Anti smoking campaigns & bans

[Papillon]

I serious wonder what the real hidden goal of all these ridiculous campaigns & bans is!? If smoking leads to cancer & heart diseases, and a lot of taxes, what better serves the goal of 'killing the goyim'!? I am a heavy smoker and the more anti smoking campaigns, bans and people stopping, the more I stick to it and the more I like it! Going against the mainstream!
Daryl once said that non-smokers are more susceptible for the ingedients/poisons of chemtrails, i.e. smokers are more resistent to deliberate poisoning attempts; I have no clue but there must be a hidden reason for all the campaigns & bans.

[jai_mann]

A number of issues arise from the no smoking campaign:

1) theft of money via higher taxes
2) promotion of the control of individual behaviors because "they are bad for you" (they can go fuck themselves and leave us to our own devices  :evil: )
3) promotion of certain centrally controlled health care practices (power over individuals again and $$$)

I doubt the smoke blocks chem trail garbage. But it's possible that some of the exogenous neurotransmitters (nicotine) may have select benefits for the brain (do some pub med searches). I would recommend you stop smoking commercially produced tobacco and grow your own with organic fertilizers to avoid the radioactive polonium which is probably more responsible for cancer than any thing naturally found in tobacco.

[Jenny Lake]

The number 1 cause of lung cancer is radioactive radon and number 2 is emerging as genetic damage with an undefined cause, according to what I've looked at so far.

In selective studies of women with lung cancer who die of it only 10% ever smoked (surprise!) according to Regina Vidaver, who is a molecular biologist and director of "Women Against Lung Cancer". Researchers believe that estrogen plays a role and that lung cancer is more often fatal for women than men, saying that "mutations in the EGFR gene were much more common in people with lung cancer who never smoked..." Additionally, among lung cancer patients who never smoked, they were the most resistant to chemotherapy and most likely to die of their cancers.

this data is from 2006, following the death of Dana Reeves at age 44 who never smoked.

[veritasvincit]

as a smoker this is good to know as I am constantly trying to quit however, the stress that is caused by trying to quit is probably worse for health than the addiction.

[Anonymous]

The patch is "iffy" at best.
In Canada we have a prescription pill that in less than two weeks you quit with a high success rate.
Tobacco is grown in soil with a lot of phosphorus fertilizer.
Phosphorus when burnt at a high temp is deadly.
The difference in temperature between hand rolled smokes and machine rolled is about 300+ degrees F
A 2-3 pack a day smoker for 30 years should glow in the dark.

[Jenny Lake]

jai_mann wrote:

1) theft of money via higher taxes
2) promotion of the control of individual behaviors because "they are bad for you" (they can go fuck themselves and leave us to our own devices  )
3) promotion of certain centrally controlled health care practices (power over individuals again and $$$)

I agree with this and want to add that there's a 'manufactured consent' in progress to create social censoring and disapproval/punishment toward a 'group' that is politically weak and unlikely to be able to defend its civil rights and personal liberties. I've heard about smokers being deprived of normal custody rights as well as discriminatory 'distancing' practices and fines. They're losing in court. These precendents are very likely going to be extended to the next perceived pariah, and if the New England Journal of Medicine is right, that will be the obese.

See an artcle in the NEJM called "Obesity --The New Public Health Frontier", from 2002, I believe. Here's a brief quote, "The constitutional source of this authority is the police power, which encompasses both direct coercive interventions and policies such as taxes and subsidies that shape behavior by altering the costs of certain choices."

As far as I know, no other agricultural product deemed legal has undergone this level of manipulation. Think they're testing it out?

[Tomas O'Crohan]

I continue to smoke (moderately, as always) because I consider tobacco to be one of nature's greatest gifts and in a life which consists of one continuous outrage after another, tobacco use is a great rare pleasure in what is otherwise a constant assault on my intelligence and sense of justice and fair play. The more the criminals tell me stop, the more I insist I'll keep smoking. The great outrage is that is costs about $0.25 to produce a pack of cigarettes yet the criminals have extorted the price to nearly $13.00 in some parts of Manhattan. What an outrage, particularly considering that the North Carolina tobacco farmer who actually makes the entire industry possible gets paid next to nothing for all his back-breaking work. I keep waiting for cigarette trucks to get hijacked by people who have had enough. I hate to feed the criminals by buying a pack of cigarettes but a confidant wisely pointed out that we feed these criminals all day every day in everything we do, tobacco being just one example.

[Jenny Lake]

Can't help but laugh at the irony, considering the relationship between smoking and obesity in the 'public health' arena as the two main target areas of 'preventable' disease. People who reduce or quit smoking often gain weight, and the restaurant bans on smoking seems to improve everybody's appetites which will make them potential targets for the upcoming obesity/weight control measures.

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

... The President of the New York nightlife association stated that business had been harmed and that the Department of Health had included all restaurants in the figures, including "Starbucks and McDonald's".[92] A 2006 study by the state of New York found similar results; business had improved despite the smoking ban.[93] According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, respondents said by a margin of almost 6 to 1 that they eat out more often now because of the city's smoke-free policy.[94]

Public Health officials in the U.S. are claiming a Consitutional right to tax, restrict, price, and ban tobacco and food products. Tobacco restrictions and price controls are clearly a legislative model for what's coming, 'science' be damned.
For more on the NEJM obesity issue mentioned above, which exposes the extent of the powers taken by public health officials to control behavior, see here http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/sho ... eryTerm=33

[Tomas O'Crohan]

NYT, June 11, 2009. Senate Approves Tight Regulation Over Cigarettes "More than four decades after the surgeon general declared smoking a health hazard, the Senate on Thursday cleared the final hurdle to empowering federal officials to regulate cigarettes and other forms of tobacco for the first time. The legislation, which the White House said [Pretender] President Obama would sign as soon as it reached his desk, will enable the Food and Drug Administration to impose potentially strict new controls on the making and marketing of products that eventually kill half their regular users. The House, which passed a similar bill in April, may vote on the Senate version as soon as Friday."

"2666" by Roberto Bolano, p.8: "If volition is bound to social imperatives, as William James believed, and it is therefore easier to go to war than to quit smoking ..."

We're about to find out.

I have one and only one question: Where in the Constitution of the United States does it provide the power to the federal government to regulate or attempt to control or prohibit substances found in nature? Remember with alcohol that it took a constitutional amendment. I take that back, I have two and only two questions: What outrageous usurpation of power by this criminal organization will finally precipitate the shooting, shooting that is now 100 years overdue?

[jai_mann]

I have one and only one question: Where in the Constitution of the United States does it provide the power to the federal government to regulate or attempt to control or prohibit substances found in nature? Remember with alcohol that it took a constitutional amendment. I take that back, I have two and only two questions: What outrageous usurpation of power by this criminal organization will finally precipitate the shooting, shooting that is now 100 years overdue?

It ain't there my man. What you are witnessing is the gradual implementation of the scientific dictatorship that Bertrand Russell, Skinner, Orwell and others orgasmed over. Don't get mad. Just plan around them and how to deal with them. Need tobacco seeds? Gimme a mailing address and I'll send some on over. =) People banning and regulating plants can kiss my non-obedient ass.  :mrgreen:

[Tomas O'Crohan]

jai-mann: Your moniker reminds me of my favorite singer, the prophet Sinead, whose odes to Jai filled her reggae album from a few years ago. Thanks for your offer of tobacco seeds. I'm actually growing tobacco right now and hope to have a delicious harvest at the end of August. These criminals are so predictable that I ordered "heritage" seeds in several varieties from a Tennessee farm over the winter. However, the next "crime" will be "growing tobacco without a license." Shortly, we'll all have to move to the basement with grow lights in order to avoid detection of our "crime." I pray we get a headline soon of a hijacked cigarette truck which starts a wave of additional hijackings of same. At some point here open resistance must and will materialize. Do you feel like you're dying the death of a thousand cuts?