Speaking as one who’d not be caught just-about dead smoking in a closet, though might be (caught) by LAPD at park in LA, except at any golf course, where smoking is by statute allowed (hmm…?), I was pleased to note Obama’s irritation, such as it was. Not much really. But (wannabe) “reporter” was dope Obama easily, quite rightly, nailed when she sought gossip.

Cocco—in her ongoing role as anti-smoking cop—would have Obama be anti-smoking billboard. Naturally. Leave it to a liberal to get it wrong again. Like with heretofore-pesky matter of war on Iraq. Ever since, liberal members of Congress have claimed they were “deceived,” evidently just about none having read, say, Scott Ritter, prior to voting in favor of Shock & Awe. (If not Ritter, others. But members did read, of course. Not the point.)

Meanwhile, “science” long ago dove into tank. American Lung Association is first and foremost big business. Along with American Heart Association. That is, both with considerable stake in “facts” of dangers of smoking. Like “facts” of Soviet arms build-up.

I know this will be regarded as heresy, but real life has and continues to demonstrate that smoking per se “causes” nothing whatsoever. But such is the power of propaganda even Chomsky is convinced of dangers of smoking.

People have and will declare me in denial. Okay, but my mother smoked for over 60 years before passing at almost 82 years of age. Of pneumonia, which is common cause of death among elderly. While the only three people I’ve ever known who endured lung cancer were non-smokers.

Some might recall a certain Surgeon General by the name of C. Evertt Koop, who declared—based on what?—tobacco more addictive than heroin. Wow! Really?

At least heroin addicts aren’t being taxed to death. No objection to legislation Obama signed, I guess. Though Congress might have better spent time and effort on rather more important matters. But Congress can always count on good pub when legislation has to do with taxing or trying to prevent smoking. But okay, no objection to companies legally barred from marketing to children. Would that also apply to marketing pricey shoes? Or sugary delights? (Does Obama consume occasional Twinkie?)

Obama IS known to enjoy occasional cheeseburger. Me too. But…dangerous consumption of red meat. Topped with melted American, Cheddar or Swiss.

California smokers are facing prospect of yet another state-imposed tax hike that would further aid and abet incompetent pols and those who sponsor them, including various state-employee (gimme-gimme-more) outfits. Soak ‘em long as they’re addicted, while substance is still legal to use. Especially if among lower classes (and not employed by state or fed), members of which can be counted on—always—as just too stupid or too ignorant to know what (we stratospheric believe, but can’t really prove) is in their best interest. And while we of greater knowledge find other ways self-deceptively to distract ourselves from damn little in the way of actual hardship.

Not only must you of lower orders endure unemployment, but also you must cease and desist any indulgence in any habitual behavior that we’ve (monetarily) conveniently determined might one day result in cost to “society,” who R’ Us, and not you. And on behalf of your children.

My dear old lady who passed only four months ago also smoked her way through three pregnancies. Which I like to think might account for my refusal ever to buy into nonsense as forever disseminated by loony centrists given to imaginary—whether kinda righty or kinda lefty.

Carry on, Mr. President—inside closet as necessary. And with irritation on being asked yet again of any merely declared (sans actual evidence) “bad” habit. Long as you don’t sign yet another bill that would tax yourself and the rest of us smokers who seriously can’t afford any longer to sponsor the sanctimonious, Ms. Cocco.

I’d like to “butt out” but it’s pretty hard to watch someone you love kill themselves.

Guess it is too late to say that for decades the harmful effect of cigarette smoking has been known and reported to the public and your comment is pretty much correct or at least I agree with it but this is just another captive way of controling the people and what better way than to provide a drug(nicotine) that is a relatively moderate speed/amphetamine that no doubt gives smokers a jolt and a buzz and for many it helps them work 20hr days just so they can provide for them and theirs, not an attractive way to act but it is there.

Cigarette smokers in this country tend to be working class and lower class, without money, power, authority or connections, often non-white.  They are scapegoated by the self-indulgent shopping, alcohol, prescription drugs, fastfood, fat and sweets, sex, pornography and gambling addicts, joined by the legions of people who are themselves so debilitated by depression and hopelessness in their lives that they can barely lift an arm to flip the channel with the remote.  But all these people have one thing in common:  they all ridicule and demean cigarette smokers.

I for one think Obama should tell everyone it is simply none of their business how it’s going in his efforts to stop smoking.  The people who ask are the nah-nah-nah-nah type of folks, tattle-tails, sneaky, cheating, deceitful, back-stabbing little weasels who may not smoke, but more than make up for it in their other bad behavior which often harms lots more people than somebody’s cigarettes do.

I’m against smoking and think everyone should quit.  But this whole second-hand-smoke nonsense has gotten way out of hand, and the extension of state power to the point of prohibiting people from smoking in the open air, when there is no health or other reason why it damages others, is just another form of unreasonable state control over individual behavior.

I also really hate the smug tone of the non-smokers or ex-smokers who taunt those who are still addicted, that nasty sense of superiority of people who probably are popping valium before they walk out the door in the morning, but tell the world that they are superior to everyone because they “don’t smoke.” 

Smoking cigarettes is a serious addiction and, like other addictions, may take repeated efforts to get clean.  Instead of rubbing people’s noses in it and taunting and ridiculing them, we should butt out, be supportive if asked, support public programs to provide smokers with smoking-cessation programs and nicotine substitute free of charge.  But quit the snarky, because it’s really offensive.

Beyond that, the Democrats keep telling us that every single thing they do is the greatest ever—and we’ve heard that about this bill as well.  But making it illegal to sell banana-flavored cigarettes to children isn’t really all that remarkable.  We’re waiting for the Democrats to end the wars, all of them, create good-paying jobs, prosecute the real criminals (instead of persecuting the cigarette-smokers), and provide healthcare for all of us.  So let’s not get too carried away about this law.

The FDA can regulate but not prohibit.  Okay.  Let them do their job.  Let Obama get back to his.  And leave the adult smokers alone.  Yes, they know it’s killing them, yes, they would like to quit, but no, they have not been successful yet.

““People are weak and dependent”“
*********************************
Maybe, but ever since the dawn of civilization it is easy, and now it really has become very quite easier to make ‘People weak and dependent’ based on false and irrational ideas of security.

This has been one of corporate world’s biggest endeavours and they have done quite a bang up job of succeeding which is mostly in the guise of marketing and advertizing.

“People are weak and dependent.  Therefore, they need the Federal government to save them from themselves.  Thank God the Federal government is always wise and good.”