San Antonio wants to ban smoking, but Hispanics call ban “racist”

by editor on June 14, 2010

san antonio racist smoking ban

Light up while you still can, San Antonio residents

Last week the astronomical geniuses at the NAACP called “black holes” racist. This week Hispanic activists have one upped them in the stupid department by calling a proposed smoking ban in San Antonio racist.

No. Really. It has to be true, because no one could make up anything that crazy.

WOAI Radio has the story of the activists huffing and puffing:

The effort to ban smoking in all workplaces across the city appears to be going up in smoke, as prominent advertising executive Lionel Sosa tonight will brand the proposal as racist, 1200 WAOI news reports.

“The proposed ordinance is economically discriminatory to members of the Hispanic community,” Sosa will tell council, according to a text of his letter obtained by 1200 WOAI news. “When you look at the population of the small area bars, poll halls, and VFW halls that populate our community, you will see the overwhelming majority of those that will see their freedom of choice stripped from them by this ordinance are Hispanic-owned businesses.”

OK, NAACP, let’s see if you can top that one for stupidity. (When it comes to stupid, our money’s on the NAACP if for no other reason than they’ve had more practice.)

Source: WOAI Radio

12
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
11 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
garlicnosedhoUSN-RETIREDharleyrider1978DebMikeAR Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
garlicnosedho
Member
garlicnosedho

Quick–get the Scotch tape! That race card is hanging by a thread….

USN-RETIRED
Member
USN-RETIRED

Sounds like a very subtle form of “persuasion” to get the illegals to move to another town. Darned clever, those gringos ( or are they blancos now?).

harleyrider1978
Guest
harleyrider1978

The new Tobacco Prohibition

I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

Now onto the falsehood……

We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED’S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!

Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.

A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth……

A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA’S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :

JUNK SCIENCE

”EPA’s 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology’s gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19–an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality–the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.”

So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA’S stand that global warming was real.

The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.

Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.

The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.

Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.

Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them….Osha has whats called PEL’S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments…[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.

The actual standard to use is OSHA’S

The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.

The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air…..now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS

By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.

Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ”EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen”……milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren’t determined to be a carcinogen….The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0….Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.

But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim…..thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree’s claim about shs/ets.

Oh! have you heard the one about ”laugh” thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.

The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!

harleyrider1978
Guest
harleyrider1978

Racism is it.who was the biggest racist in history.Why none other than the nazis and hitler we all know that………If paralells are going to be made lets look to history.

Hitler was a Leftist
Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

It seems that Hitler was a smoker in his youth but at some stage he became aware of its health hazards and, when in power (perhaps with the zeal of a convert), appeared to detest tobacco, which he called “the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor.” But the antismoking campaign reflected “a national political climate stressing the virtues of racial hygiene and bodily purity” as well as the Fuhrer’s personal prejudices. The same could be said of Nazi efforts to discourage drinking and encourage a better diet.

The state performer in antismoking propaganda was Adolf Hitler. As one magazine put it: “brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?”

“Robert Proctor presents a great deal of evidence that the nazis’ exerted massive control over most facets of ordinary citizen’s lives. Yet somehow, he never reaches the obvious conclusion that such compulsive regulations, even if arguably well intentioned, ultimately lead to a large scale sacrifice of basic freedoms.
He explains how the nazis greatly restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in most public buildings, increasingly restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. (Suing tobacco companies for announced consequences was a stunt that mysteriously eluded Hitler’s thugs.) Despite the frightening parallels to the current war on tobacco, Mr. Proctor never even hints at the analogy. Curiously, he seems to take an approach that such alleged concern for public health shows nazism to be a more complex dogma than commonly presumed. While nothing present in the book betokens even a trace of sympathy for the Third Reich, this viewpoint seems incredibly naive. It’s easy to wonder if Hitler and company were truly concerned with promoting public health. The unquenchable lust for absolute control is a far more believable motive.

Incongruously some of the book’s desultory details lend further certitude to its unpromulgated thesis. Hitler not only abstained from tobacco; he also never drank and was,for the most part–a vegetarian. Frighteningly he also was an animal rights activist. The book reruns a nazi-era cartoon depicting many liberated lab animals giving the nazi salute to Hermann Goring after he outlawed animal experimentation and promised to send violators to a concentration camp. Also included is a fitting quote -now too widely suppressed from Joseph Goebbles, `the fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay.” Controversial as it may be in some circles, such a quote proves that nazism viewed Christianity as hatefully as it did Judaism. Passing coverage is given to the Third Reich’s forays into euthanasia and eugenics. Another striking morsel is the reporting of a widespread nazi-era whispered joke `What is the ideal German? Blond like Hitler. Slim like Goring. Masculine like Goebbles…’ implying that Gautlier Goebble’s homosexuality was common knowledge. Nazi linguistic restrictions seem to be the counterpart of modern day `hate speech.’ Words such as `catastrophe,’ sabotage,’ and `assassination’ were to be avoided, and in a portentous move, `cripple’ was replaced by `handicapped. Proctor also suggests `the word `enlightenment’ (was) probably used more in the nazi period than at any other time.’

Perhaps the ultimate overlooked point of this work is the suggestion that Adolph Hitler with his anti-tobacco, anti-religion, pro-animal rights, pro-government intrusion would find success as a modern day liberal.” –Steve Fantina

Factoid: Did you know the three leading facist leaders (Benito Mussolini, Franco, & Adolf Hitler) all abstained from tobacco and smoking?

——————————————————————————–

Motherhood, apple cider and Volkswagen: Virtures of abstinence include healthy infants and savings, enough for Germans to buy two million VWs.
——————————————————————————–

In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a “national socialist duty” (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit, though this didn’t stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide). Armed with such senior sanction — loyally, Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler banned SS men from smoking, though not shooting, on duty, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels was obliged to hide his ciggie whenever he was filmed — anti-tobacco activists succeeded in banning smoking from government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces. Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on smoking while driving.

Thanks to the Ministry of Science and Education, and the Reich Health Office, posters were produced depicting smoking as the typically despicable habit of Jews, jazz musicians, Gypsies, Indians, homosexuals, blacks, communists, capitalists, cripples, intellectuals and harlots. Zealous lobbyists descended into the schools, terrifying children with tales of impotence and racial impurity

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

So now we know who the REAL RACISTS ARE HERE!

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose

I live in San Antonio. I like the idea of a smoking ban. My Dad died of lung cancer-after smoking 3 packs a day of unfiltered Camels for a few decades. I have asthma. Cigarette smoke seriously aggravates that. Smokers all over the world use the world as their ashtray. Check out streets, sidewalks, roadsides for cigarette butts. Of course the majority affected in San Antonio are Hispanics. They are some 70% of the total population-and that’s only counting the legal ones that GET counted!

mountainbiker21
Member
mountainbiker21

In this particular case this may not be a bad thing, city governments have banned smoking in public places all over the country. Mr. Sosa has found an affective way to shoot down these stupid laws, granted it is the same old tired, status quo “racist” claim that Democrats make, but in the end it may over turn these anti-smoking laws.

The Obumbly Obomster
Member
The Obumbly Obomster

The thing with using the racist card is that it’s nearly impossible to dispute and it’s VERY embarrassing to be accused as being a racist. That’s my theory to why it’s always used when a good reason is not present.

MichiganVet
Guest
MichiganVet

Using the phrase “racist” for every/any cause is like the old saw “everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer”.

These people are not intelligent or adult enough to use any other argument other than “race” – i.e. guess what “La Raza” stands for?

matthew s harrison
Guest
matthew s harrison

I think it is racist against whites to ban having pornography on every table, and every computer where I work!(think this is going to work? I hope so). I am calling some white community organizers and we are going to stage a “pull-in” until they give us porn!

Pierce
Guest

Welcome to Obama’s America

KimmyQueen
Guest
KimmyQueen

I thought we were post racial and what not… guess not

Mistella
Guest
Mistella

Everyone is prejudiced to some degree. Many think all fat folks are lazy, all teenagers are blissfully ignorant, etc. Stereotypes exist usually because they are based on statistical truths.

Racism is another issue all together – and my experience is that minorities have a higher degree of racist attitudes than non-minorities. Self defense? Self loathing? All I know as a WASP is that I grow tired of that label. And if you don’t like the system here, go somewhere you’ll be happier, pince madre!

Adios.