Skip to comments.Obama Creates Thousands of New Jobs
Posted on 06/18/2009 7:02:20 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The jobs are risky, but very lucrative for those willing to take the risks, and require no previous experience or special training. Almost anyone with a driver's license (or at least the ability to drive) can do this job.
How did Obama do it?
Who Don't Smoke
This is very important legislation. It is obvious that tobacco is something a lot of people want to use (which is what the government is counting on), and will continue to use no matter what regulations are put in place, which the government knows perfectly well, but will now be able to increase taxes on and control the distribution of this almost endless revenue producing product.
And it will create two whole new classes of jobs: 1) the army of regulators that will be needed to control tobacco production, distribution, and sales, and 2) the army of tobacco smugglers that this much more profitable version of tobacco (like alcohol during prohibition) will create. Definitely a win-win proposition for employment.
Almost as Good as Global Warming
For the government, the Smoking lies have been almost as good as the Global Warming lies, just not as big. Of all the so-called science proving all the terrible things smoking does, there is no hard-science at all. It is all exactly the same kind of junk-science (surveys and statistics) used to put over the Global Warming scam.
Almost everyone buys it. It's why fools like American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown can say things like, "The Senate vote is a significant victory for all Americans as we try to reduce the devastating toll tobacco use has inflicted on our communities." When you are driving around your community, keep a sharp eye out for all those heaps of dead bodies and collapsed buildings tobacco is inflicting on your town.
The truth does not matter to these people, especially if they can use their junk science to keep people terrified don't smoke or you'll die from cancer or heart disease; don't go out in the sun or you'll get skin cancer and die; don't drive without a seat-belt or you'll have an accident and die. Does no one think that perhaps it is not too good for you to be terrified of every blessed thing that exists?
The Smoking Truth
The primary truth is, it would not matter if smoking a cigarette would kill you without fail before nightfall, it is wrong for any government to prevent the production, sale, and use of anything that all individuals involved freely choose to do. There is ultimately only one reason cigarettes (and most other substances) are regulated at all and that is the belief that some people have a right to force other people to do what they think is best for them; and they cannot bear that some people might actually be enjoying their lives without their interference.
| The truth is that hard science, that is real science, does not identify a single confirmed health issue with tobacco, but does find huge numbers of medical benefits. You will not find that in any MSM sources, because they have become an arm of government terrorism force.
In fact, however, all the excuses for regulating tobacco are lies. Tobacco is used because people enjoy it. They would not use it if they didn't, and doing something you enjoy is good for you. But there are even greater benefits of smokingbenefits the government and its well-controlled media are intentionally hiding.
Among those benefits are the following:
Smoking is Good for You!
Therapeutic Effects of Smoking and Nicotine
Other resources, (Books)
Fundamentals of Statistics
ETS and Second Hand Smoke
OH, and while you enjoy that smoke, be sure to have a nice glass of red wine. "The breadth of [its] benefits is remarkablecancer prevention, protection of the heart and brain from damage, reducing age-related diseases such as inflammation, reversing diabetes and obesity, and many more."
Smoke, drink, and be merry. You'll be happier and you'll live longer.
Anti-tobacco is Anti-American!
The leftist nanny-state just cannot bear the fact that some people are actually enjoying their lives doing what they hate.
Wow! Put on your flame suit.
Incoming! (getting the popcorn)
They just like to control people no matter what it is.
Socialism =no freedoms for anyone and eventually, even for the sheeple lefties
but they think it won’t happen to them. LOL
Oh, and how is that “freedom of speech” going for Code Pink in Iran?
Yes and there are plenty of those people on the FR. Here they come now in all their self-righteous fury.
At the cost of prosperity and personal freedom.
Personally, I would rather be destitute on my own than to blame it on an incompetent leader.
If lining up at the unemployment line is a job then yes...Obeyme has indeed created “jobs”.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Tyranny.
Pre-Obama, and as dictated by Constitutional law, it's "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
That would be as dictated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I do think we have more obesity now that fewer people smoke.
Other than in the ninth amendment of course.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That would presumably include the right to smoke yourself silly. But not in MY house. Even my father in law and father were not allowed to smoke in my house.
Well, I know of a way to deal a blow to the Obama administration and help people who want freedom.
We just need a few people to apply and be accepted as smoking “regulatory agents”, and bust certain folk. If you bust illegal aliens who run cigarette black market rings, you can get your quota of nabs while allowing good people who black market cigs off free.
A government is only as good as it’s regulators. And if they allow things...let’s just say it won’t be a party for Obama.
Thanks for the post! I was beginning to think I was alone in my defense of my right to make my own choice. You don’t want me to smoke in your house (bar, restaurant), then I won’t. If you don’t want to come to my house (bar, restaurant) because people smoke there, well, don’t. The property owner calls the shots.
Good links. Thanks.
My sister does the same. I don't get it, but it works for her. If she quits for a few days, she goes back to turning blue again like we did when we were kids. She smokes seven or eight a day, and you'd never know she had asthma. What it is, the nicotine?
(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)
If you want to know what the philosophy of this article is, it is the philosophy of individual liberty. Hank
Thank you for posting this.
You are correct, of course.
Our family physician told my father to blow tobacco smoke in her general direction whenever she appeared to be in distress and whenever it occurred to him.
It worked. She is now 52 years old, never had another asthma attack and doesn't smoke.
It’s amazing how much our freedoms have been controlled. This is my body, I can do whatever I want with it! I’m not going to have some liberal nanny telling me what I can and can’t do. Soon they’ll be restricting other foods and water and only the Lord can save us then.
I don’t smoke. Many smokers are just rude. They want to smoke in your home, car and in your face. Some of course are not like that. When I retire and life is short, I may take it up but not until then. I tell my children. Don’t smoke. Don’t drink and drive. Wear your seatbelt (they saved my life). But when you are old what do you have to fear? Skydive. Parasail. Smoke. Do all the things a youngster should not do because they have their life ahead of them and do not imperil that needlessly.
Freedom, prosperity, and a good smoke. Even after eight years I'm still in Flavor Country. It's the insufferable puritanism that's gaining ground now that pisses me off. It's always been here, but lately anything that gives a little enjoyment is something to be ashamed of. Not a good attitude to impose on a country as large and productive as the United States.
Oh the hilarity.
Another Moron Ping.
Smoking is good for you.
The world is flat also.
The Whale and the Shrimp, running every aspect of your life for your own good.
Let me know when the Useful Idiots among us finally wake up.
And the tombstone reads:
1990 Quit Smoking
1995 Quit drinking
2000 Quit eating red meat
2005 Died anyway
Little League Baseball has taken one hell of a hit. (no I never did smoke). (LF outfielder who could reach that 200ft fence). The lefties without discipline can kiss my ass. They have ruined the way that sports were funded and how Dad kicks your ass if you smoke a cigarette. Idiots
1990 Quit Smoking
1995 Quit drinking
2000 Quit eating red meat
2005 Died anyway
2009 Reincarnated as a fly, only to be killed by Obama the president.
The information & links posted at the top (with numerous scientific references provided at the sites linked) are result of several debates I initiated in medical & nootropic (smart drugs) forums over the last couple years. Dozens of knowledgeable, bright researchers and graduate students in medical & biochemical fields, including doctors and researchers specializing in health effects of tobacco smoke, attacked my statement "Smoking is good for you" with everything they knew. Months long debates unfolded, arguments were offered, papers were brought up and discussed in depth. Amusingly, the strongest scientific experiments they brought up, appearing to show direct harm from tobacco smoke, turned out upon more careful reading (beyond the antismoking spin in the abstract & introductions) to demonstrate exactly the opposite -- the smoking animals live longer (~20%), while remaining sharper and thinner (by ~15%) into the old age, than non-smoking animals (another one here or here or here or here).
By the time those debates wound down, not only could none of these bright, knowledgeable folks produce a single scientific result demonstrating that tobacco smoke causes any harm at all to the health of smokers (let alone of non-smokers), but they could not name a single other substance, natural or synthetic, with as potent and as numerous therapeutic, protective and life-extending benefits as tobacco smoke. Nothing comes even close to this ancient biochemical miracle.
Ironically, some health conscious readers of those threads, who were strongly against smoking initially, started smoking after following up and checking the scientific references (or another here). Others, such as one smart woman mathematician, started their own sites on the theme "Smoking is good for you" (others here and here) and one moderator, who was ridiculing the idea initially, came back few weeks after the debate in his forum ended, acknowledging that he went out checked the references provided, then checked many of his own, and was left 'scratching his head'.
You can check one of the earlier such debates in a nootropic forum (part of imminst.org), later one here, or in another nootropic/health forum, or one in Dr Siegel's blog (medical doctor, university professor at BU & leading tobacco control expert; another one here)
In brief, all hard science of tobacco smoke (animal experiments, lab research at biochemical level, randomized human trials) supports position 'smoking is good for you', while the antismoking "science" (which was initiated by Nazis in 1930s), after nearly eight decades of intense research and vast resources spent, could not move beyond statistical correlations on non-randomized samples (self-selected subjects, not unlike web polls) i.e. they keep pointing out to this day that such and such diseases are more common among smokers. Duh. Namely, that kind of correlations on non-randomized samples, no matter how strong, are equally consistent with harmful or therapeutic/protective role of tobacco smoke. You need hard science to untangle the causal web behind such correlations. For example (more examples here), people who use respirators have shorter life expectancy than those who never used respirators, while former users of respirators fall in between (the same kind of associations hold for use of tobacco). Does that imply that respirators shorten lifespan?
Antismoking is enormously profitable scam masquerading as science (i.e. a typical junk science), largely produced and paid for by pharmaceutical industry. In return for its investments in battling this ancient medicinal plant (few billions every year for antismoking junk science, for creating and financing "grass roots" antismoking & diseases front groups, in bribes to politicians and "health" bureaucrats, buying antismoking laws and regulations,...), the big pharma profits not only from selling nicotine replacements and other smoking cessations products (which make them 5-7 billions annually), but vastly more from tens of millions in additional cases of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, asthma, allergies, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, ADHD, autoimmune diseases, obesity, diabetes,... all requiring years or decades of expensive drugs, and all largely result of frightening public away from this ancient medicinal miracle that has no equal, tobacco smoke (e.g. see some of the enumerated therapeutic benefits acknowledged by none other than pharma sponsored antismoking researchers here).
“Smoking is good for you.
The world is flat also.”
Believe in global warming too, don’t you? It’s “proven” by the very same science as proves tobacco harmful.
I hope this is sarcasm.
My mother had part of a lung removed because lung cancer; my father is on oxygen for the rest of his for emphyzema.
Smoking is pernicious.
Hey, there's no need to give the Puritans as a whole the bum rap:
G. L. Apperson
[...}"It is somewhat singular that the Puritans, who denounced most amusements and pleasures, and who frowned upon most of the occupations or diversions that make for gaiety and the enjoyment of life, did not, as Puritans, denounce the use of tobacco. One or two of their writers abused it roundly; but these were not representative of Puritan feeling on the subject. The explanation doubtless is that the practice of smoking was so very general and so much a matter of course among men of all ranks and of all opinions, that the mouths of Puritans were closed, so to speak, by their own pipes. A precisian, however, could take his tobacco with a difference. The seventeenth-century diarist, Abraham de la Pryme, says that he had heard of a Presbyterian minister who was so precise that "he would not as much as take a pipe of tobacco before that he had first sayed grace over it." George Wither, one of the most noteworthy of the poets who took the side of the Parliament, was confined in Newgate after the Restoration, and found comfort in his pipe.
Some of the Puritan colonists in America took a strong line on the subject. Under the famous "Blue Laws" of 1650 it was ordered by the General Court of Connecticut that no one under twenty-one was to smoke"nor any other that hath not already accustomed himself to the use thereof." And no smoker could enjoy his pipe unless he obtained a doctor's certificate that tobacco would be "usefull for him, and allso that he hath received a lycense from the Courte for the same." But the unhappy smoker having passed the doctor and obtained his licence was still harassed by restrictions, for it was ordered that no man within the colony, after the publication of the order, should take any tobacco publicly "in the streett, highwayes, or any barn-yardes, or uppon training dayes, in any open places, under the penalty of six-pence for each offence against this order." The ingenuities of petty tyranny are ineffable. It is said that these "Blue Laws" are not authentic; but if they are not literally true, they are certainly well invented, for most of them can be paralleled and illustrated by laws and regulations of undoubted authenticity. Mrs. Alice Morse Earle, in her interesting book, abounding in curious information, on "The Sabbath in Puritan New England," says that the use of tobacco "was absolutely forbidden under any circumstances on the Sabbath within two miles of the meeting-house, which (since at that date all the houses were clustered round the church-green) was equivalent to not smoking it at all on the Lord's Day, if the law were obeyed. But wicked backsliders existed, poor slaves of habit, who were in Duxbury fixed 10s. for each offence, and in Portsmouth, not only were fined, but to their shame be it told, set as jail-birds in the Portsmouth cage. In Sandwich and in Boston the fine for 'drinking tobacco in the meeting-house' was 5s. for each drink, which I take to mean chewing tobacco rather than smoking it; many men were fined for thus drinking, and solacing the weary hours, though doubtless they were as sly and kept themselves as unobserved as possible. Four Yarmouth menold sea-dogs, perhaps, who loved their pipewere in 1687 fined 4s. each for smoking tobacco around the end of the meeting-house. Silly, ostrich-brained Yarmouth men! to fancy to escape detection by hiding around the corner of the church; and to think that the tithing-man had no nose when he was so Argus-eyed."
On weekdays many New England Puritans probably smoked as their friends in old England did. A contemporary painting of a group of Puritan divines over the mantelpiece of Parson Lowell, of Newbury, shows them well provided with punch-bowl and drinking-cups, tobacco and pipes. One parson, the Rev. Mr. Bradstreet, of the First Church of Charlestown, was very unconventional in his attire. He seldom wore a coat, "but generally appeared in a plaid gown, and was always seen with a pipe in his mouth." John Eliot, the noble preacher and missionary to the Indians, warmly denounced both the wearing of wigs and the smoking of tobacco. But his denunciations were ineffectual in both mattersheads continued to be adorned with curls of foreign growth, and pipe-smoke continued to ascend. " [...]
They were smugglers as well.
Thank you so much for you post, and all the links.
government controlled ciggs- dictate that ciggs must contain less and less nocotine- causing smokers to be forced into buying more ciggs to meet their nic requirements = more tax money for hte government- dictate the length ciggs can be- again, forcing smokers to have to buy more ciggs to meet their nic requirements = more tax money for government,
Sounds like a mob sydicate takeover of a product they KNOW they can manipulate to force people into buying more than they currently do. What next? Coffee? Caffeine? Chocolate?
what about hte resports of increased risk of lung cancer, emphasema, copd, tumors etc? I’m a smoker, and certainly not agaisnt msoking, but isn’t htere pretty hard evidence showing the icnreased risks for breathign diseases such as mentioend above?
Well that may be true- but I think those predisposed to cancer might infact be a large percentage of smokers (myself included most likely- not that I’m goign to give it up- but oh well) Not sure what hte ratio of presdisposed to non predisposed is, but many peopel do die each year to cancers that may not have arisen as early in life had they not smoked it would seem- but hten again- who knows- perhaps other environmental issues were at play causing hte cancer- but smokers lungs are quite gooped up with tar and gunk, and that can;’t be good? As well, there is reported incidence of lung tissue damage due to the hot vapours from smoking over time? All I know is that I do enjoy smoking for htem ost part cept for hte breathign problems (it doesn’t help my asthma- makes it more difficult to breath for me)
I think probably it does help a significant number of people, but I do htink it is infaxct dangerous for those predisposed to cancer or lung problems and high risk folks like myself who have asthma (it might help some forms of asthma, but perhaps not all forms?)
I know smoking causing typing mistakes :)
Me, too. Four days now without smoking a cigarette. Sorry, I meant, "analog." LOL.
LOLOL! It is so true that "The leftist nanny-state just cannot bear the fact that some people are actually enjoying their lives doing what they hate." At the very least, folks who do the things the nanny-staters hate will be made to pay.... Dontcha know the "experts" know better than we do what is "good for us," and will work tirelessly to try to save us from ourselves? Whether we want them to or not?
I just wish these ninnies would get a life.... And stop living vicariously through mine.
To me, there is something morbid about an excessive preoccupation with health. Plus something's got to kill you. You might as well enjoy your life as you see fit while you have it. Plus people who do so tend not to be the ones who nitpick and meddle in the lives of others.
Very interesting essay/post, Hank! Thank you so much for putting it up.
[[To me, there is something morbid about an excessive preoccupation with health.]]
We need a government ‘health Czar’ to tax people who over-worry about being healthy because htese people are giving themselves health problems thatr affect ME financially! They cause our insurance rates to rise! Let’s go after these inconciderate dolts!
Oh the hilarity.
Another Moron Ping.
24 posted on Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:19:25 PM by cranked
Under normal circumstances the natural human reaction is to avoid smoke. We naturally know that sucking fumes from burning material is bad for our lungs. Everyone who has even tried smoking knows how they had to fight down the coughing reflex to start their habit. The nasty stuff found in smokers’ lungs and reduced breathing capacity is pretty straightforward evidence that cigarettes are doing bad things.
What most smokers fail to realize is how filthy and awful they smell to non-smokers. Much of my family smokes and I after I visit them I have to hold my nose on the way to the washing machine and everything my mother sends us has to be washed multiple times to get the smell out. Every surface in a smoker’s home and car is coated in brown gunk and feels grimy- even in fastidiously ‘clean’ smokers’ homes. I grew up in that stuff, when I’m in it it seems normal, but get a little distance and it is disgusting.
This crud justifying smoking is about the equivalent to pot heads and heroine justifying their own habits. Nicotine junkies are no different that any other addict is their desperate need to justify themselves and drag others down with them.
I don’t agree with attempts to bad cigarettes or even tax the heck out of them, but let not kid ourselves that the habit is any healthier than any other addiction. I don’t want to pay your medical bills either.
LOLOL!!!!!!! Yes: Their (i.e., smokers) bad behavior hurts me, me, me: It's always about MEEEEEE....
That's why we have to "socialize all risk," dotcha know!!! In short, the nanny-staters are not the least bit worried about what smokers are supposedly doing to themselves; what they really want is to show that what smokers do as individuals causes the whole society to suffer in some way. On that pretext, one can justify the penalization of any behavior one happens to personally dislike, and regulate just about everything under the Sun....
It's the rare person who sees what a "shell game" this is, and what it aims at: the complete devaluation and erosion of individual Liberty on the pretext of some fictitious "General Will."
Evidently dear CottShop, you are one of those rare persons. And I'm with you.