Smoke-Free or Freedom to Smoke?

HOW SOCIABLE, EVEN GLAMOROUS, it all once seemed. Today, the lighting of a cigarette is commonly regarded as the epitome of antisocial behavior. Leading men and women of the silver screen once puffed away before audiences of all ages, but today the New York State Department of Health announces in full-page ads that cigarettes "don't belong in youth-rated movies, period."


Cigarette smoking - having seen its romantic allure blown away by a whirlwind of health studies, education programs and advertising campaigns - is now at the center of a heated national debate. Controversial bans on smoking in public places divide the "right to smoke" crowd from those who demand to breathe smoke-free air. Questions over the legality of lighting up - and where one can do so - have ignited a feud that tests the boundaries of individual rights. Uncertainty remains about where the line should be drawn between personal choice and public health.

Attitudes toward smoking began to change significantly in 1964 when the U.S. Army Surgeon General's Office issued a report about the health risks to smokers, based largely on findings of VA hospital pathologist Oscar Auerbach. He meticulously established the correlation between smoking and lung cancer with research on thousands of human lung-tissue samples (another part of his research featured 86 beagles trained to smoke cigarettes).

Heeding the Army surgeon general's warning, waves of Americans began snuffing out, never to light up again. The percentage of adult Americans who smoked cigarettes dropped from about 42 percent in 1965 to 37 percent in 1970. In later years, the association between smoking and lung disease became clearer, and the cost of health care and insurance began to climb. The financial impact of smoking shifted from what it cost for a pack of cigarettes to what it cost in taxes and government-funded medicine.

In 1986, the conundrum no longer belonged only to the nicotine-addicted. That year, the surgeon general's office produced new alerts about the menace of secondhand smoke. "Scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke," one report warned.

Today, little scientific question remains about the dangers of smoking. Smokers will, on average, live 13 to 14 fewer years than nonsmokers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which recognize cigarette smoking as the greatest preventable cause of death. About 438,000 deaths in the country each year are deemed to have been caused by smoking. That's more than the number of deaths from AIDS, automobile crashes, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, fire, homicide and suicide combined, according to the Institute of Medicine.

The same report calculates the economic ramifications of smoking in the billions of dollars. Lost work productivity resulting from tobacco-related death is estimated at about $92 billion per year, with related health-care expenditures at another $89 billion a year. Some question the estimates of health costs. In a macabre argument, they say the government saves money because smokers die at a younger age, thereby reducing Medicare funds needed for health care in their senior years.

Smoking can be tough to quit. Daryl Bly, 61, of Ripon, Wis., who smoked for about 35 years, says he made about 10 attempts but couldn't break the habit until he got connected with a smoking-cessation program designed for veterans. "They gave me a lot of ideas that I didn't think of to do," he says. The increasing price of cigarettes and his employer's new health initiative - taking $60 each month from the salaries of employees who smoked - served as strong incentives.

Bly is among about 400 military personnel and veterans in Wisconsin who have enrolled in Operation Quit Tobacco, which provides veterans with free coaching and a starter kit of nicotine patches or nicotine gum.

"Evidence-based counseling, combined with one of the FDA-approved medications, is the best prescription for quitting," says Dr. Michael Fiore, director of the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, which works with the veterans program. Similar smoking-cessation programs for current and former servicemembers are offered elsewhere in the country.

On average, veterans and servicemembers smoke more than the general population, Fiore says. Tobacco has accompanied soldiers to war as long as it has been available. Combat troops were once issued cigarettes in their rations, and servicemembers could purchase cigarettes at greatly reduced prices from the PX or ship's store. Gen. John "Black Jack" Pershing reportedly said his soldiers needed "tobacco as much as bullets" to win at war. Some have argued that, because the military introduced them to tobacco, the federal government should be liable for compensation to veterans with tobacco-linked ailments.

Fiore says the number of smokers in the military varies by branch of service, citing these 2005 rates: Army, 38 percent; Marines, 36 percent; Navy, 32 percent; and Air Force, 23 percent.

Among all Americans, about one in five smokes.

But smoking isn't as easy as it used to be.

According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 23 states have adopted smoking bans that include restaurants and bars, and four more have laws prohibiting smoking in restaurants but not in stand-alone bars. More such laws are in the works, often held up by heated debates over the variety of locales where restrictions are to be imposed.

Tavern owners have been among the most fervent opponents of smoking bans, arguing that if their customers can't smoke, they won't come at all, especially if smoking is allowed in establishments in nearby cities or states. Supporters of bans, on the other hand, argue that more customers will come and stay longer if they don't have to sit in a smoky haze. The battle has often developed into a war of numbers, fired off by both sides trying to emphasize the economic consequences.

"The evidence is clear that smoke-free laws protect health without harming business," the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids argues in its report. "Dozens of studies and hard economic data have shown that smoke-free laws do not harm sales or employment in restaurants and bars, and sometimes have a positive impact."

Not so, others say. "The problem with most studies that have been conducted is that they look at changes within a single city or municipality over time, rather than at the relative revenue changes over time in comparable smoke-free and smoke-friendly areas," Julian Sanchez wrote in Reason, which calls itself the magazine "of free minds and free markets."

Like the taverns, some veterans clubs face smoking bans that may threaten their continued existence. Some are already coping with empty bar stools as old veterans die and many new veterans don't join.

Legislators have debated whether members-only establishments should be exempt. In Pennsylvania, State Rep. Robert Belfanti has been seeking exemptions for small bars, social clubs and veterans organizations. Belfanti, who served in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War, estimates that about half the veterans he represents are smokers. "When I was in the service, probably 80 percent of the people in the service smoked," he says.

While some veterans opposing the bans argue they fought for individual rights, including their right to smoke, others see it differently. "No one is taking away anyone's right to smoke," Robert Mehrman of Beverly, Mass., wrote in a letter on a newspaper Web site, but he said he also has a right to breathe clean air. "As a veteran, I believe that the government I fought for makes laws not to satisfy one individual's wishes but to serve the greater public good."

Why not let business owners decide whether to allow smoking, and customers decide whether they want to frequent a smoking or nonsmoking place? Opponents of that idea argue it would jeopardize the health of employees exposed to smoke in the workplace.

Nor will separating smokers, ventilating buildings or cleaning the air eliminate nonsmoker exposure to secondhand smoke, according to the surgeon general's report. "Conventional air-cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke," it says.

The degree of secondhand smoke risk is often debated. ABC broadcaster John Stossel, known for his "Give Me a Break" segments, questioned the extent of risks in a 2006 report. He conceded that nonsmokers can be harmed by smokers but questioned the amount of exposure before harm is done. "Studies that followed nonsmokers who lived with smokers found some increase in lung cancer and heart disease," he acknowledged. "But they studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless, it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere."

Some have proposed tax incentives to businesses that ban smoking, or imposing ventilation requirements and higher license fees on businesses that permit smoking. Two University of Wisconsin-Madison professors, Robert Haveman and John Mullahy, have suggested the adoption of a system of tradeable smoke-pollution permits, as has been done by the Environmental Protection Agency, to help control emissions.

Smokers, too, are being creative in their responses. Reports are cropping up of "smoke-easies" and other illicit responses reminiscent of Prohibition days. Efforts are under way to make the lives of ostracized smokers more comfortable. For example, smoking tents and shacks have arisen outside taverns in Anchorage, Alaska.

As the controversy smolders, the rate of decline in the number of smokers has stalled. The anti-smoking lobby is calling on the FDA to assume more authority over tobacco. "There are more consumer health protections for dog food than there are for tobacco," an editorial on the American Medical Association's Web site said in urging federal action. Bipartisan bills were introduced last year in the House and Senate that would give the FDA greater authority, but, more than a year later, they had not reached a vote.

As state and local smoking bans proliferate, tobacco companies are creating new types of smokeless products. U.S. cigarette companies have been test-marketing "snus" (rhymes with goose), a small tobacco-filled pouch, similar to a tea bag, that users generally put between their upper lip and gum for about a half hour and then throw out. Unlike chewing tobacco, the user doesn't need to spit frequently. They have been used in Sweden for decades, and studies have indicated they are less harmful to smokers' health than cigarettes (ingredients for the Swedish product are a closely held secret).

In general, studies indicate users of smokeless products do not face the same risks as smokers, simply because of the way nicotine is ingested. However, medical experts warn they are not harm-free.

For smokers facing bans that force them outside for a quick smoke, Middleton's new six-pack of 21/2-inch-long (not counting the plastic filter) pipe-tobacco cigars promises "Perfect Size For Your Next Smoke Break!"

In the future, all such new tobacco products would have to receive FDA approval before marketing, if the proposed Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act before Congress is enacted. The bill calls for the establishment of "tobacco product standards to protect the public health, but reserves to Congress the power to ban any tobacco products or reduce the nicotine level to zero."

Some worry that FDA involvement would give the appearance of a seal of approval to the products. Nicotine has already been determined to be potentially hazardous and, unlike the pharmaceutical products regulated by the FDA, cigarettes not only can cause harm to their users but also to those nearby.

Bans prohibiting smoking in an ever-widening range of locales may well help protect nonsmokers and deter smokers, but health advocates maintain more resources should be devoted to smoking cessation and preventing youth from taking up the habit. They want the federal government to exercise greater control and state governments to use settlements with major tobacco companies - and cigarette taxes - for tobacco cessation and prevention programs.

"The tragedy of tobacco addiction and the disability, disease and death it causes will not be resolved with a halfhearted response consisting of partial measures and weak policy," the American Lung Association says. "Tobacco use drops when states pass comprehensive smoke-free laws, increase tobacco taxes, adequately fund tobacco control and prevention programs, and actively counter the industry's marketing."

Margaret Davidson is a freelance writer who lives in Wisconsin.


  1. Bottom line: I'm not a "joiner". The American Legion is one of the very few organizations that I would like to join. However, EVERY time that I've walked into an American Legion post, the tobacco smoke was overwhelming. (This was a real problem when I was a member of Rolling Thunder, and our chapter met monthly at a Legion post. Smoke was one of the big reasons that I left Rolling Thunder.) So, if the American Legion wants new members, then I'd say that a smoke-free policy is necessary. And, if smokers balk, then they can build a "smoke house" on the side of the building. No one is telling them that they can't smoke -- only that they can't make the rest of us inhale it.

  2. Tom, If your ever in the Scarborough Maine area, Stop in, we have a special room attached to the side of our building for smokers.....NO SMOKING IN OUR BAR OR OTHER AREAS, I TOO WISH OTHER POSTS WOULD ADOPT THIS IDEA, SIMPLE FIX, EVEN THE SMOKERS LIKE THE SMOKE FREE BAR

  3. The argument about whether or not second hand smoke is harmless is pointless. Here is the issue. As of 2012, only about 18% of the American population are smokers. Of the eligible veteran population, its probably only slightly higher. So lets say 20% for sake of argument. Now, an AL post bar that allows smoking, the regular patrons are probably 90% smokers. If a smoking ban keeps the smokers out, the bar just lost 90% or more of its business. But..what is the actual number of that 90%? Are a handful of smokers keeping a post alive while the majority (non-smokers)stay home? What are the possibilities of a post that decided not to cater to the few and the majority became active and contributed to growing the post into much more than a smoking bar? Would younger vets change their perception of the AL being a club where the old timers hang out to drink and smoke? Would it be more inviting and welcoming if it appealed to more than just 20% of eligible veterans?

  4. Several Posts have gone smoke free. Gilbert AZ lost 9 members but gained 65 new ones due to smoke free environment. John your comparison is just missing the point and quite frankly the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Nobody wants to take away a freedom of behavior. I know I can't sit in smoke and eat and enjoy myself. I was a previous smoker and I don't mind being around it but we have many older members with COPD and other breathing disorders. They can't come in due to the smoke. We have 6 smoke eaters and 4 smoke filtering fans. These help but don't work to clear air.

  5. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act". The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.

  6. Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all.

    Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year.

    He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn't one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking.

    If we did the same the world over we would get the same answer.

    Remember this story from last year:

    B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

    US Bureau of Labor Statistics Shows Zero Deaths From 2nd Hand Smoke
    Where are the deaths?
    If people who work in bars die from secondhand smoke, why does the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last 4 years show ZERO DEATHS from exposure to harmful substances or environments?

    This data is for 2011. (pg38 of 53). Notice that 31 people died while working in a "drinking place"(which my bar is classified as). 27 deaths were by violent injuries by persons or animals(?). 2 died by fires or explosions. I don't know where the other 2 deaths are listed however, there are 0 deaths from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
    So where are these deaths from SHS?
    Notice 2010 under this below. In 2010, there were 28 total deaths, 25 from violence and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.

    0250.pdf (pg 18).
    In 2009, 32 deaths of bar workers. 31 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.

    In 2008, 35 deaths of bar workers. 32 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.

    They aren't crawling out and dying in the parking lots either. We would have noticed 'em."

  7. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

    “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

    The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
    “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

    They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
    The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
    Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008

    This is a Swedish study.

    “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
    Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14

    In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.

    The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”

    Asthma Death Rates Are Lower in States With Higher Rates of Smoking. The states of Utah and California, which have the lowest rates of smoking at 13.0 and 17.1 percent of adults respectively, are also among the states with the highest death rates from asthma. (Asthma Deaths, 2000; and: Smoking Among Adolescents, 2001, and Smoking Among Adults, 2001. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003 State Health Profiles, Atlanta, GA: US Deparment of Health and Human Services, 2003.

    The EPA's Sorry Status Report on Children and Asthma
    "America's Children and the Environment. Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses," Second Edition, US EPA, Feb. 2003. EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman boasts that "This report marks the progress we have made as a nation to reduce environmental risks faced by childen," including "Implementing the Smoke-Free Home Pledge campaign, designed to protect millions of children from the risks of tobacco smoke at home." On pdf p. 75, "Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of children with asthma doubled, from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent in 1995." The graph on pdf page 67 boasts of declines in cotinine levels during this same period.


    However, from the BBC 26 june 2011:

    However, Asthma UK said the number of emergency admissions had remained unchanged for a decade…

    It would appear that one of the authors of this new ‘research’ was none other that that paragon of impartiality, Stanton A Glantz phD.

  8. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''


    All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 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.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  9. Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

    It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

    (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
    Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
    2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
    ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
    long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
    said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
    cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
    (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
    arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
    to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
    therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
    lung cancer.

    [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
    Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
    use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
    causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
    cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
    it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
    individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
    (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
    [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
    point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
    case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
    consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
    knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
    individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
    intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
    life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to

  10. The junk science behind the bans is never ending and right here shows you just how insane the claims are...

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  11. In an effort to support, encourage and endorse a healthier lifestyle does anyone know how many Legion Posts if any have elected to go smoke free?

  12. In May 2014 our local Legionaries voted to maintain the Post as smoking based on concerns that if it went non-smoking it might as well shut down because the smokers buy the majority of alcohol. Based on this vote it appears the only reason this 501c3 tax exempt organization exists is to provide a dark place for a local group of Vets to smoke and drink. If this is typical of other posts how much of a burden has this AL endorsed lifestyle placed on VA medical facilities? Why hasn't the AL taken a stronger stand endorsing healthier lifestyles for our Vets? Who's getting bumped for VA medical care the senior smoker for steroid breathing treatments, rehab for the young amputee with a wife and kids or both?

  13. It seesm the legion is the only outfit pushing the smoking bans in their posts these days. In floriduh 2 months ago they slid one thur whiel nobody was looking. Out of 800 active members it only took 43 that showed up the nite of the vote to tell the rest what to do and how to live. Their membership has now dropped dramatically! While other military fraternities have fought the smoking bans like in Bowling Green ky and WON to have the ban removed from their clubs! One even went smoekfree for 2 months after winning in court only to discover their bingo went to nearly ZERO for turnout and tossed out the smoking ban.............


  15. Mam your grand children were never at risk for anything by being around tobacco smoke.

    The claims being made are as old as prohibition itself.

    Guess who we fought that also invented the PASSIVE SMOKING MYTH and used as propaganda against his own people until they goose stepped with the government lie or were snitched out by their fellow Nazis...........

    The Führer thanks you from the grave:

    Hitler was a Leftist
    Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

  16. This is about the most ignorant post Ive seen when it comes to the debate of smoking and non smoking. John I take it your a smoker and think smoking is a right in your Legion.

  17. This is about the most ignorant post Ive seen when it comes to the debate of smoking and non smoking. John I take it your a smoker and think smoking is a right in your Legion.

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.