The anti-smoking brigade has always stopped short of calling for an outright ban on smoking – and it’s always been “common knowledge” that the one thing they’d never be able to do is stop people from smoking in their own homes. That might be the only place people would eventually be allowed to smoke – but it would be the place where the line had been drawn.
Well, that might now be up for debate….check out the latest from the front lines on the smoking battle…if you’re planning to move to California, you may want to think twice before renting an apartment.
Trust us…they may not win the war and totally ban smoking – but they’re going to do their damndest, step by step…
 |
|||
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||
The war on smoking…
The next phase:
I have been involved with the prochoice movement since the late 1990s, when the anti-smoking cartel began to lobby governments at every level to enact 100% indoor smoking bans within the private hospitality sector.
I also dated a woman who is a former employee of Health Canada.
I fully know and understand the current
anti-smoking agenda and what future plans are in the works.
Within the next 5 to 10 years, smoking in your own home will be banned, if the anti-smoking lobby has their way.
Any home where a non-smoker resides, will be the next target of the
anti-smoking movement.
Right now, the anti-smoking forces are currently lobbying the governments
(at all levels) to enact smoking bans in private automobiles, outdoor spaces and in privately owned and rental apartment and condo complexes in the U.S. and Canada.
The time to fight back is now…
Just to give you all a heads up, to what the future holds in store for smokers and the smoking fetish community.
Comment by VS120sfan — October 6, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
The anti-smoker’s master-plan is based upon attrition. Restricting where and when smokers can legally smoke. The antis plan is to make smoking so inconvenient for smokers, that they will eventually have, virtually no place where they can enjoy a smoke.
The second-hand smoke sham was created as a means to goad and guilt hard-core smokers who would not give up smoking for their own well-being…To give up smoking for the sake of other “innocent” non-smoking family, friends, children and even pets.
There is no unbiased, valid science that supports the anti-smokers and their phantom dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke claims.
Someone with a lot of money must challenge the dubious junk-science that is employed (as a means to entice governments to enact smoking bans) by the anti-smoking lobby, in a federal supreme court of law.
Comment by VS120sfan — October 6, 2007 @ 11:47 pm