FINAL TALKS ON GLOBAL TOBACCO CONTROL START

Financial Times ^ | February 18 2003 | Frances Williams

[StoneColdTaxHater]

This reminds mr of an article I read in NewsMAX.com, the author whose name eludes me theorized that as tobacco is outlawed, a market for "crack nicotine" could develop. he explained that the nicotine could be extracted and solidified like crack cocaine. the process is similar. The addictive properties of nicotine dwarf any other drug as well as the poisonous properties. This may be a stretch but the more they crackdown, the more likely a black market will grow. This is why I am a Libertarian, it's my life...BUG OFF!!

[Just another Joe]

There won't need to be a black market for nicotine. Just cigarettes.
Nicotine is readily available in over-the-counter smoking cessation devices today.

[dsutah]

I hope you realize that if they go about this, and succeed; they'll go after another legal product next? What about you? Don't you have vices? Come now, I'm sure you do! Suppose they go after YOUR vice next? Tobacco is still a legal product! If they succeed in controlling people's smoking for them, (which I doubt)they'll go after something else next! And I'm not a smoker, mind you; however, I'd sure hate them to ban liquor, or coffee, or a certain fast food, etc...

This has nothing to do with smoking, or drinking, eating, etc.., but everything to do with control. I don't believe they'll succeed. But they'll cause a lot of misery and destruction in trying. These people are trying to install a world government somehow. All the countries, to them, are merely states that can be made to control their citizens lives. They have no right to control people to that extent.

But it's scary know that even people on here feel that people's habits should be controlled by some non-governmental organization, that's not even in our country! Do you realize what you're saying?

[Gabz]

I stand by my statement that the restrictions on smoking are the one and only development in current culture I agree with, and I do not want the reversal of societal and cultural decline dogmatically tied to a return to the old omnipresence of smoking.

It's not a restriction on smoking - it is a restriction on the rights of private property owners.

Restriction or forbidding smoking in public places, i.e. those owned and operated by the government (taxpayers), is one thing and you will find very few smokers disagreeing with it. But when you start venturing into the private property of others - entirely different story.

I'm not just talking about bars and restaurants - I'm talking all private business.

The totally idiotic smoking ban in the state of Delaware forbids smoking in any indoor enclosed area, and includes people's private homes if they run a business from home.

You have no right to enter private property - you are granted an invitation and you need abide by the rules of the host - if the host permits smoking and you don't like it you have the CHOICE to leave or stay. You do not have the right to remove that CHOICE from the owner of the property.

[lodwick]

The best site I've found to combat the nicco-nazis

Please freemail me if you've got more information. Smoke'm if you've got'em.

[Just another Joe]

That's a good one, lodwick.
SheLion is head of FORCES Maine so I'm sure she knows about FORCES International.

Here's another couple. Smokers United
INFORMATION YOU NEED TO FIGHT BACK! This one has a lot of links at the bottom.

[qam1]

Smoking is the only vice that forces unwilling people to participate (by means of those formerly omnipresent, foul clouds of tobacco smoke).

I don't think so,

How many "Unwilling" people die from gunshot wounds a year?

How many "Unwilling" people die from getting hit by a SUV?

How many "Unwilling" people die from getting hit by drunk drivers?

How many "Unwilling" people get stuck being crammed on a long trip on an airplane or bus stuck next to someone who is obsese because they eat to much fast/junk food?

Compare those to 2nd hand smoke where there is no evidence anyone has ever died from the smoke of someone else.

I suppose the rest of the conservative movement is happy to be identified in the public mind with this hideous and savage vice, but I am not. I'm sorry if I'm the only one who feels this way.

Well then you are not a conservative but a hypocrite to claim you are.

Conservatives are suppose to cherish and believe in freedom which I am sorry but freedom doesn't mean just the freedoms YOU like or will tolerate but freedom for all.

[lodwick]

Thanks for the links Joe - we've got a commie council here that's trying to ban all smoking in restaurants...I'm trying to do what I can to fight it.

The local fishwrap's editorial headline: "For children's sake, tighten Austin smoking ban"

I am dammed sick of children and all the crap that is forced on us in their name. children - grow up! for crying out loud.

[Madame Dufarge]

Therefore it is the duty of every good American to join the fight against Saddam by smoking???

Could you please post cites for this ridiculous, bordering on mentally ill, statement?

[Madame Dufarge]

Luis Felipe de Seixas Corrêa, Brazil's Geneva ambassador and chairman of the talks, said what was wanted was "an effective convention that will make a difference" to public health, and that meant obtaining the support of a large number of key countries.

"Then we can go forward", he said.

"Then we can go forward" with the control-freak Juggernaut.

Good paying jobs, no heavy lifting, the frisson of moral superiority in an issue that has no moral aspect.

Employment for the teat-suckers of life, the unproductive, the otherwise unemployable, the people left last in the pick-up games of their childhood because the other kids, though they couldn't quite put it into words, were repelled by them.

The new rulers.

[Madame Dufarge]

What a cut-up.

I hope I have the opportunity to meet her when she's at the top of her game.

[Max McGarrity]

WHO and former National Socialist Party president Gro Harlem Brundtland, ex-smoker, should be slapped silly and defunded immediately of their $2 billion a year budget for DARING to meddle in voluntary lifestyle behaviors while permitting millions of children to STARVE to death every year.

AIDS, TB and malaria kill 15,000 people a day, three-quarters of them in sub-Saharan Africa, and WHO worries about tobacco use, obesty and auto accidents, for God's sake! How many of the THREE BILLION people worldwide who don't have enough to eat worry about OBESTY? Six to fourteen MILLION of them, mostly children, will die of starvation each year according to WHO's own figures. During the four years WHO has been fiddling around with the Framework Convention on (People) Control, as many as 56 MILLION CHILDREN HAVE STARVED TO DEATH!

In 1995, 5 million babies born in developing countries died in their first month of life; 17 million died from infectious or parasitic diseases in 1996. In 1998 tuberculosis was the world's no. 1 killer of young women, according to WHO itself. Also according to WHO, AIDS is the number one killer in Africa; 3 million "children' under 24 were HIV positive in 1998--which is 6 young people being infected with the AIDS virus EVERY MINUTE, according to the U.N. Also according to WHO's own figures, there are 300-500 MILLION acute cases of malaria worldwide EACH YEAR.

Is there no one who will take on these hypocrital bastards? No one who's willing to look beyond the "smokescreen" and unmask the absolute cynical murder of millions of children worldwide because WHO is on a "moral rampage"?

I notice no mention was made in this article of WHO's "Healthy Countries Study" which shows Switzerland #8 on the scale of average HEALTHY lifespan (8 of the 10 top countries have the highest smoking rates). Japan is #1 while the nanny-heavy USA is way down at #24.

[Max McGarrity]

Have you ever tried asking the smoker nicely to hold his/her cigarette somewhere else...or an even more novel idea, how about moving somewhere the smoke doesn't bother you?

I wouldn't mind your wife's fan OR air freshener; it would simply be another reason to laugh at the foibles of the hyper-sensitive new breed of soccer mom.

[Max McGarrity]

Problem is, this is NOT a "war on tobacco," it's a war on SMOKERS.

This isn't about whether or not tobacco is "good," it's about whether or not one group of citizens has the right to demonize, ostracize, selectively tax and otherwise hound another group for making a LEGAL CHOICE the first group doesn't like.

And yes, this IS a valid stand for conservatives. Private prooperty rights, individual liberties, and limited government define the conservative belief. Sad that you're so blinded by your hatred of tobacco you can't see it.

[Max McGarrity]

{{{{{{{BRAVO! Well said!}}}}}}}}}

[Max McGarrity]

lodwick, have you been following the Pueblo battle?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/847003/posts

[Zionist Conspirator]

You have no right to enter private property - you are granted an invitation and you need abide by the rules of the host - if the host permits smoking and you don't like it you have the CHOICE to leave or stay. You do not have the right to remove that CHOICE from the owner of the property.

Does this apply to marijuana and prostitution too, or is smoking the only thing conveniently protected by the sacredness of private property?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Private prooperty rights, individual liberties, and limited government define the conservative belief.

I think I'm going to hurl. I need a Thomas Jefferson dart board, pronto!

The problem with the pro-tobacco, pro-smoking position is not whether or not it is a valid conservative position (it is depending on how you define "conservatism") but that it is presented as THE conservative position with no dissent allowed. And the tobacco industry's hooks in the Republican party (which began as an heir of puritanism) is a tragedy.

For my definition of conservatism, see my tag line.

And yes . . . I DO hate tobacco. I always have. And I always will. Are you "libertarian" enough to deal with that?

[Zionist Conspirator]

I suppose the rest of the conservative movement is happy to be identified in the public mind with this hideous and savage vice, but I am not. I'm sorry if I'm the only one who feels this way.

Well then you are not a conservative but a hypocrite to claim you are.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen--proof that liberals aren't the only ones with a "party line!"

Have you told all those Southern Baptists and Pentecostals that they can't be considered conservatives because they're against smoking?

[Zionist Conspirator]

You have no right to enter private property - you are granted an invitation and you need abide by the rules of the host - if the host permits smoking and you don't like it you have the CHOICE to leave or stay. You do not have the right to remove that CHOICE from the owner of the property.

Oh, so you're "pro-choice," huh? Anything else you believe people should have the "right" to "choose?"