purchase cialis cheap

Johnson and Johnson, makers of Chantix and Nicoderm, fund the bans through their Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-RWJohnsnF.html Many tax exempt political action committees (charities?) received millions to sell smoking bans from RWJ Foundation. These bans are nothing but clever marketing strategy, with lots of highly publicized "sky is falling" hype, similar to gun control tactics; Gun "ownership disease" http://www.nrapublications.org/SG/index_jan10.asp Tobacco control; http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912 And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the "inside -out", provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses. You may need to CTRL and scoll to enlarge it. http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf Prohibition is their next goal. http://alcoholfacts.org/RWJfoundation.html

Government gone wild The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling from sea to sea has nothing to do with protecting people from the "threat of second-hand smoke" but are themselves symptoms of a far more grievous threat: a cancer that has been spreading for decades throughout the body politic, reaching even the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace but rather, if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-smoking activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allow them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the “right” decision? It seems they've made their choice. Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers outdoors. The decision to smoke or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, should be made by each individual according to his own values and assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or love, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on. All these decisions involve risks; some may have harmful consequences or invite disapproval from others. But the individual must be free to make these decisions because his life belongs to him, not to others, and only his own judgment can guide him through it. Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a minority, practicing a habit often considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour. That is why these bans are far more threatening than few stray whiffs of tobacco smoke while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-smoking crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those tiny wisps while they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.

Hi, "bob" Or should I say, "generalsn". It's the same boilerplate. Are you afraid sites will ban you, as they have ventilation-pusher laprade and harleyrider for your deluge of spam on every message board in the country? I see the poor Free-Times, one of the few sites left open to your swill, is getting swamped. When's the rest of the gang going to show up?