Friday, May 23, 2014


Kansas City mostly Democratic Party point of view lobbies for safe and legal abortions but then strives to kill smoking rights . . . Cancer stix are worse than baby killing to some . . .

KCUR: Want To Smoke? Kansas Citians Say To Stay At Home

Meanwhile, all of this reminds me that a long ago bit by Denis Leary which proved tragically correct . . . In the very near future, Kansas City smoking will only be legal "in your house, under the blankets with all of the lights turned out."

Developing . . .


Anonymous said...

So Tony is anti-choice? What a fucking moron.

Anonymous said...

Surely nothing more important than smoking. Graft, corruption, streetcars? Nah... Smoking!

Blaz Tavers, local gadfly said...

I love puffing away on my e-cig in public and then looking for the horrified fat cunt who's going to look like I just took the last doughnut.

Anonymous said...

7:23 AM
You speak of Theresa Garza, correct?

Anonymous said...

I am hearing that Theresa Garza-Ruiz, Crystal Williams, Lisa Bindley and several other screeching bitches have set a trap for Mike Sanders' new press coordinator Lisa Carter. They oppose Carter's hiring because she is a Tea Party Republican and even worse: Pro-LIFE.

This is a new Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus operation that they are calling "Devil Dames." It is an old school political tricks strategy aimed at enemies personal life and professional existence.

Lookout RadioLisa! They may smile at you but they have plans.

Anonymous said...

Lizard Throat Liberal Feminist 'Unts.

Anonymous said...

Smokers have been beaten into submission by years of unopposed anti-smoking crusader actions.

Give me a small band of smoking zealots and they can reclaim their rights through legal action. As long as smoking tobacco is still legal, the widespread and growing public bans can be challenged and reversed through the courts.

(and I'm not a smoker)

What if there were public bans on consuming candy, alcohol, fried foods, peanuts, etc. All of these can be argued as being unhealthy or detrimental to those nearby with allergies.

Smokers need to get militant or become extinct, especially in light of the move toward the legalization of marijuana.

Anonymous said...

Smokers can thank corrupt politicians for the casinos which provide a building wide smokers zone. Amazing how healthy smoking becomes when you are lining pockets at the state house. In the mean time the corner bar struggles.

Anonymous said...

KC public housing smoking ban puts onus on tenants

In Kansas, Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority enacted ban in 2011

I dumped that place with plenty of stuff destroy the anti-smokers.

Fox KC when it was figured out how badly those anti-smoking advocates were being beaten by the pro-smoking side in debate over their claims of mythological harm decided to yank down every comment posted by the pro smoking side! Its come to the point where they wone even defend second hand smoke much less the even more ridiculous direct smoking claims!

Not one thing has ever been proven even about direct smoking not even with LC. 98% of life long smokers never get LC!

Harleyrider1978 keep freedom alive for everyone!

Anonymous said...

The Black Lung Lie

Posted on August 6, 2012 by Frank Davis

A discussion of ‘smokers’ black lungs’ started in the comments today. It’s the widespread belief that smokers’ lungs turn black. Rose pointed out that it all started with James I about four centuries ago. She also dug up some refutations:

“Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.”

Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.”

Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.”

Anonymous said...

……………..I neither work for a tobacco company nor any anti-smoking group out of KC!

That study was updated over the winter with smokers lungs having 3 year better survival rates than non-smoking lungs.

Its apparent after my comments were taken down and yours left in place who this FOX outlet sides with.

If you cant win the debate then simply CENSOR the other side!

I will further tell you not one claim against smoking has ever been proven and I provided proof to that fact and it gets yanked down!

Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one.

When you have to resort to total censorship in a debate it leaves little hope for the claims your anti-smoking side makes and that goes all the way to the CDC or the SURGEON GENRALS outright lies and claims they cannot back up with proof!

You should know by now the smoking bans are on legislative life support and likely within months to a year of seeing them being repealed around the country!

The bans have become political liabilities to the people and all the new spin off public health junk science based legislative laws these folks want pushed thru!

Its the same way the bans ended back in the period 1917-1923 America.

Kiss your prohibition movement Goodbye


Nancy McNoodly, schoolmarm said...

Actually, the plural would be SURGEONS GENERAL.

Anonymous said...

"Cancer stix are worse than baby killing to some . . . " sez Tony.

Cancer stix are baby killers, so there's no real better than/worse than comparison. Want to make life worse for everyone in your vicinity, whether they're babies or not? Just light up. Everyone's health levels will drop, not just your own. And from the macro point of view after millions of cigarettes, some of your victims (not just you yourself) will indeed die as a result; earlier and in more pain than if you hadn't lit up in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Smokers are assholes. It is just that simple. It puts people around them at risk, they generally litter when they do it, and the crop itself is a harm to the soil. The chemicals used to grow it are harmful. The idea that pot is illegal, while this is still largely socially acceptable is pure bullshit.

Anonymous said...

It's a class-war thing. Millions have quit smoking in the last 20 years. Mostly college-educated, middle- to upper-middle-class people.

If you still smoke, chances are you are not one of them. If you still smoke and you ARE one of them (Hello, Obama), you are a pariah.

The ruling class now sees smoking as a vice of the lower orders. The ruling class wants to save you from yourself. You're supposed to be grateful.