Ah look! A new toy!

My comments in red!

ASH: New Frontiers and Victories in the War For Nonsmokers' Rights (While we're discussing rights, while I may not have the right to pollute your air, you don't have the right to clean air. That's not covered anywhere. However, the right to the pursuit of happiness covers us both!)

by Public Interest Law Professor John F. Banzhaf III,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)

Presented at the Medical Symposium of FAMRI {Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute)
in Miami, Florida, May 2007

I’ve been asked to talk with you about the many new battlefronts which we at ASH have helped to open in the war to protect nonsmokers’ rights. (cuz nonsmokers have more rights than smokers, and white people have more rights than black people, bigotry is bigotry, no matter your target)
Here are more than a dozen – all in less than ten minutes.

■ 1. More than a dozen states are virtually smokefree, with smoking banned in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants
almost a dozen more are effectively smokefree, but with smoking still permitted in bars
thousands of local jurisdictions have similar prohibitions
some now beginning to ban smoking even in gambling casinos (yay! you knocked how many of the people you're trying to protect out of work??? Dave Hitt guys, look it up...LOTS of job losses, but hey! no SHS...well, not at work anyhow)

■ 2. More than a dozen countries also are already virtually smokefree, with more on the way,
this occurred largely as a result of a new world antismoking and nonsmokers’ rights treaty known as the “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control”
which ASH helped to get adopted, and now – through the Framework Convention Alliance – has a major role in enforcement
Thus there are no more smokey Irish pubs, and, when you arrive at the main airport in Norway, you see the sign:
"THE ONLY THING WE SMOKE HERE ARE SALMON" (not many pubs in Ireland left from what I hear from someone who actually LIVES THERE)
NEW proposed guidelines under the FCTC to protect nonsmokers can be found at: http://ash.org/fctcguidelines

■ 3. Others people – including (Batty) Patty Young of FAMRI, Billy Williams, and Jack Cannon –
are now using the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] to obtain additional protection for persons with conditions which make them especially susceptible to tobacco smoke,
a concept ASH helped pioneer first with the predecessor Federal Rehabilitation Act, and then with the more expansive ADA
and one which will soon be extended oversees – as you will hear (wait, those motherfuckers get protected from the MAYBE RISK of SHS but you won't make them stop mowing their fuckin' lawns for me?? I can't even leave my fuckin' house in the summer because of my allergies...I HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO OUTSIDE AND NOT SUFFER!!! *whine whine whine* And another fuckin' thing, I'm going deaf, I INSIST everyone learn sign language so they can better take care of me whenever I finally CAN go outside....I have a disability, 2 of them actually!)

■ 4. More than 800 jurisdictions, including several states, now ban smoking in various outdoor areas
commonly on beaches, in parks or playgrounds, on lines, and near entrances to buildings
Calabasis, CA, with urging from ASH, banned smoking virtually everywhere outdoors – it’s now permitted only in “smokers’ outposts”
In Calif the Air Resources Board (ARB) has declared tobacco smoke outdoors to be a Toxic Air Contaminant because it can cause lung cancer, heart attacks, and even breast cancer in nonsmokers, and this ruling may ultimately force outdoor bans throughout state (it can't cause shit..there MAY be an increased RISK..notice how there are no numbers supporting this claim. No science studies referenced. He can't point you at one, you might read it and know he's lying through his fat teeth)

IMPORTANT: It is important to note that these various victories, in addition to their primary purpose of protecting nonsmokers, also are a major factor in discouraging smoking itself, in several ways;:
they make it more difficult, or at least inconvenient, to be a smoker;(but we don't hate smokers...just smoking..right ASH, isn't that what you said)
they also remind smoker that smoking makes them stinky and smelly, rather than suave, sexy, and sophisticated as the ads claim (so does sports...stinky smelly motherfuckers...oh, and that fuckin' shit you call cologne...that stinks too...wait, don't fat people stink too? Mmmmm..I know someone at ASH that needs their stomach stapled...and since when don't I have the right to stink if I so choose...*throws out the deodorant*)

■ 5. In almost two dozen states, judges have ruled that nonsmokers may have legal rights to be protected from toxic tobacco smoke which drifts into their apartment or condo – even in the absence of any statute. We have been successful in using three major legal theories
trespass by particles (fuckin' A...I got the lawn defense..fuckin' neighbors can't mow now, their particles are trespassing on MY property)
breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment (the anti-smokers screams don't fuckin' count??? here you are, quietly enjoying a cigarette and here comes some loud offensive jackass)
nuisance (unhealthy & offensive) (prove unhealthy..I also find Glantz offensive, why isn't he banned yet?)
In addition, Calabasas and Dublin California have by statute declared tobacco smoke to be a legal “nuisance” (California is full of nutballs...Ahnold is their GOVERNOR for fuck's sake)
thereby simplifying the problem of brings law suits. (yeah, don't want to make you actually WORK for it)
Thus, while a man’s home may still be his castle, he doesn’t have an unlimited right to smoke in it if the smoke drifts into other castles
OR HARMS OR PUTS CHILDREN AT RISK -- WHICH LEADS TO THE NEXT SEVERAL VICTORIES (oh yeah, not out to attack our homes at all..isn't that what you said? just public places)

■ 6. In about 35 states, courts have ruled that it is appropriate for judges deciding custody disputes to consider if a parent subjects a child to toxic tobacco smoke in the car or at home
thousands of court orders have banned smoking in cars, and even in homes, when children involved in custody disputes are involved, some 24-48 hrs before they arrive
and, in a few cases, parents have lost custody if, after being warned, they continued to subject their child to toxic tobacco smoke (yeah, because actual parenting has nothing to do with it...better to choose a bad nonsmoking dad than a good smoking mom...and hey, taking children from their loving parents doesn't hurt anyone at all)

■ 7. Largely as a result of a new movement ASH began two years ago, more than a dozen states, and many local jurisdictions, have ruled that smoking should be banned in cars and in homes when foster children are present
particularly in view of the very high concentrations of tobacco smoke to which the children are subjected in cars – much higher than in a typical home or office, or even in a smokey bar.
This, by the way, seems to be have opened the door to banning smoking in cars when any children are present – something which, prior to this development, could not be done through legislation.
Now legislators are beginning to realize that banning smoking in cars when only certain children are inside makes no sense, and that all children in cars should be entitled to the same protection from toxic tobacco smoke as those in foster care or involved in custody disputes.

■ 8. So now at least two states – Louisiana, Arkansas – and several local jurisdictions, including Bangor Maine – have banned smoking when children are present in a car,
and California is considering a similar measure

IMPORTANT: In addition to protecting children, who are the most vulnerable and helpless victims of toxic tobacco smoke, these bans discourage smoking:
by making it more difficult to continue being a smoker (but remember ASH does not hate SMOKERS, just the smoke...and the KKK doesn't hate black PEOPLE, just the color black)
and by forcefully reminding smokers that their smoking is putting their families at risk (prove it....again, no references here...in fact, the WHO found children of smokers 22% LESS LIKELY to get lung cancer..guess who has references? ME! The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers. PDF here)

■ 9. Tobacco smoke itself is hazardous, but even the residue of tobacco smoke which remains on a smokers’ clothing and hair after smoking can be dangerous, at least to people who are particularly susceptible. (prove it)
So ASH, opening up still another new front in the battle to protect nonsmokers, threatened to take legal action against a university when they forced a sensitive pregnant nonsmoker to work in the same office as a person who smoked – even though not in the office.
We cited letters from her physician that these tobacco residues endangered not only the health of the nonsmoking woman but also her fetus, and legal precedent that she was entitled to special protection.
The university backed down immediately – and we hope that this new movement attacking tobacco smoke residue,
as well as tobacco smoke itself, will likewise continue to spread. (notice the uni BACKED DOWN, it never went to court...with REAL scientists...rare these days I know...but I'm sure we can find ONE..anyhow, it probably NEVER would have won)

■ 10. At ASH we think nonsmokers’ rights extends beyond protection from tobacco smoke, and that nonsmokers and their families should have the right NOT to be killed or injured in fires caused by cigarettes –
cigarettes the major cause of residential fire deaths (prove it)
At this moment, more than half a dozen states – including California – and all of Canada, have laws in place which require that only cigarettes which have been demonstrated NOT to cause fires when carelessly dropped by a smoker can be sold.
These so-called “fire safe” cigarettes, also called RIP for “reduced ignition propensity,” do not continue to burn as most US cigarettes do,
Rather, they generally self-extinguish quickly. (ahhh..and what about YOU poisoning me with more chemicals...oh yeah, only non-smokers have any rights)
And, one possible additional advantage is that the annoyance of having to relight such cigarettes is that it may discourage consumption. (FWIW, I'm gonna keep smoking JUST to piss you off)

ECONOMIC: As you may know, the US Surgeon General has estimated that smoking costs the American Economy about $140 BILLION a year,
and that most of it is paid by nonsmokers in the form of higher taxes and bloated insurance premiums. (Harvard University professor Kip Viscusi has repeatedly demonstrated that smokers paid more in excise taxes than the social costs of their habits even before the 1999 Master Settlement Agreement raised the price of a pack of cigarettes)
Well, that’s beginning to change, because of several new frontiers in the battle to protect nonsmokers' rights"

■ 11. I recently obtained a governmental ruling re-establishing the right of health insurance companies to charge smokers more –
or nonsmokers less, which is really the same thing,
for health insurance, because smoking adds thousands of dollars to the costs of providing medical care to people who smoke. (see the link I made above)
More and more companies are moving to do this.
There are at least THREE Reasons Why Charging Smokers More Reduces Smoking:
1. For many smokers, it provides for the first time an immediate and very concrete incentive for them to quit (no it doesn't...not one smoker I know has quit over that...not ONE)
2. Strong reminder that the dangers of smoking are very real (no it doesn't...we kind of knew there was some danger before..nothing has changed except your hand in my pocket)
3. Monthly bills serve as a constant reminder and reinforcer (nope, sure doesn't...just makes us really really hate anti's)

■ 12. In a related move, ASH is pressing states to begin charging smokers more for health insurance services under Medicaid, and Tennessee has now become the first state to do so. Such charges will also help to reduce smoking, for the same three reasons. (nope...it won't)

■ 13. Finally, some companies are going even further, insisting upon a workforce which is both smoke free as well as drug free –(oooo...more discrimination! can't kick out the niggers and wops, but can the smokers! Don't jump my ass...I'm not the one who coined the term "nico-nigger")
and refusing to employ or promote workers who smoke, even off the job – since the dramatically-increased health care costs are the same whether they smoke on or off the job. (and telling us what we can and cannot do on our own time...wow..who knew the company ran my life...apparently fetuses have more rights than us too)
ASH is defending that practice, one which has now been adopted by many leading companies, as well as by the World Health Organization. (yeah, because denying smokers a living will definitely make them quit smoking..let me come to your house and tell you that you will either stop doing something legal or I'll fire you....yay bullying tactics! ooo..I got an idea..let's burn crosses on their lawns...it won't HURT them..only make it more clear that being black is bad for them...doh...wrong discrimination..sorry)

AND now a quick look at some possible new frontiers in the war to protect nonsmokers’ rights

■ A. ADOPTION: We are considering asking or even requiring adoption agencies to consider if an adoptive parent is a smoker who will be subjecting the child to toxic tobacco smoke, and perhaps permitting the mother putting up a child for adoption to insist that the adoptive parents be nonsmokers (also make sure they are christians and rich...don't worry about anything else, that's all that matters)

■ B. AUTO ACCIDENTS; Banning all smoking while driving, as New Delhi has just done, and as England and several other countries are now considering, not to protect children, but rather to help reduce automobile accidents (sure, as soon as you ban eating, talking on cellphones, televisions in the front seats, GPS trackers that require you to look at them, anyone think of more?)

■ C. PETS - Since there appears to be a growing body of evidence that secondhand tobacco smoke can affect the health of pets as well as people,
we may want to consider using that as a argument for smokers to quit, OR
even seeking to use animal protection laws to limit smoking around pets (Pets have more rights than human smokers)

■ D. ENVIRONMENTAL: With all the recent and apparently growing concern about Global Warming and Environmental Harm, we might want to take advantage of that movement to stress how much smoking contributes to both:
obviously not just the heat generated by smoking, but by the deforestation it contributes to, the fossil fuel used to grow, transport, and even cure tobacco and to make cigarettes, etc. (first you have to explain why, if global warming is peoples fault, the other planets had the EXACT same reaction...clue: there's no people on other planets)

■ E. LITTER: A closely related problem which also adversely affects nonsmokers is that of tobacco-related litter
in many areas, such as beaches, cigs are the major cause of litter (but NOT fast food and drink containers)
Not only can we use this as an additional argument for banning smoking in many outdoor areas, (but NOT fast food and drink containers)
but perhaps even move towards requiring a deposit on cigarette filters such as many states have for soft-drink soda bottles. (but DON'T ban fast food and drink containers)

And before you jump my shit on using the race card...I got a little newsflash for you...you don't HAVE to be black. I think Micheal Jackson has proven that. You CHOOSE to stay black. Now, there is NOTHING wrong with that. I don't have a problem with anyone based on race. I think people are all idiots equally..color has nothing to do with it...however, you can CHOOSE to turn white. Don't give me that "black people don't have a choice" shit..because technically speaking, yeah they do. Look, you want to be a bigot, fine, just be honest...race/lifestyle, it doesn't matter how you split them up, you're still a bigot.

And before you tell me how smokers should die and be killed, tell me why pedophiles aren't castrated? You wanna talk about a sick, disgusting disturbing motherfucker...legalize castration of pedophiles on their first offense...then you have a right to talk shit about anything less...and if you think pedophiles are less offensive than smokers, you're a sick motherfucker.