County bans snus-chewing among employees

[kristin]

All our comments were removed except Alan's. That's one of the good things about printing your comments in two places. They can easily be re-created.

On which article? The only one I saw linked was by Petrodus and I see a comment by you and Elaine still there.

 

[Spazmelda]

Great example, Spaz.

Except he didn't "graduate" to smoking as the ANTZ call it - he was fooled by the ANTZ into thinking smoking was actually safer and moved BACKWARDS to a product with greater health risks! In that way, the ANTZ lie actually put your cousin iLnto MORE danger. He probably would have stuck with smoke-free and had been at far less risk if not for being manipulated. It's sickening to hear the ANTZ claim it's BT's fault for getting people to use smoke-less to hook them into smoking when the ANTZ may just be even more culpable for people moving from smoke-free to smoking!

I'd love to collect more real stories like your cousin's and use it as testimony that the ANTZ lies led smoke-free users to start smoking!

Hess, I meant to put "graduated" in quotation marks as you did. Typing on the iPad makes me lazy.

 

[DC2]

On which article? The only one I saw linked was by Petrodus and I see a comment by you and Elaine still there.

I only see one comment from Alan there now.
Mine is gone, although that doesn't surprise me much given what I said.


I'm going back to put another comment in.
And I might just do it every day if I have to because I'm that ...... off.

 

[DC2]

I'm posting my comment here so that I can repost it again tomorrow...

Why have so many of our comments been removed? Somebody doesn't like the truth? Well the truth is that there is absolutely no possible logical justification for prohibiting snus. They are smokeless and spitless and they pose no issues of cleanliness whatsoever.

But what is 100 times worse than that is the following statement from Donna Wininsky, which is just flat out false: "Smokeless tobacco isn’t any less dangerous than smoking cigarettes". When the director of the Wisconsin chapter of the American Lung Association makes such a completely false statement, there are only a couple of conclusions one can draw, and all of them lead to the fact that Ms. Wininsky should be fired for either incompetence or lying.

There are many smokeless tobacco products that carry less than 1% of the health risks that smoking has. And for someone in a position of power that Ms. Wininsky holds, it is unforgivable to either not be aware of that fact, or to actually lie about it. Only Ms. Wininsky knows which of those two things she is guilty of.

 

[Stubby]

Douglas County Board approves ban on smokeless tobacco use by employees - WTAQ News Talk 97.5FM and 1360AM

Douglas County bars employees from using smokeless tobacco | The Republic

Douglas County bans smokeless tobacco on the job

Wisconsin's Douglas County says smoking ban includes chewing tobacco - TwinCities.com

Douglas County employees can't chew tobacco - JSOnline

 

[DC2]

Okay, this is getting really weird...

I'm looking at the comments again and now all I can see are my two comments.
The one I left yesterday, and the one I just left a few minutes ago.

I do not see anyone else's comments, including the comment by Alan that I saw earlier.

 

[Stubby]

All our comments were removed except Alan's. That's one of the good things about printing your comments in two places. They can easily be re-created.

They don't seem to like you Jim.

This not the first time I have seen this type of situation. There are a number of publications that manipulate the comments and delete the ones they don't like. So much for the free press.

 

[Petrodus]

They don't seem to like you Jim.

This not the first time I have seen this type of situation. There are a number of publications that manipulate the comments and delete the ones they don't like. So much for the free press.

You can just imagine my surprise

 

[Vocalek]

This is the only story where I left a comment. It, and the one by Alan are still there, as is a response by my niece telling me that she sent me an email...

Douglas County bars employees from using smokeless tobacco | The Republic

 

[rothenbj]

That site is weird. Now I only see my responses, both.

 

[Stubby]

That site is weird. Now I only see my responses, both.

That's interesting. I remember hearing about some sites that manipulate the comments so that you see your own.... but other people don't. I'm not seeing your comment but I am seeing mine (Alan) and Vocalet's and the other one about the email. Donno, just wondering.

I went to a different browser and now I see only mine.

My conclusion is that it's a screwball site

 

[DC2]

I just looked and only see the comment from Alan now.

 

[rothenbj]

IE, I only saw Alan's. Chrome and firefox, only mine. Whacky site.

 

[TomCatt]

Great example, Spaz.

Except he didn't "graduate" to smoking as the ANTZ call it - he was fooled by the ANTZ into thinking smoking was actually safer and moved BACKWARDS to a product with greater health risks! In that way, the ANTZ lie actually put your cousin into MORE danger. He probably would have stuck with smoke-free and had been at far less risk if not for being manipulated. It's sickening to hear the ANTZ claim it's BT's fault for getting people to use smoke-less to hook them into smoking when the ANTZ may just be even more culpable for people moving from smoke-free to smoking!

I'd love to collect more real stories like your cousin's and use it as testimony that the ANTZ lies led smoke-free users to start smoking!

Actually sounds like a GOOD class action lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

[Petrodus]

Actually sounds like a GOOD class action lawsuit waiting to happen.

Would love to see a class action ...
Lawsuits would get a lot of attention and others would
have 2nd thoughts before proposing bans.

 

[Spazmelda]

There's an interesting suit in Canada right now, that's sort of along these lines. In this case the tobacco companies have said that the Canadian government should also be a defendant in a class action lawsuit against the tobacoo companies. I'm not sure if this has already been resolved, but here's an article about the reasoning behind having the Canadian government as a defendant:

http://turnerstips.wikidot.com/smoking-lung-cancer-big-tobacco-canada-government