Posted on 10/13/2009 11:47:08 AM PDT by syriacus
One topic that has only recently begun to attract attention is the Nazi anti-tobacco movement.
Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,supported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race.
Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking. Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe-Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco-were all non-smokers.
Hitler was the most adamant,characterising tobacco as "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor." At one point the Fuhrer even suggested that Nazism might never have triumphed in Germany had he not given up smoking.
(Excerpt) Read more at bmj.com ...
“According to Germany’s national accounting office, by 1941 tobacco taxes constituted about one twelfth of the government’s entire income.”
Anti-tobacco is just one of many. When you compile a list of Nazi beliefs and modern leftist beliefs, the degree of commonality is chilling.
I recently bought a couple of cuban cigars in Victoria BC, the clerk said that the tobacco tax was 90%....yikes! Now thats fascist!!!!
At least the Nazis got one thing right.
Obama straddles the fence. He has prohibited all flavored tobaccos except for menthol flavored. He had prohibited candy cigarettes. And yet he still smokes several packs of the real thing every week.
The current climate on tobacco use in the USA defines us as a Hitlerian Society.
I know that may be offensive to Bloomputz of NYC.
Anti-tobacco is just one of many. When you compile a list of Nazi beliefs and modern leftist beliefs, the degree of commonality is chilling.
_____________________
That’s true. Has anyone compiled such a list? It would be very good to have such a list. Thanks.
It’s all about control.
Liberals control easy, reasonable, things (like tobacco), to get a foothold, then slowly continue to expand control.
I smoke cigars on occassion just to make liberals mad.
Note to self: smoke good cigar tonight; strike personal blow against Hitlerism.
Actually, I heard Rush did a segment on this a few weeks ago.
I wonder if the Nazis issued summonses to people who possessed ashtrays.
http://www.theagitator.com/2003/12/04/dumbstruck/
Dumbstruck
Thursday, December 4th, 2003
You really need to read this NY Times article to believe it. Not only can you no longer smoke New York Citys public places, it is also illlegal to possess an ashtray in public. That would include collectables, antiques, even that lump of fired clay your kid made for you in art class. And inspectors can raid your office or place of business without a search warrant to find them.
Think Im exaggerating? Read:
As some New Yorkers have learned the hard way, the mere existence of an ashtray in a place where smoking is prohibited can lead to a summons. It doesnt matter if the ashtray is stored well away from public areas. It doesnt matter if it is used as a decoration, or to hold paper clips or M & Ms. No ashtrays are allowed, period
As first reported in The New York Post the other day, health officials, acting on an anonymous tip, insisted last week on inspecting the office of the clubs executive director, John Martello.
They found no one smoking. But â?? shades of Eliot Ness on the trail of rum runners from Canada â?? they came upon three ashtrays on a shelf behind a desk.
THEY were there just to get them out of the way, Mr. Martello said yesterday. We had to get them out of the public eye. They were collected. Who thinks about throwing them out?
I think what I was most appalled about, he said, was the constitutionality of them being able to come in and search my office. Unlike the police, they dont need a search warrant. They just walked in on an anonymous tip.
Ms. Mullin acknowledged that there is some discretion offered to our inspectors.
If we do see stacks of ashtrays, she said, it is tantamount to the potential that people are permitting smoking.
You cant make this up.
You can be fined for actions tantamount to the potential that youre allowing people to smoke. Actual smoking need never have taken place.
The anti-tobacco movement of today screams bloody murder when reminded of this simple fact. They get very testy when reminded of the Hitlerian similarities and immediately resort to pejoratives and denial that they have any similarities with Hitler and his anti-tobacco enactments.
This is particularly true here at Free Republic.
It’s a terrible shame that the modern day anti-tobacco movement refuses to use the proper scientific methods, or anything even resembling such, in their rush forward to mimic what the Nazi’s did.
When will Obama tell me (and all other freckled redheads) that we MUST wear sunscreen and brimmed hats to reduce our chances of developing melanoma?
I can’t understand why business owners, themselves, can’t decide whether to forbid smoking.
We should let the customers decide which businesses they want to patronize - smoking or non-smoking.
I hate having to walk through crowds of smokers who are loitering on sidewalks in front of public establishments.
Issuing summonses for ashtrays is especially Orwellian.
>>business owners, themselves
Heck, didn’t you hear the whining over the “level playing field” when at least here in MA, certain towns banned it while others didn’t, before the state ban kicked in....the same month our SC legalized gay marriage.
Certain symmetry there eh.
We should let the customers decide which businesses they want to patronize - smoking or non-smoking.
That's the way it should be, was for a very long time, and remains so in some normal places. But that is not good enough for the control crowd, and Washington, D.C. is the perfect example.
Prior to the enactment of the total ban there it was determined that more than 90% of eating establishments were already totally non smoking. Yet that wasn't enough. They will not be happy unless they have TOTAL control.
I hate having to walk through crowds of smokers who are loitering on sidewalks in front of public establishments.
I can understand that, but look at it from the point of view of the smokers, shouldn't they also have a place to go and socialize?
>> hate having to walk through crowds of smokers who are loitering on sidewalks
Well, the bright side is that at least in the northern half of the USA, the winters make fewer people stand outside.
And if the new ordnances being bantered about go through, they’ll have a smokfrei zone some arbitrary distance around and from the entrance to each establishment.
>.90% of eating establishments
100% in Boston before the bans.
Only seperate bars and music and night clubs allowed the tabak, but as you say, they wanted it all, including the banning of it on outdoor patios during our short summers, effective this last August.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.