Smoking - a NWO change?

[Ross]

Can we please keep this on topic...

Thank you

Ross

[BrianEn]

I smoke. It's expensive, it's a slow death sentence, yet I still do it. Not to mention it's a filthy habit. It make my house and clothes stink, but I still do it. It's actually a madness. Most people I know who have smoked for as long as I do have expressed simular misgivings about smoking, and like me continue to keep up the practice. Nicotine is a strong drug. The ritual of smoking is another hump to get over. When I tried the patch(for one day) all I wanted to do was put my fingers up to my mouth and inhale. I tried that but there was no cigarette there. My dad once equated quitting smoking to a baby getting getting off the bottle. For the parents on the board you know what's that like.
I guess smoking can be a real toy for the government. Let's raise taxes and see what happens. They have all the data. They just don't like to share the data that will decrease their power, but the info will go out if it suits their purpose. It's like when the Ontario government had finished their impact report on the casino that they forced on our city. They wouldn't release it to the city council in our city. It contained info on how senior citizens addicted to gambling were selling their perscriptions to continue gambling. Suicides dramatically increased when people became so addicted to gambling and lost their money, homes and families. That's a hard place for anyone to come back from.

[Dragonfly]

IMO the whole smoking topic goes clearly in the divide et impera direction. It's about to create (one more) concept of the enemy. In Switzerland, where I live, smokers have been a main target in the media. Maybe the next targets are the obese people, then the handicapped are in focus, foreigner could also be interesting to bash (already the case) and in the end.......? Who is next?

[Ross]

Some may be interested in this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smoking

After the European exploration and subsequent colonization of the Americas in the 16th century, the smoking, cultivation and trading of tobacco quickly spread to all corners of the globe. By the mid-17th century every major civilization had been introduced to tobacco smoking and in many cases had already assimilated it into the native culture, despite the attempts of many rulers to stamp the practice out with harsh penalties or fines.

Ross

[Decibellistics]

I smoke cause it feels good. I'm not too worried about my physical body.......doesn't mean I don't care for it......but i don't worry about it.

It's a scapegoat I think, its one of the few legal things that blew up because, it ****in kills people. So it's a way to side track people from the more subtle things like, fraud, corruption, and institutional violence in general. Other than that I think it is a way mess with people's heads.

i.e. what's the number one reason people probably smoke------stress

how do you stress out someone even more who takes something for stress-----tell them what their taking is going to kill them

watch as stress levels and negative self hate arises from feeling that you are killing yourself because of a substance you use

stress levels continue to rise and so on until the person decides to say **** it, or they quit smoking completely..

it's another way to energetically rape people I think.
**** with their minds eye.......and suck out their power....and refill it with negativity.
Oldest trick in the Book.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Baron (here)
I don't know where you got the 85% of the population smoked during WW11. That has never ever been the case.The amount of women who smoked was negligible and since they make up over 50% of the population. So if 100% of men smoked then that would still only be about 50% of the populace. If the 35% of women had smoked on top of all the men smoking the population would be totally mentally retarded and with a massive proportion of children being deformed and chronically ill.

The actual figures seem to be here:

(In 1948, 82% of men - and 41% of women. Looking at the trend (and the social circumstances), the % of men smoking during the war would very probably have been 85-90%.)

Source: http://www.laia.ac.uk/factsheets/982.pdf

[Baron]

How hilarious you are and you got less than what you fired at me with your rant! Amazing I get hung for the word "Jerk"! My first expletive, if you can call it that? But my facts stand to the end. Even if the shepple cannot see it.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Baron (here)
But my facts stand to the end.

See graph above....

[Decibellistics]

LOL HAHAHAHAHAHA awwwww Bill you crack me up

Baron....

I try to use my curses as adjectives and or situational descriptive verbs. not nouns. I looooove yooouu

I can tone it down to if ya'll would rather I not use my hey I'm that crazy 21 year old kid that has goofy comments on the forum if ya'll would like. I mean no harm though. Trying to open eyes and show perspectives
Peace to all

[MargueriteBee]

yeah, I smoke. If I need a ciggie I can't think, just like if I have to pee I can't think. My boss told me she didn't care if I got up for a smoke every hour because I got more work done than the non smokers for some reason. I could correct 7000 errors a day compared to the two or three that my coworkers did. It's not the smoke, it's the person. When I retired they hired two people to replace me.

[norman]

Posted by MargueriteBee (here)

yeah, I smoke......

...... When I retired they hired two people to replace me.......

That made me chuckle



I had a very good theory worked out about the smoking ban that made a lot of sense until I realised that a lot of countries were doing it around about the same time.

As others have said here, considering that the ptb want as many of us dead as young as possible, it's seems very unlikely to the usual stuff they dump on us from very high up above the government or even the E.U.

My theory was that the landslide victory that put Tony Blair into No 10 Downing Street had created a large number of wimpish back benchers who were rediculously over-the-top PC. When the Iraq invasion came up in Parliament they all chuffed and balked about such horrid behaviour and threatened to vote against it. Hilary Armstrong, the chief whip, probably had a word with them and offered them an 'incentive'. Being so PC they said something like " I only got into politics to boss people like smokers around, this war stuff isn't my sort of thing at all". OK, says the PM, we'll put an anti smoking bill through parliament for you, now will you support the Iraq campaign?"

Well, that was my theory and I was proud of it, errr... until I realised it was happening EVERYWHERE!

So!.... I really don't get it at all.

[Baron]

Bill,

This graph was done by the now defunct "Tobacco Advisory Council" (TAC) and going from memory the reason they got this figure of 82% in WW11 for smokers was that they used the Armed forces as their baseline for their statistics! This was not for the general populace even though they said or implied that. The reason they did so was probably their obvious anti-smoking agenda,governments often try the same scare tactics and this was for a valid reason, they wanted to show how it was becoming more and more unfashionable to smoke when this data was compiled around the mid 1980's. unfortunately the government went on the opposite tack!

Though their misleading statistics put back government anti-smoking measure a generation, once it was discovered by the cigarette manufactures there was fraudulent data! This caused the government to close or abandon the (TAC) it's now a non entity though there is a new one in its place.

However my facts do stand to the end. Smoking causes neurological damage, deformities and many major health conditions from asthma to learning disabilities and violence,to the victims of thoughtless parents who caused their children's deaths from burning to death in-house fires,and cot deaths from smoke entering baby's sleeping area. Which were my main points of facts and issues with the earlier post.I just happened to have read the backfire of that graph in the 1980's and new the real figure was lower but still its handicapped generations of children and adults.

A side note, none of the women in my family near and far right back to my grandparents to siblings have never smoked half of the men did or do.
My own father a chain smoker gave up after seeing a shocking film many years ago, and is still going strong. His younger brother my uncle died just a few months ago from stomach cancer, who never gave up, which was caused by smoking the same as one of my grandfathers who died some years ago from the exact same condition. He always thought drink was the worst so he was tea total all his life.Though he had a good excuse, for smoking he was quite traumatized during WWII he was a desert rat, and the film "Ice cold in Alex" and the character played by the late Sir John Mills was based on him.Sir John Mills was uncannily just like him.

Whatever the graphs, smoking is no good for anybody and smokers don't just kill themselves they kill the innocent around them.

[norman]

Posted by Baron (here)

.....Whatever the graphs, smoking is no good for anybody and smokers don't just kill themselves they kill the innocent around them.

Which puts us right back on the OP topic. WHY!?..... would the "NWO" ( his term, not mine ) want us to stop killing ourselves?

I still don't get it.

[Baron]

"Mod edit, please treat others on this forum with respect, this kind of post is a violation of the forum guidelines that you agreed to"

I think you have made an error! The words in red italic are the words fired at me not by me! I responded in kind with a much less vicious response than the rant I received and I did not feel violated. And if the word a mild expletive of Jerk was what you refer and is prohibited then I 'm shocked, because though I don't use swear words myself I did not think I was in kindergarten either and would never have agreed to such guidelines of utter nonsense. If these are the rules that Jerk is forbidden then I will go back into hibernation and not stress anybody again here with such shocking words.

[lightblue]

.

So!.... I really don't get it at all.

i think one big mafia clan crossed another, bigger mafia clan....i suspect money is the issue....i don't quite get it how either..

i read some place years ago, so i don't remember where, that prior to introducing a non smoking policy, the airliners were legally obliged to have air extractors/vetilation system on board - which was expensive ...since the non smoking was introduced, obviously, that regulation was ditched and we now enjoy the same stale breathing space alongside various bacteria etc., due to fellow passengers coughing, sneezing....so you may think it's healthier to fly these days...i think not....

i often light up two cigarettes at once on leaving airport buildings... l


.

[Banshee]

Posted by Baron (here)
"Mod edit, please treat others on this forum with respect, this kind of post is a violation of the forum guidelines that you agreed to"

I think you have made an error! The words in red italic are the words fired at me not by me! I responded in kind with a much less vicious response than the rant I received and I did not feel violated. And if the word a mild expletive of Jerk was what you refer and is prohibited then I 'm shocked, because though I don't use swear words myself I did not think I was in kindergarten either and would never have agreed to such guidelines of utter nonsense. If these are the rules that Jerk is forbidden then I will go back into hibernation and not stress anybody again here with such shocking words.

Hey, if it makes you feel any better, I came really close to calling someone an a hole a few days ago, but then thought better of it. Its not really the person who is a jerk, because you really don't know that person. it was jerk like behavior, right? Far be it from me to jump on the PC bandwagon as I look at fear of language of any type as being the sign of an arrested intellect. As an example - fornication under carnal knowledge was a victorian crime. The police making the charge, used an acronym and voila! We have the world's favorite expletive! That said, we should all refrain from attacking people personally. Certainly, you have access to an on line thesaurus- find more interesting language next time and leave them confounded. It does make one wonder though, on a site that abhors censorship, why we need to fear words. Malintent, yes, but words....that's infantile and yes... calling someone a jerk is malintent.

[Baron]

"wow. looks like Baron might be having a nicotine fit - lol. That whole thread made me cringe from beginning to end."

Banshee:It's odd how this clearly disrespectful this post of yours is allowed while I'm now affectively banned because I have just received my official warning.

Carmody: You also must be pleased with yourself I'm sanctioned or basically banned now, one infraction and they will finally have me out of here because I don't by (BS) or inacurucies , I'm not sure is (BS) insulting or a swear word? All for using the word "Jerk" and you for some reason can post a diatribe of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and get away with it. One law for some and another for others. I suppose it's just a knee Jerk reaction when I post! I never would have taken offence no matter how many jerks you would have fired at me I left kindergarten years ago.I was only back a day and tried to only add substance and my knowledge! I suppose if I was brown-nosing and writing lies and agreeing with all the liars and frauds I would be heralded! I've just not ever been any good at being an obsequious sucker up! Darn it! It was the same when I was a kid I would sooner take a beating than suck up to filthy bullies!

What a pity, "I suppose it had to come to this. Such
is life." as Ned Kelly said meeting the hangman.

[Baron]

Agreed and I normally do confound them with words! But I'm human and sometimes a malintent is appropriate.Now all can be glad I'm now out of here... I always knew one infraction from me and I would be on the chopping block here.

I'm gone now you can all rest in peace. I don't like public dressing downs and I got both,somebody who thought all my earlier posts were marvelous,but once mod power sets in! And for such minor infraction. My years and past time consuming efforts here and worked on posts of substance including trolling my large databrain sharing my knowledge deserve better than to be insulted for nothing.

[Ross]

Hi Baron,

I will clarify for you:

You were given a warning.

The reason for this was for using the term 'jerk', which was directed towards another member/s.

No infraction points were issued and you are not banned.

I will guide you here, these guidelines in particular:


RESPECT

1. Disagreeing with various points or topics is natural, however we do require that our members be treated with respect. If a member’s conduct is seen to hurt the community spirit of the group and persist even after warnings to desist, they will be unsubscribed. Generally individual posts will be moderated first, and thus not appear on the forum, before the member is unsubscribed.


POSITIVITY

1. All members are expected to contribute to the positive energy and attitude of the forum. While healthy debate is a traditional and integral part of all critical inquiry, members are expected to be open-minded, committed to learning, and responsive to well-intentioned feedback.

2. Anyone who does not appear to be in alignment with the purpose and energy of the forum may be asked to leave.


I ask you all to refrain from any kind of dis-harmony towards members. This can lead to reactive communication, as is apparent in this thread by some posters.

Its not that difficult....so, lets move on...to the topic at hand.

Regards

Ross

[Hiram]

It sounds to me like a few posters here maybe need a cigarette break.

I'm sorry, I had to say it. Too tempting