Comments on: Stogie News: Anti-Smoking Groups Pushing National Ban

By: Tima

Tima — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:07:54 +0000

nice photos of this blog

By: emma

emma — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 05:45:20 +0000

cool blog!

By: Eric D.

Eric D. — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:23:31 +0000

Great site guys! As I read about all the fascist smoking bans popping up, I began to see how far, and absurd, these bans have gone. A ban such as the one planned for Belmont is basically saying that a car or truck sitting at a stop light has safer fumes coming from its exhaust pipe then the guy sitting on the bus stop bench. But the reality is this- one can sit in a closed garage with a cigar smoker and walk away alive. If someone sat in the same closed garage with a running car they would be dead. So the real challenge to such a ban should be this- if you really care about the health of the community, why are you allowing cars and trucks who expel carbon monoxide at much higher levels then a cigar drive through your town of Belmont. This is where the hypocrisy exists in these types of bans. And people are buying into the lie. I would love to take a picture of people waiting for a bus as dark fumes from a truck billow by the crowd and send it to the city council. Sorry for the long comment! Keep up the good work!

Eric D.

Maryland

By: timothy fitzgerald

timothy fitzgerald — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:37:07 +0000

will someone please find out what fermenting or aging in cigar tobacco does to the nicotine content of cigars so the anti tobacco people stop lumping us with cigaretts. maybe someone can look into this and help us with the cigar fight.

By: Patrick A

Patrick A — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:09:52 +0000

James and Rodney,

It's all too common that meddling do-gooders, like anti-smoking zealots, put their own interests above the people they are claiming to help.

What they will never realize — because they're too caught up in the sexiness and fashion of trying to change the world "for the better" — is that society would be better off without them and their paternalistic instincts.

Only an individual, not a radical group or cause, can really know what's best for him.

By: Rodney C in LA

Rodney C in LA — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:04:52 +0000

I don't know about psychological terms, but I think these self-righteous douchbags border on a lunacy of some sort.

They'd rather control adults' freedom of choice than provide a happy childhood for an orphan.

That's sickness.

By: James

James — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:27:35 +0000

I can't believe that with all the foster kids that need homes that we are letting them languish in State care. So the ASH figures that they have won an important victory in leaving a family childless. They would honestly rather that a child grows up without a mother and father rather than let a kid "watch" the father smoke? This makes me sick. Is there no psychological term for this? The fact it makes them so happy seems so vile and grotesque that I can't help but think it has to stem from some psychosis.