Smoking Ban Advocates & Smoking Bans are Un-American.
Love Letters From nazi's.
We receive emails now and then from the no-smoke thugs who want you to obey. They just can't seem to grab hold of the concept of: "You live your lives, we'll live ours. It's a one-time deal. Let's do it in a peaceful way."
Some even ask us to put up their names, and their addresses, and pictures of themselves. Really, they do.
It seems to these folks that if they never went to a bar or a restaurant or a business where people smoke, they still don't want other people to be allowed to smoke in the bars, restaurants, or anywhere else. Not even outside. They'd like to see you punished if you do smoke. Because, in their minds, they seem to think they're real smart. They seem to think that you and freedom are real stupid.
If you would like your name and/or picture put up on this site too, sure, contact us. We'll do it.
If you have a change of heart later on, we'll take down your picture(s) and email(s) per your request. As stated on other pages on this site: The intent of this website is not to get even or to seek out revenge. It is about seeing personal liberties and freedoms restored. And not backing down.
Let's get started!
Some even ask us to put up their names, and their addresses, and pictures of themselves. Really, they do.
It seems to these folks that if they never went to a bar or a restaurant or a business where people smoke, they still don't want other people to be allowed to smoke in the bars, restaurants, or anywhere else. Not even outside. They'd like to see you punished if you do smoke. Because, in their minds, they seem to think they're real smart. They seem to think that you and freedom are real stupid.
If you would like your name and/or picture put up on this site too, sure, contact us. We'll do it.
If you have a change of heart later on, we'll take down your picture(s) and email(s) per your request. As stated on other pages on this site: The intent of this website is not to get even or to seek out revenge. It is about seeing personal liberties and freedoms restored. And not backing down.
Let's get started!
Un-American zealot Frank Amend
frankamend@yahoo.com
Frank emailed us on November 10, 2009. We're putting up Frank's emails per his request. They're pasted below as recieved. Strike that: We've omitted his address and phone number which he included with his emails. We have a sense of fair play. Frank doesn't.
Frank said:
I came upon your website this morning and was generally appalled. The usual misinformation and vitriolic behavior usually associated with your type of groups. I do believe that everyone has the right to smoke, but that people who don't smoke have a constitutional right not to have to breathe in the second-hand fumes. If your constituency wants to smoke, go outside or go to a smoking room where you all can contaminate yourselves. Also, please check with the constitutional scholars that you undoubtedly have on staff - there is no law on the books protecting smoking, but there are plenty protecting ones right to breathe clean air. I am attaching my photo so hopefully you can honor me with a spot on your Hall of Shame? This would be an honor that would equal being chosen as the American Heart Association's Survivor Advocate of the Year for 2009.
Regards,
And here is our reply the same day, not edited:
Frank,
Appalled by freedom, it would seem.
It's about individual rights. If you don't like smoking, then don't go to places that allow smoking. Period. You didn't invest your money into restaurants, and bars, and casino's, and businesses that do allow smoking. The owners did. Open up a business with your own money that doesn't allow smoking. We'll abide by your rules. No problem. Your money and business, not ours. Don't be so arrogant to tell people how to run their businesses or their lives. Simple deal.
And no, the people who go to places where there is smoking don't have a constitutional right to go into those places and not breathe second-hand smoke. The same for the joggers on city streets who breathe in just as/and as harmful fumes from vehicles.
Step back and take an honest look at your thinking process: If someone were to open up a business that allowed smoking, and if you lived to be 100 but never went to that business, then they still shouldn't be allowed to allow smoking. That correct? Because people need to be protected from themselves? By you?
No one needs or wants you to watch over them, Frank. Nor have they asked you to.
Thanks for your email. Sure, we'll put up your picture. You're thinking is dangerous to free peoples.
And ol' Frank replied the same day, not edited:
What is the percentage of people that live to be 100 that are smokers and non-smokers?
Only 20% of the population now smoke, right? So you punish us for letting you guys make us sick? Doesn't make sense.
Thanks for putting me on your wall of shame!
Frank
Frank Amend
frankamend@yahoo.com
Frank won't answer honestly when honest points are put to him. It doesn't appear his intent to. He can't seem to grab hold of the concept that people who smoke in bars and restaurants or anywhere else didn't ever ask him to go there.
He seems to get off on drama. Truth, fact, fair play, honesty, and logic don't appear a part of Frank's thinking here. All that seems important is the almighty "Cause." Like the n0-smoke thugs at the American Cancer Society, The American Lung Association, and TheTruth.com, et al, he demands your submission and obedience. Whether you agree with his/their tyrannical demands or not.
They've crossed a line. They no longer say, "We don't like smoking. Why do you?" Like the nazi's in 1930's Germany, the no-smoke thugs now say, "Our goal is to outlaw smoking, completely. We don't care what you think. We're smart, you're stupid, therefore if you smoke we demand you be punished." Fascism. In America.
Those brave souls gave all for freedom. Not for tyranny.
Frank: Are you not embarrassed? Those souls above gave all so that their loved ones might live free. So that we might live free. And they too had they been lucky enough to return home alive from distant shores, and the Delaware River on Christmas Day, and Gettysburg, et al.
We're embarrassed for you, Frank.
Here's an email we recieved 11/29/2009 from a guy who claimed his name to be Jerry Steinberg. OK.
His email address ended in .ca. We're not going to put it up here, because he didn't give us permission to.
The subject line is, "Great Stuff." Here's his email, not edited:
For entertainment value, that is. How can you speak of "freedom" to use an addictive drug (which destroys your freedom) -- whenever and wherever you want -- thus forcing others to inhale your poisons?
What about the freedom of workers to avoid a noxious, toxic blend of chemicals every time they breathe? What about children -- who can't complain when strangers or mommy or daddy blow poison in their faces? Would you not ban smoking around gasoline pumps and other explosive environments?
Smoking bans protect workers and children, who don't have the freedom to avoid your poison. Most people have to work for a living and most kids have to go where their parents go.It's easier for you to step out for a couple of minutes to get your nicotine fix than for all the non-smokers (80% to 90% of the population) to stay out to breathe.
Jerry Steinberg
Our reply to Jerry, December 4, 2009, not edited:
Jerry,
It's a bit difficult to reply to your assertions. You're all over the place. Our simple answer to you, would be: "If you don't like smoke, then don't go to places where smoking is allowed. Very simple solution. That would be your choice. Don't tell people they can't smoke, we'll not assert you can't live your own life.
We really don't care what you like or dislike, Jerry. Nor should you worry about what we like. You have your life, we have ours. Do freedom-loving peoples (added, "a favour") and go away, will you? No? Well then, we'll come right back at you. We're not backing down from you.
Best,
Jerry replied on December 5, 2009, and said, not edited, "You're putting words in my mouth by claiming that I'm saying "I don't like smoking," and "Smoking is evil and wicked." He's right. We did put words in his mouth. We admit it. We were lazy and we paraphrased. We were wrong. We have to be honest here.
Jerry also said in his reply, not edited, "Smoking should be banned in all public places and workplaces, and anywhere children under 19 are present (kids can't tell their thoughtless, inconsiderate parents to butt out)." Ah, children under 19. So, if one is 19 then it's OK to smoke. Not before. But smoking is OK after 19. OK then. What about the 17 and 18 year old 'children' in the military putting their butts on the line in defense of freedom, Jerry?
And he said, not edited, "I have no problem with you smoking in a place where no one else has to go." Would that be bars, or restaurants, or other businesses, Jerry? Where no one asked you to go? Or where no one "has" to go?
And Jerry said, not edited, "In other words, smoking should not be allowed anywhere where non-smokers have to be. That's not a ban, that's a limitation." A "limitation." Right. A Limitation on freedom and liberty. An unequal distribution of freedom and liberty according to Jerry's beliefs. In other words, you should only be allowed to smoke where Jerry Steinberg thinks you should be allowed to smoke. Even if Jerry won't ever go to any business where smoking is going on.
And Jerry said, not edited, "You're right that I have a choice as to which restaurant or bar I choose to go, but the workers don't have that freedom. They have to be there eight to twelve hours (or more) a day." No one forced them to work there, Jerry. The workers you seem so concerned about; ever stop to think that they might smoke? Get a grip. No one needs you to watch out for them. People who work at or patronize bars and restaurants or any other business (where smoking is allowed) are not going to be harmed bysecond hand smoke. Let's suppose for a minute that they would be. Then that would be their choice, right? Kind of like your choosing to walk on streets congested with vehicles that put out noxious fumes? Should we limit the freedom to drive, too?
Jerry appears a part of the new assemblage of folks in the USA and Canada who are addicted to drama. Their actions suggest they have an unhealthy need for people to obey(!) them. Because it feels good. It makes them feel important. And those who would have the audacity to light up a ciggie in a bar, or restaurant or any other business? They should be fined, or put out of business, or maybe even eventually jailed. Freedom and liberty, be damned. That right, Jerry?
Beechwood Cemetery. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Canada's National Cemetery of the Canadian Forces and RCMP
Those brave souls in the picture above fought and died for freedom. Are we supposed to forget about them, as if they gave all for naught?
It's not going to happen, Jerry.
Frank Amend
frankamend@yahoo.com
Frank won't answer honestly when honest points are put to him. It doesn't appear his intent to. He can't seem to grab hold of the concept that people who smoke in bars and restaurants or anywhere else didn't ever ask him to go there.
He seems to get off on drama. Truth, fact, fair play, honesty, and logic don't appear a part of Frank's thinking here. All that seems important is the almighty "Cause." Like the n0-smoke thugs at the American Cancer Society, The American Lung Association, and TheTruth.com, et al, he demands your submission and obedience. Whether you agree with his/their tyrannical demands or not.
They've crossed a line. They no longer say, "We don't like smoking. Why do you?" Like the nazi's in 1930's Germany, the no-smoke thugs now say, "Our goal is to outlaw smoking, completely. We don't care what you think. We're smart, you're stupid, therefore if you smoke we demand you be punished." Fascism. In America.
Those brave souls gave all for freedom. Not for tyranny.
Frank: Are you not embarrassed? Those souls above gave all so that their loved ones might live free. So that we might live free. And they too had they been lucky enough to return home alive from distant shores, and the Delaware River on Christmas Day, and Gettysburg, et al.
We're embarrassed for you, Frank.
Here's an email we recieved 11/29/2009 from a guy who claimed his name to be Jerry Steinberg. OK.
His email address ended in .ca. We're not going to put it up here, because he didn't give us permission to.
The subject line is, "Great Stuff." Here's his email, not edited:
For entertainment value, that is. How can you speak of "freedom" to use an addictive drug (which destroys your freedom) -- whenever and wherever you want -- thus forcing others to inhale your poisons?
What about the freedom of workers to avoid a noxious, toxic blend of chemicals every time they breathe? What about children -- who can't complain when strangers or mommy or daddy blow poison in their faces? Would you not ban smoking around gasoline pumps and other explosive environments?
Smoking bans protect workers and children, who don't have the freedom to avoid your poison. Most people have to work for a living and most kids have to go where their parents go.It's easier for you to step out for a couple of minutes to get your nicotine fix than for all the non-smokers (80% to 90% of the population) to stay out to breathe.
Jerry Steinberg
Our reply to Jerry, December 4, 2009, not edited:
Jerry,
It's a bit difficult to reply to your assertions. You're all over the place. Our simple answer to you, would be: "If you don't like smoke, then don't go to places where smoking is allowed. Very simple solution. That would be your choice. Don't tell people they can't smoke, we'll not assert you can't live your own life.
But like the other no-smoke zealots, you go from "I don't like smoking," to "Smoking is evil and wicked. Therefore, I want it outlawed."
We really don't care what you like or dislike, Jerry. Nor should you worry about what we like. You have your life, we have ours. Do freedom-loving peoples (added, "a favour") and go away, will you? No? Well then, we'll come right back at you. We're not backing down from you.
Best,
Jerry replied on December 5, 2009, and said, not edited, "You're putting words in my mouth by claiming that I'm saying "I don't like smoking," and "Smoking is evil and wicked." He's right. We did put words in his mouth. We admit it. We were lazy and we paraphrased. We were wrong. We have to be honest here.
Jerry also said in his reply, not edited, "Smoking should be banned in all public places and workplaces, and anywhere children under 19 are present (kids can't tell their thoughtless, inconsiderate parents to butt out)." Ah, children under 19. So, if one is 19 then it's OK to smoke. Not before. But smoking is OK after 19. OK then. What about the 17 and 18 year old 'children' in the military putting their butts on the line in defense of freedom, Jerry?
And he said, not edited, "I have no problem with you smoking in a place where no one else has to go." Would that be bars, or restaurants, or other businesses, Jerry? Where no one asked you to go? Or where no one "has" to go?
And Jerry said, not edited, "In other words, smoking should not be allowed anywhere where non-smokers have to be. That's not a ban, that's a limitation." A "limitation." Right. A Limitation on freedom and liberty. An unequal distribution of freedom and liberty according to Jerry's beliefs. In other words, you should only be allowed to smoke where Jerry Steinberg thinks you should be allowed to smoke. Even if Jerry won't ever go to any business where smoking is going on.
And Jerry said, not edited, "You're right that I have a choice as to which restaurant or bar I choose to go, but the workers don't have that freedom. They have to be there eight to twelve hours (or more) a day." No one forced them to work there, Jerry. The workers you seem so concerned about; ever stop to think that they might smoke? Get a grip. No one needs you to watch out for them. People who work at or patronize bars and restaurants or any other business (where smoking is allowed) are not going to be harmed bysecond hand smoke. Let's suppose for a minute that they would be. Then that would be their choice, right? Kind of like your choosing to walk on streets congested with vehicles that put out noxious fumes? Should we limit the freedom to drive, too?
Jerry appears a part of the new assemblage of folks in the USA and Canada who are addicted to drama. Their actions suggest they have an unhealthy need for people to obey(!) them. Because it feels good. It makes them feel important. And those who would have the audacity to light up a ciggie in a bar, or restaurant or any other business? They should be fined, or put out of business, or maybe even eventually jailed. Freedom and liberty, be damned. That right, Jerry?
Beechwood Cemetery. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Canada's National Cemetery of the Canadian Forces and RCMP
Those brave souls in the picture above fought and died for freedom. Are we supposed to forget about them, as if they gave all for naught?
It's not going to happen, Jerry.
