How Smoking Bans Work

The Smoker’s Club has a great page that outlines exactly how nicotine nannies work. Check it out.


10 Comment(s)

  1. How do we understand a society so determined to place oppressive restrictions on itself. Perhaps a second look at your sources of information driving your perspectives might help shed a little light on the situation. When you look at all the information and opinions available, it all boils down to one simple truth.

    The Public Health movement represents a joining of theology with politics, promoted with highbrow propaganda. Because you can not legitimately describe “disease management” as Science, Research or Medicine. Although the protagonists will assure us they represent them all.

    False and misleading advertising applies, in the use of the funds and resources of medical charities and Government expenditures, provided for something which can never describe the prescriptions of hatred and divisions provided, by demeaning judgments in place of medical treatments.

    If there is a legitimate use of the term “pandemic” in describing a non contagious disease it has to be in reference to the Public Health Ministries who coined the term “Sin taxes” and have worked diligently to promote their legitimacy in planting the seeds of division and hatred in our once unified communities.

    In 1945 when UNESCO set out to do battle with Nazi ideologies, they defined Racism as a comparison of one group of Human beings with another, in mean spirited demeaning and hateful ways. That same mindset resides today in the auspices of “Disease management” a political rendition of the same principles we understood then and only ignorance praises today, through the Cult of public health.

    Contagion is evident in the minds of men, who prefer to react with anger in reaction to what is only self denial in balancing the lost integrity of their own character by the truth revealed. Once the learned among us step back and see “Health Intervention” for the ignorance it embraces, we can start out on the long road back to sanity and confidence in community, as our greatest hope in dealing with the problems of the future. Balancing the ethics and re-establishing some respect of moral or ethical boundaries, to solidify the integrity and trust in our processes of science and ingenuity. We don’t have to wait for another Holocaust to sober us up. We can simply look back and understand the mistakes of the past and recognize their origins.

    Consider the source and follow the money. I am sure you can figure it out from there.

    Kevin | Aug 29, 2008 | Reply

  2. Hey, Dave! Great site. I’ve linked to your excellent work on the second hand smoke myth on my own blog.

    If you’re interested, I just did a post on the Boston Public Health Commission’s attempt to ban tobacco sales in drug stores and college campuses, and to outlaw cigar bars (I’m serious!) in five years. You may find it interesting. Keep up the good work!

    -Steve Smith

    Stephen P. Smith | Sep 7, 2008 | Reply

  3. Nice, but I’d suggest you add the URL for that article, otherwise future visitors won’t know what you’re talking about. (I found it clicking on your name.)

    They don’t have the balls to ban it, because they make so much money from it. I’ve suggested that the tobacco companies pick one state, presumably California but the Massholes would do, and refuse to sell their products there under any circumstances. Close down any warehouse that supplies anyone in the state. Then sit back and wait for the screaming. The black market would dwarf that of drugs, and the state would lose billions in tax money. Then let the hypocrites get down on their nanny knees and beg to have the product back.

    Then say “no.”

    Hittman | Sep 7, 2008 | Reply

  4. I’d suggest you add the URL for that article, otherwise future visitors won’t know what you’re talking about.

    Oh, yeah. D’uh! Here it is:


    As for the rest of your comment, I see where you’re coming from, but you’re also punishing smokers with this idea, and they’ve been kicked around enough, don’t you think?

    But if you really insist, I nominate California. ;)


    Stephen P. Smith | Sep 10, 2008 | Reply

  5. Me too. I wrote this article back in 1999:


    …with the details of how to do it and what the likely results would be.

    Smokers will do just fine. Within a week or three they’ll have a steady supply. But the rest of the state will be in big trouble.

    Dave Hitt | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply

  6. I live in MA and am a smoker… although lately I’ve been fogging (sucking on an e-cig) more because I get less grief but still can get my nicotine. I say… BRING IT ON! I’m sure most of the smokers here would agree just to make the point. (As long as when the others come crawling saying “please bring it back” the response is more of a “no… I said NO… well, OK”

    As a personal experiment on how the nicotine nannies (as Dave calls them) get things done. I decided to write an article using the same techniques. I found research data that fit my needs (wasn’t as hard as most would think, just looked up nicotine on Wikipedia, then did a copy/paste jobbie) Ommited any data that was contrary to the point. I even went one step farther than most of the opposition and posted the sources of the info (gotta love Wiki… they have footnotes) This is the copy/pasted part…

    Recent studies suggest that smokers require less frequent repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Risk of ulcerative colitis has been frequently shown to be reduced by smokers on a dose-dependent basis; the effect is eliminated if the individual stops smoking. Smoking also appears to interfere with development of Kaposi’s sarcoma, breast cancer among women carrying the very high risk BRCA gene, preeclampsia, and atopic disorders such as allergic asthma. A plausible mechanism of action in these cases may be nicotine acting as an anti-inflammatory agent, and interfering with the inflammation-related disease process, as nicotine has vasoconstrictive effects.

    With regard to neurological diseases, a large body of evidence suggests that the risks of Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s disease might be twice as high for non-smokers than for smokers. Many such papers regarding Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s Disease have been published. More recent studies find that there’s no beneficial link between smoking and Alzheimer’s, and in some cases suggest that it actually results in an earlier onset of the disease.

    Recent studies have indicated that nicotine can be used to help adults suffering from Autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy. The same areas that cause seizures in that form of epilepsy are also responsible for processing nicotine in the brain.

    this can be found at…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
    under the Therepeutic uses section.

    I would post a link to the article itself… but NONE of the places I sent it to published or posted it (if I had known about this site at the time I would have posted it here first and formost.)

    I wonder why they wouldn’t allow anything that says there might be benefits to nicotine…

    H Williams | Jan 8, 2009 | Reply

  7. Probably because it was a copy-paste job from Wikipedia.

    Andrew | Jan 11, 2009 | Reply

  8. It was copy/pasted to a normal .doc first, got rid of the coding… there’s a chance I missed summin though.

    If it worked here though, it probably worked everywhere else I sent it.

    I just don’t know

    H Williams | Jan 13, 2009 | Reply

  9. The actual words are copied, though. I would think most places that accept contributions from readers would check that the contributions weren’t plagiarised, and copy-pasting a random sentence of that ‘article’ into Google brings up Wikipedia as the number one hit. Rejecting a copy-paste job is just good practice. If you do it again, this time keeping all the anti-nicotine stuff, and if they publish that, well then you have some dirt. On that one publication.

    Andrew | Jan 14, 2009 | Reply

  10. The psychological violence they are submitting people to is much more toxic then any cigarette.

    angie | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply

Post a Comment