Article

2003-05-21 International

WHO Approves Sweeping Anti-Tobacco Treaty

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Secret Master 2003-05-21 10:10 am|| || Front Page|| [11 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 What do you guys think? This treaty, which nobody actually voted on, is typical of our would-be masters.... er, world government. This article has been edited by me for brevity.

Posted by Secret Master 2003-05-21 10:19:57|| [www.budgetwarrior.com] 2003-05-21 10:19:57|| Front Page Top

#2 Another piece of fecal matter from the United Slavemasters and Groveling Union. Automobiles kill more people in a year than die from cigarette smoke. In the United States alone, the number one killer of people of any age is the automobile. Any advance nation (I.E., one that has both an infrastructure that facilitates automobile travel, and has an economy that supports use of automobiles), has a high incidence of automobile-related deaths.

I'm not a smoker, but my wife is. All this crap is designed to make it next to impossible to participate in a voluntary moral act. There is no way in hell to legislate morality. Our own prohibition didn't work, the so-called limits of Islam don't stop smoking and drinking, and there's no place on earth where you can put an end to all the "vices" man indulges in to please himself. But the idiots at the UN want to try. The bottom line is more money for the UN, and more restrictions on personal freedom. Nuke the UN. It'll save time, money, and energy.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-05-21 10:39:21|| 2003-05-21 10:39:21|| Front Page Top

#3 You know, it may indeed be a "voluntary moral act", but smokers and their consistently rude behavior over the decades can thank themselves for the various attempts at curtailing their "freedoms".

I, in principle, support not only the continued legalization of tobacco, but the legalization of most recreational drugs as well. BUT, for years I wandered into restaurants, clubs, and even convenience stores where rude smokers were busily ruining both the air and the smell of my clothes and hair. Add to that mix my recurring bouts with both allergies and asthma, and I can only say to the smokers: "Serves you right!"

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-05-21 11:02:06|| 2003-05-21 11:02:06|| Front Page Top

#4 Well, my drug of choice is marijuana - used responsibly in the privacy of my own home - but I'm technically a criminal for it. So to the tobacco addicts, I say "cry me a river". Those whiney pansies should try living in my shoes and see how they like it. When tobacco possesion itself is illegal maybe I'll have some sympathy for them.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2003-05-21 11:25:21|| 2003-05-21 11:25:21|| Front Page Top

#5 You know, it may indeed be a "voluntary moral act", but smokers and their consistently rude behavior over the decades can thank themselves for the various attempts at curtailing their "freedoms".

And what might this "rude behavior" be?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-05-21 11:30:54|| 2003-05-21 11:30:54|| Front Page Top

#6 B-a-R, the rude behavior was described in the second paragraph of my post: "...for years I wandered into restaurants, clubs, and even convenience stores where rude smokers were busily ruining both the air and the smell of my clothes and hair. Add to that mix my recurring bouts with both allergies and asthma, and I can only say to the smokers: "Serves you right!"

Further, add to that the typical smoker's attitude that THEIR drug of choice (tobacco) should be legal, but that OTHER drugs shouldn't be, and I end up agreeing with Scooter--"Cry me a river."

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-05-21 11:40:29|| 2003-05-21 11:40:29|| Front Page Top

#7 Smoking is not a moral issue, it is a personal and public health issue. In a free society if someone wants to smoke, they should be allowed to smoke. Where they are allowed to smoke should be regulated since smoke affects more than just the smoker.

Millions die annually from starvation, malnutrition, malaria, disease, civil war, and the WHO wants to take away their cigarettes.

Typical.

Posted by Jonesy 2003-05-21 11:53:28|| 2003-05-21 11:53:28|| Front Page Top

#8 I agree with Jonesy about smoking as a health issue and regulating where smoking is allowed. I have no problem with the government barring smoking in government buildings or on government property, but I get incensed when they start talking about riding roughshod over private business owners' rights and dictating smoking policy for restaurants, bars, and nightclubs.

The dilemma for me, though, is how can you prevent exposure to children without similarly infringing on the rights of private citizens? If secondhand smoke is shown to be a serious hazard (as contested here the other day), don't children have a right to grow up in a home free of cigarette smoke? Does that supersede the right of the homeowner to smoke in his own home?

Then there's the whole issue of pregnant women who continue to smoke and/or drink while carrying their babies to term... That infuriates me to no end!

Posted by Dar 2003-05-21 12:58:14|| 2003-05-21 12:58:14|| Front Page Top

#9 In related news, the $145 billion settlement against Big Tobacco has been rejected on appeal in Florida today.

Posted by Dar 2003-05-21 13:02:25|| 2003-05-21 13:02:25|| Front Page Top

#10 "...for years I wandered into restaurants, clubs, and even convenience stores where rude smokers were busily ruining both the air and the smell of my clothes and hair. Add to that mix my recurring bouts with both allergies and asthma, and I can only say to the smokers: "Serves you right!"

Please tell how you were forced to go into those restaurants, clubs, and convenience stores against your will. Nowadays places are likely to have clear policies regarding smoking, and if it's permitted, then that's just life. You can choose to patronize other establishments if smoke and the smell of smoke is that disagreeable to you, otherwise, you have to live with the consequences of venturing into smoky territory.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-05-21 13:33:27|| 2003-05-21 13:33:27|| Front Page Top

#11 B-a-R, its not a question of "force"--its a question of access. If the US gov. is going to make sure that (seemingly) every building in this country can be accessed by those in wheelchairs, then it is WELL within its rights making sure that those with allergies and asthma can enter as well.

In addition, every study NOT paid for by tobacco money has clearly determined that second hand smoke is a danger even to those who don't have allergies or asthma.

Couple those facts with smokers' seemingly inborn stubborness to support anyone else's chemical of choice and it makes it quite easy for me to laugh every time they protest new smoking laws and/or taxes.

Besides, who ever decided that filling a room with noxious fumes from a cigarette was anymore socially correct than farting?

Your commentary about not frequenting places that allow it may have a certain ring of technical truth to it, but let's face facts--smokers certainly haven't built any bridges with non-smokers over the years. If anything, the older I get, the more I find myself fighting the urge to unleash a fire extinguisher on the next asshole who lights up without asking me if I mind.

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-05-21 14:18:39|| 2003-05-21 14:18:39|| Front Page Top

#12 "WARNING: Your endless bitching about my smoking may be hazardous to your health."

Posted by mojo 2003-05-21 15:49:16|| 2003-05-21 15:49:16|| Front Page Top

#13 B-a-R, its not a question of "force"--its a question of access.

Again I ask: What's preventing you from going to some other outfit that provides you with the services you seek along with a smoke-free environment? There isn't ONE eating establishment, or ONE club, or ONE convenience store in any given city, so what exactly is the problem? Is it sheer laziness? Or is it really that you think all smokers are beneath you and they can all get screwed?

If the US gov. is going to make sure that (seemingly) every building in this country can be accessed by those in wheelchairs, then it is WELL within its rights making sure that those with allergies and asthma can enter as well.

This forced accessibility to private business by wheelchairs is a pile of crap as well. The government doesn't pay for creating this "access", it's the private business that has to pay out of its own pocket. But then that pesky question arises again: Why patronize a business that doesn't give you what you want, whether it be wheelchair access or a smoke-free environment?

Couple those facts with smokers' seemingly inborn stubborness to support anyone else's chemical of choice and it makes it quite easy for me to laugh every time they protest new smoking laws and/or taxes.

Like who? Of the people I know that smoke, I don't know of any of them supporting crusades against alcohol, or weed. They're perfectly content to leave other people alone as long as they're left alone. And taxes on cigarettes is nothing more than a revenue stream for the government, nothing more. The government, despite its rules, doesn't really care who smokes and who doesn't. It's a socially acceptable tax, so they impose it.

Besides, who ever decided that filling a room with noxious fumes from a cigarette was anymore socially correct than farting?

Last I heard, people are still farting in rooms without crusaders crying out for a fart gas-free environment.

..smokers certainly haven't built any bridges with non-smokers over the years.

They don't have to. They do their thing, and you do yours. The problem is, despite the ever-shrinking places where people are allowed to smoke, people keep on trying to squeeze smokers even more than they're already being squeezed. Enough is enough already.

If anything, the older I get, the more I find myself fighting the urge to unleash a fire extinguisher on the next asshole who lights up without asking me if I mind.

This would be an invitation to put you down on the pavement, and I'd pay to watch that.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-05-21 16:02:22|| 2003-05-21 16:02:22|| Front Page Top

#14 B-a-R, you avoided the issue of second hand smoke as well as the issue of allergies/asthma. With regard to the issue of frequenting establishments, I didn't dream up the wheel-chair fiasco. But if the government is going to insist upon such standards, then the right to breathe clean air in public is even easier to defend--we ALL require oxygen, only a handful of us need a wheelchair.

With regard to cigarette taxes being solely a revenue stream, the word "solely" is intellectually incorrect. Smoking does impart costs that are paid for in dollars. I've got no problem with various governments determing that they should recoup part of that cost. But yes, I am aware that many of the attempts to raise such taxes have no direct correlation with an increase in smoking-related expenditures. And, were smokers themselves not (generally speaking) so rude about their addiction, perhaps I'd be more sympathetic and even complain to my congressman. But instead, they roam nearly every public place pretending that they have some sort of God-given right to foul the air, so screw them.

You also wrote: "They don't have to. They do their thing, and you do yours. The problem is, despite the ever-shrinking places where people are allowed to smoke, people keep on trying to squeeze smokers even more than they're already being squeezed. Enough is enough already."

To which I would point out that the reason smokers are continually "squeezed out" is that they are a clear minority. Most estimates put the percentage of addicts, er, smokers, at about 27-30 percent of the population. Thus, they NEED the support of those of us who don't smoke. And as I said earlier, as much as I might agree with them in principal, they can rot for all I care--I'm tired of leaving a club because I can't breathe, tired of leaving a business lunch smelling like I smoked a carton of Camels, and tired of their "I'm a Smoker and I Vote" mentality. They and their 27-30 percent can watch their "rights" erode until they're left huddled in their basements with the lights off feeding their addiction.

B-a-R, I take it you're one of the addicts. That's really too bad, what with there being at least a dozen effective ways of stopping.

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-05-21 16:28:01|| 2003-05-21 16:28:01|| Front Page Top

#15 Personally, I'm getting damned sick and tired of everybody else trying to tell me how to live. I use seat belts because they've kept me from being very nastily hurt a couple of times, not because it's a law. I don't use a bike helmet, and the next damned time somebody complains about it, I'm going to put his teeth in his ear. I don't care if someone smokes - if I don't like it, I leave the area. My wife voluntarily smokes outside the house, even in the winter - in Colorado, that can be very uncomfortable!

Bottom line, I am an adult. I will make the decisions about what I do, where I go, and who I associate with. I don't need a nanny, and I don't need a watchdog. I've put one person in the morgue and a couple of others in the hospital when they didn't play nice, and I am quite willing to do it again. If the idiots that push this pile of crap don't stop, a lot of us are going to get pissed off enough to pick up a gun and replay 1776.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-05-22 00:49:42|| 2003-05-22 00:49:42|| Front Page Top

#16 I got damned sick and tired of smokers forcing me to breath their stuff a very long time ago, and smokers are, well, a minority. Let them leave.

Posted by Tresho 2003-05-22 02:27:57|| 2003-05-22 02:27:57|| Front Page Top

#17 Flaming sword,"effective ways"aren't.I know.
As Bar said if you do not want to be affected by smoke frequent another establisment.
Sounds to me like the only"rights"you are worried about are yours.
How very democratic of you,Tresho.Are you an affilate of the Arian Brotherhood?
On the Pot issue I agree with Scooter,however coke,herion,etc should be illegal.
The laws on Marijauna are way out of line with reality.Arizona is one of the worst states in this regard.One exomple:A freind was arrest for haveing one(count them,one)joint,his sentence,10YEARS in prision.

Posted by Raptor 2003-05-22 08:21:19|| 2003-05-22 08:21:19|| Front Page Top

#18 Flaming sword,"effective ways"aren't.I know. As Bar said if you do not want to be affected by smoke frequent another establisment. Sounds to me like the only"rights"you are worried about are yours. How very democratic of you,Tresho.Are you an affilate of the Arian Brotherhood? Posted by: Raptor 5/22/2003 8:21:19 AM

Ah yes, another addict speaks. Screw you Raptor, demanding that I be allowed to enter an establishment without setting off an allergic/asthmatic reaction in no way equivocates to being a member of any "brotherhood". On the other hand, your confession that you lack the ability to put down your cigarette demonstrates the deepness of your addiction.

And just what logic trail do you follow that says that YOUR addiction should be legal, but those who prefer coke or heroin shouldn't have the same right to feed theirs?

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-05-22 10:30:14|| 2003-05-22 10:30:14|| Front Page Top

#19 The brotherhood remark was directed at Tresho not you dumbass.
"demanding that I be allowed to enter an establishment"
I demand you STFU.
Listen,bitch I wasn't bad mouthing you so kiss my ass!I am certainly an addict(research burgur's disease).How in the hell can you equate smoking tobacco or pot to crystal meth/coke etc.I don't think I have ever heard of a pot head selling her ass,like coke whores do.I don't think I've ever heard of a nicotine addict cutting off the heads of thier kids cause they are strung out on speed, I do not spend every nickle and dime I have to support my habit.Bite me bitch.
"smokers are, well, a minority. Let them leave" spoken like a true bigot.

Sorry folks pin-headed bitch pissed me off.

Posted by Raptor 2003-05-22 10:54:36|| 2003-05-22 10:54:36|| Front Page Top

#20 *laughing* Yeah, raptor, all of us who are sick and damn tired of breathing the polluted air that you addicts provide are nothing more than "bigots"--how totally ridiculous!

And your argument about tobacco versus other drugs still comes up short. I can't tell you how many times I've seen single mothers buying groceries with food stamps and then plunking down cold hard cash for their Marlboro addiction. Don't even pretend that millions of poverty level families everywhere don't spend $1,000 or more a year on cigarettes rather than taking better care of their families.

Get help with your addiction asshole!

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-05-22 11:16:27|| 2003-05-22 11:16:27|| Front Page Top

#21 As said before you doin't want breath polluted air go to a different restraunt.Walks like bigot,talks like a bigot probably a bigot.
I did not say it was ok to buy cigarettes rather careing for family.I was comparing the relativly mild consequences of pot and nicotine to the soul killing,mind destroying insainity that would cause a father to cut off the heads of his sons.
That being the case:Kiss my ass,you self rightious,moralistic bitch.

Posted by Raptor 2003-05-22 15:19:08|| 2003-05-22 15:19:08|| Front Page Top

#22 As said before you doin't want breath polluted air go to a different restraunt.

No thanks--I'll simply continue to support laws and policies that send addicts like yourself to your basement to feed your cravings.

Walks like bigot,talks like a bigot probably a bigot.

Walks like an offensive addict, talks like an offensive addict, probably an offensive addict.

I did not say it was ok to buy cigarettes rather careing for family.I was comparing the relativly mild consequences of pot and nicotine to the soul killing,mind destroying insainity that would cause a father to cut off the heads of his sons.

Yeah, you sure read about that everyday. (NOT!) And never mind the "mind destroying insanity" that would lead one to supporting a life-long addiction to tobacco.

That being the case:Kiss my ass,you self rightious,moralistic bitch.

That being the case, go fuck yourself you selfish addict.
Posted by: Raptor 5/22/2003 3:19:08 PM

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-05-22 17:07:26|| 2003-05-22 17:07:26|| Front Page Top

17:07 Flaming Sword
15:50 Anonymous
15:19 Raptor
11:16 Flaming Sword
10:54 Raptor
10:30 Flaming Sword
08:45 Becky
08:43 Raptor
08:25 Raptor
08:21 Raptor
07:48 Raptor
07:37 Raptor
07:21 Frank G
07:14 Raptor
07:09 ZeroAngel
06:46 Raptor
02:44 Tresho
02:38 Dave
02:34 Watcher
02:32 Tresho
02:27 Tresho
02:13 Tresho
02:01 Ray
00:55 Old Patriot