50 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
oleander8 says:
To bildooreilly:

This comment column looks like you are having an angry conversation with yourself.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ozziepooh90 says:
I lived in a city where they started a smoking ban, and after that they lost several big eating places. But who cares the non-smokers will be healthy. Why, if the resturants what to, why can't they open to different store where one is non-smoking and one is smoking? I don't see where the problems for that would be.Then the people can choose where they wan't to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
drinuk says:
What goes around, comes around, it will change back again. People will do what they have the individual right to do. Do-Gooders and the so called PC idiots have ruled long enough. Anyway folks, time to admit that the smoking scare stories are all put up by Big Pharma just like the Bird Flu Scam, rubbing their greasy palms at the thought of all those "Jabs". We are to blame for allowing ourselves to be herded like dumb sheep,
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
agrigate says:
I'm a non-smoker and I hate smelling smoke while I am eating, however I don't agree with the ban. I think the USA is one of the most restrictive countries in the world and here we have one more thing you can't do! I would rather see a farther seperation between the smoking and non smoking areas in restaurants but I understand this is problematic. No easy solution. Maybe a smoker can come up with a better solution??
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bildooreilly says:
George Washington grew his own tobacco, (and marijuana) and distilled his own whiskey. The founders of this nation are rolling over in their graves as you cowards sell us into the same sort of misery they fought against. That's ok though, because most of you obviously can't handle freedom or free will.. you're some of the most pathetic excuses for americans this land has ever had to bear witness to... you deserve what you get and you fools deserve to have the government running your life. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger says... "95% of the people need to be told what to do and how to do it" I used to think he was an @sshole for saying that but you fools prove him and his buddies right all the time.... freakin masochistic spineless sacks of shiite.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
hermit22 says:
bildooreilly, you have written the most interesting stuff about smoking that i've ever read!
and if it really is true that evil old
Hitler
a program to ban smoking, see it only goes to prove that if you look hard enough, even if the guy has been dead for over 60 years, you CAN find something good in everybody if you look hard enough.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bildooreilly says:
If some of these measures appear familiar today, then consider the rules laid down in 1941 regarding tobacco advertising. "Images that create the impression that smoking is a sign of masculinity are barred, as are images depicting men engaged in activities attractive to youthful males (athletes or pilots, for example)," and "may not be directed at sportsmen or automobile drivers," while "advocates of tobacco abstinence or temperance must not be mocked." Advertisements were banned from films, billboards, posters and "the text sections of journals and newspapers." Nevertheless, even the Nazis couldn't equal the recent ban on smoking on death row, meaning prisoners about to undergo massive electric shocks are forbidden from indulging in "one last drag" -- talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

This great crusade, propagated through a remarkable network of lectures, re-education programs and congresses, was backed up by the medical and health establishment for the sake of "science." Or at least a certain type of junk science, one in which objective research and the scientific method was subordinated to, and bastardized for the sake of, a greater political program. Thus, it was commonly touted by scientists and racial hygienists that smoking caused "spontaneous abortions": a clearly demonstrable fallacy, but one requiring official promotion in order to ensure a high birth rate for Aryan women. (Source: Anti-tobacco Gestapo: past and present)

reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bildooreilly says:
It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.


There's where they get their "2nd hand smoke" theory.. fvckin dirtbags.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bildooreilly says:
In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a "national socialist duty" (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit, though this didn't stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide). Armed with such senior sanction -- loyally, Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler banned SS men from smoking, though not shooting, on duty, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels was obliged to hide his ciggie whenever he was filmed -- anti-tobacco activists succeeded in banning smoking from government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces. Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on smoking while driving.

reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bildooreilly says:
"Robert Proctor presents a great deal of evidence that the nazis' exerted massive control over most facets of ordinary citizen's lives. Yet somehow, he never reaches the obvious conclusion that such compulsive regulations, even if arguably well intentioned, ultimately lead to a large scale sacrifice of basic freedoms.
He explains how the nazis greatly restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in most public buildings, increasingly restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. (Suing tobacco companies for announced consequences was a stunt that mysteriously eluded Hitler's thugs.) Despite the frightening parallels to the current war on tobacco, Mr. Proctor never even hints at the analogy. Curiously, he seems to take an approach that such alleged concern for public health shows nazism to be a more complex dogma than commonly presumed. While nothing present in the book betokens even a trace of sympathy for the Third Reich, this viewpoint seems incredibly naive. It's easy to wonder if Hitler and company were truly concerned with promoting public health. The unquenchable lust for absolute control is a far more believable motive.

Hey sound familiar???
reply
3/5