world that still allow smoking. And it should be noted, that when the airlines banned smoking (and cut back on the air cleaning equipments usage/speed (I do not know the terminology), the instances of people getting very sick from the air quality on the plane soared. Same with cruise ships. I smoked on two fairly long fights in the 70's, and at no time, did you ever see or smell smoke because the air filtration systems were just that good.

Back in the 70's, you could still smoke in doctor's waiting rooms & hospitals - I was provided with an ashtray in my hospital room when my oldest son was born - ashtrays were common to hospital rooms. I do understand why they no longer allow smoking in hospitals, whether I like it or not - but feel that areas should still be provided to smoke. I'm ok with no smoking in hospitals basically (with the reservation of a lounge being made available). But to ban smoking by all employees on their private time or lose their jobs is absurd & just wrong. To ban smoking on the outdoors grounds & parking lots is absurd. Not everybody in hospitals are happy employees - too often, they are full of stressed out, worried sick, scared silly, heartbroken people. nuff said.

You could also smoke in shopping malls. They then confined the smoking to areas that had seating & ashtrays, which was fine with me. I didn't bitch when they banned smoking in the malls - whoever owns the malls has the right to make that decision, and I respected that.

But a privately owned business, bar, restaurant owns the right to decide whether to allow smoking or not. There have been smoking & non smoking sections in restaurants for decades, some better designed than others of course, but a non-smoker knew going into it whether it allowed smoking or not. If they weren't happy about the smoking section, they always had the choise to not enter. But it's arrogant to presume to tell a private business owner how he may run his business, based on YOUR whims. I feel nauseous when I smell sushi, so can I demand no restaurants or grocery stores be allowed to sell sushi? A vegetarian has the right to not enter a steak house, but does not have the right to demand no meat be served in it.

Bowling alleys are in a tough spot with the smoking bans. Most do have lounges, but that wasn't good enough for the antis to confine smoking to the lounges. Bowlers are NOT allowed to just step outside to smoke, because the bowling shoes are NOT allowed out of the bowling alley because of dirt, moisture, etc. that will be tracked in, onto the lanes. Some bar & bowling alley owners voiced concerns over the smoking bans because if a customer went outside to smoke, they wondered, would that customer also go to their car to smoke (in bad weather) and also drink his own booze? If that bowler/drinker then gets in a car accident, the bowling alley/bar owner can be held liable. Hardly fair when the owner has no way of predicting what the customers are doing when they 'step outside'.

Private clubs (VA & Country) are members only, and should be able to make whatever rules they want. You don't like the rules or what freedoms the club allows? Then don't join. A side note on VA halls - a friend told me that our government sends cigarettes to our soldiers in Iraq, if they request them - keeps them awake apparently. A lot of these soldiers in Iraq, etc. were furious when they came home to discover that a smoking ban was put in place. Many of them didn't hear about it till they came home.

One big gripe I have about smoking bans in private clubs, is that when they rent a section or hall for weddings & parties, it should be left to the owner of that club or hall whether to allow smoking or not. If a couple pays thousands of dollars to rent the club, use (buy) the clubs catering, and want to allow smoking at their reception or party, and the owner of the club or hall is okay with that, then why should they be NOT allowed to allow smoking? During a private party, the general public is NOT invited. But with this smoking ban, the owner has no say.

Parks, Amusement parks, zoos - any place that is OUTDOORS, should not have a smoking ban, but should provide recepticles for butts. (It is freaking OUTDOORS.) They should not ban smoking in these places simply because somebody may have their kids there. Parents should be able to teach their kids by their own example, but not expect others to be role models to them.

Funeral Homes - Again, they are privately owned. Many funeral home directors are dismayed over this smoking ban. Most funeral homes have always had lounges, one for smoking - places for the grieving family to mourn & visit. Their concern is, how do they tell the family who's dead child (or mother) is laid out in the next room, that they can't smoke in the lounge? Especially when it's freezing cold or raining outside? Whether a smoking lounge is allowed, should be left to the funeral home owner/director to decide - not the health dept or government.

Schools & Campus - No smoking at any, but at college level, they are considered adults by the law (age). A campus may own the right to dictate the campus & dorms to be non-smoking. That is fair. But it should be up to the campus - with no pressure by the health dept or govt. While they did allow smoking even in classrooms in colleges years ago (often the prof was smoking during the class), I have no problem with not allowing smoking in the actual school. But designated areas, lounges, & the outdoors campus should allow smoking, unless the campus chooses to be non-smoking.

any place that is OUTDOORS, should not have a smoking ban
At the risk of being ripped to shreads for my opinion on this topic I've got to say that a recent outing to an outside event gave me good reason to wish that smoking was banned there even though we were OUTSIDE.
We ended up with ashes all over us not to mention having smoke blown into our faces (not by the smoker per say but by the wind).

So I've got to say not every place that is outside is a good place for smoking just by virtue of being outside, because nonsmokers have as much right to enjoy the outdoors as smokers and we shouldn't have to feel like we're sitting in an ashtray to do it either.

you've learned absolutely nothing, other than how to further be your wiseass self.See RWJF and the blade if you want propaganda.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

I am a smoker of German ancestry. I am against the smoking ban not because I smoke but because it infringes on the liberties and principals this country was founded on. So please, if you lock me up leave the key under the mat.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

this board, unless you count Hitler, Goebells, and their followers. What WAS discussed/repeated was the people who take things from the Nazi playbook and put them into play in modern times-hence the term "Smoke Nazi". While I suppose we could use the term The New Taliban, since it's a Jihad of sorts,and they are violently anti-tobacco, or communism/socialism,since they are against property rights- the reason Nazi is preferred is simply because it's been done before-health and the 'master race' being God .

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

I originally posted this back in January. Since it made so much sense to me I thought I would repost it here:

I quote from B.C. Forbes in 1953:
'What have Americans to be thankful for? More than any other people on the earth, we enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States, 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' Yes, we Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage. Let us pray that we may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs.'

"Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States"...but are slowly being eroded away by the likes of the new anti-smoking law in Ohio. Don

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

public space to me is property that is owned and/or managed by the government or is subsidized with tax payer's money. I would not include your restuarant as public, unless the goverment gave you money to operate it (yeah right).

So in my definition of public space, what are your views on smoking?

No, I've learned a few things. Mostly I've learned that the stories you post are completely opinionized and contain little fact. You rarely post the real story. I just wanted to demonstrate an equivalent piece of propoganda.

Well Krazy, if you're a german, to the camp you go. See how all those anti-smokers treat you when you're in there with them.

there's been a movement afoot for several years from some group that's trying to ban all alcohol sales or consumption anywhere children are allowed. I'll see if I can find a link.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

*

Can't find the one I was rederring to, but here's a related article from a few years ago. The group in Ohio that was for banning alcohol where children were present was funded by-guess who? These people. They're into everything.

Research Press Release

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Majority of Survey Respondents Favor Stricter Controls on Alcohol Sales, Advertising and Promotion; Would Ban or Restrict Drinking in City Streets, Stadiums and at Beaches.

Princeton, NJ-- An overwhelming majority of Americans view underage drinking as a significant problem and support measures that would help reduce teen drinking, according to a new survey released today by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. In fact, 96 percent of survey respondents said they are concerned about teen drinking. This overwhelming support for strong measures to prevent teen drinking cuts across all demographic lines including age, gender, ethnicity, political ideology and geographic regions.

The national survey indicates that Americans would support a wide variety of policies aimed at curbing underage drinking, including restrictions on drinking in public places, stricter controls on alcohol sales, advertising and promotions, and bans on certain types of alcohol sales, such as home delivery. Americans would also favor raising alcohol taxes to pay for alcohol prevention and treatment programs.

The survey and resulting report were based on the responses of 7,021 people between April and October of 1997. Sampling error for items from this survey is plus or minus 2 percent based on a 95% confidence interval. The survey was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under the direction of Alexander C. Wagenaar, Ph.D., director of the Alcohol Epidemiology Program at the University of Minnesota.

"Underage drinking is a vast problem with grave consequences. It is a factor in nearly half of all teen automobile crashes, the leading cause of death among teens. Beyond that, alcohol contributes to suicides, homicides and fatal injuries, and is a factor in sexual assaults and date rapes. Obviously, something needs to be done to avoid these serious problems," said RWJF vice president Nancy Kaufman. "Clearly, Americans are not interested in returning to the days of prohibition, but this survey demonstrates that the American public is concerned and wants to see policies put in place that will help prevent our teenagers from drinking."

Eighty-two percent of respondents would be willing to raise alcohol taxes by 5 cents per drink if the funds were used to pay for programs to prevent minors from drinking and to increase alcohol treatment programs. Nearly three-quarters (70 percent) would support the tax if it were used to lower other taxes such as income taxes. Just 37 percent would support the increase if it were used to pay for any government program and not targeted to tax relief or alcohol prevention.

More than half of respondents favored restrictions on alcohol advertising, with 63 percent favoring bans on billboard advertising, 67 percent opposing the use of cartoons or youth-oriented music materials on alcoholic beverage packaging and 59 percent banning the use of sports teams and athletes as symbols in advertising. Two-thirds of all respondents would ban all advertisement of hard liquor on TV, and 61 percent would ban all advertisement of beer and wine on TV.

One of the more significant findings from the survey was the fact that an overwhelming majority of respondents (82 percent) believe that stores and bars are too lax in preventing teenagers from buying alcohol. Over three-quarters of survey respondents favored setting a minimum age requirement of 21 for servers. Nearly 90 percent of all respondents favored training for both owners and servers regarding how to better deal with drunken customers and teenage drinkers.

The survey also indicates that respondents believe that the adults providing alcohol to teens, as well as the teens themselves, are responsible for the problems associated with teen drinking. Almost three-quarters of respondents agreed that punishment would help deter youth drinking. Given this, more than 83 percent supported penalties for adults who provide alcohol to underage drinkers and 66 percent supported compliance checks on alcohol distributors.

Other significant findings highlighted by the survey:

More than 89 percent of respondents would support restrictions on drinking alcoholic beverages on city streets, at parks and on college campuses. More than 80 percent would restrict drinking at concerts and beaches, while 77 percent would favor restrictions at sports stadiums.

Survey respondents favored a variety of regulations on the sale and distribution of alcohol. Over 60 percent supported registration numbers for beer kegs that would make the keg traceable to the person who bought it. Fifty-nine percent favored banning home delivery of alcohol, but just 31 percent favored banning the sale of beer kegs for individual use. Less than half of the respondents (40 percent) supported bans on "happy hours."

Three-quarters of respondents favored a "zero-tolerance" policy for young drivers where a teenager would be punished if he/she tested positive for any amount of alcohol in their blood. Women were most supportive (80%), with men less supportive (66%).

Nearly half of all respondents said that someone close to them had a drinking problem, and 23 percent reported knowing someone who had been seriously injured by a drunk driver.

Republicans and Democrats responded alike to almost all of the questions. Republicans were as likely as Democrats to agree with statements suggesting more policies to prevent teenage drinking.

"Whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, citizens across the country clearly want effective regulation of alcohol promotion and sales," said Wagenaar. "Building safe and healthy communities requires it."

The survey was commissioned by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as part of its collaboration with the American Medical Association on two programs that seek to confront the issues and problems associated with youth and alcohol, and create solutions through environmental change. Reducing Underage Drinking seeks to decrease underage drinking and alcohol-related problems among youth. A Matter of Degree works to reduce binge drinking in 10 college-campus communities and the many problems associated with it, including alcohol poisoning deaths, car crash fatalities, injuries, suicide, sexual assault and other physical violence, property damage, academic failure and other harmful behavior.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the nation's largest philanthropy supporting health and health care in the United States. The Foundation concentrates its grantmaking in three goal areas: (1) to assure that all Americans have access to basic health care at reasonable cost; (2) to improve the way services are organized and provided to people with chronic health conditions; and (3) to reduce the personal, social and economic harm caused by substance abuse -- tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

A bit of a stray from smoking, but, we enjoy complete religious freedom; this is a bit incorrect.

"The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (commonly abbreviated to AIRFA) is a 1978 United States federal law and a joint resolution of Congress which pledged to protect and preserve the traditional religious rights of American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians.[1] Before the AIRFA was passed, certain U.S. federal laws interfered with the traditional religious practices of many American Indians. The Act led to a number of changes in government policies, but critics argue that the Act was inadequately enforced and that additional reforms are still needed."

"The act itself was more a policy statement, and it acknowledged prior infringement on the right of freedom of religion for American Indians by denying them their First Amendment right of "free exercise" of religion.[4][5] President Jimmy Carter said, in a statement about the AIRFA, a very similar thing:

In the past, Government agencies and departments have on occasion denied Native Americans access to particular sites and interfered with religious practices and customs where such use conflicted with Federal regulations. In many instances, the Federal officials responsible for the enforcement of these regulations were unaware of the nature of traditional native religious practices and, consequently, of the degree to which their agencies interfered with such practices."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Religious_Freedom_Act

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Has there been a sudden surge in non-smoker on smoker violence I'm not aware of? Please, enlighten me.

*

I'll try to find a few more links.

http://www.cagecanada.ca/index.php?pr=Intolerance_Inc

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

because I hardly think that an isolated incidence of mob violence that occurred in the UK, as horrific as it may be, applies to the anti-smoking movement here in Ohio. Try to find something just a little bit closer to home this time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.