John Boehner Likes Smoking Too Much to Be President

"I smoke cigarettes and I'm not giving that up to be President of the United States," he tells Jay Leno.

  • Share
  • Read Later

In an appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) explained why he’d never run for president. “I like to play golf,” he said. “I like to cut my own grass. I do drink red wine. I smoke cigarettes and I’m not giving that up to be President of the United States.”

Later in the show, the Republican leader touched on the infighting that has plagued his party. When asked if it’s the worst it’s ever been, Boehner said, “Oh no…well…maybe it is,” and went on to explain that though the members of the GOP have the same goals, their strategies on how to reach them differ.

“The funny thing about the so-called infighting is we agree on all the goals,” Boehner said. “We think Obamacare is bad for the country. We think we shouldn’t spend more than what we bring in. We think the President is ignoring the law. It’s all a fight over tactics.”

54 comments
CastielleElorea
CastielleElorea

He likes smoking too much, and apparently, can't do without his daily visits to the tanning spa either. You, Bohner, the 1960s just called, they want you back.

MommaOf5
MommaOf5

You people are morons. If you can elect your boy child, anyone can be elected.

chris876541
chris876541

"I smoke cigarettes and I'm not giving that up to be President of the United States,"


He was trying to be funny (I think), but Bohnhead would never get elected anyway.  I think he knows he's incapable of leading the country, and wouldn't want to trade his cushy job of doing nothing for a position where he'd actually have to work for his pay and be responsible for making decisions.

AzBabyBoomer
AzBabyBoomer

I just can't buy the tan story Fro day to day he changed color from darker than Obama to orange to white. No bike riding would have given him THAT color change. He probably thinks bronzer would get him kicked out of the republican party.LOL

sapience
sapience

I don't know why he sells himself short. Our current president has no scruples when it comes to smoking. 


Seriously though, if smoking causes the American people to reject a potential candidate, how shallow have we become?

SallyQuick
SallyQuick

I hope he has a great time with his impending health issues due to smoking. 

MrObvious
MrObvious

Maybe the speaker like smoking so much he'll never run, but lets not entertain that he'd ever have a shot at it unless he was the only one running. On both sides.

Think_again
Think_again

Another sly humble-brag that intimates he is more down-home american than that arugula-chomping anchor-baby Obama. 


The rest of what he says is equally delusional and corrosive to any genuine political progress, wrapped up in a bow of clueless self-righteousness.

m.p.williams
m.p.williams

I guess Matt LeBlanc was there to lend some gravitas to what otherwise would have been a fairly vacuous guest line-up. Nice save, Jay.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson


Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

nap.edu

 This sorta says it all

 These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

 So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

 All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

 For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

 "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

 "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

 Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

 "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

 For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

 The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

 So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

 Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

m.p.williams
m.p.williams

If Speaker Boehner honestly believes that his chances to occupy the Oval Office would be foreclosed by a necessity to swear off the consumption of cigarettes, he badly misjudges his chances even in a world where smoking was a prerequisite for the office. The man does not now have, never has had, and never will have even the remotest possibility for holding the Presidency short of the constitutional provisions for succession. That he remains, or even became, Speaker is something of a miracle in itself.

Don_
Don_

I know plenty of Democrats who smoke, so lets drop it. I grow weary of people who demand choices, but go all jello when someone makes one that doesn't mesh with their own personal belief system. Like people who are all over the chronic but warp out when someone lights up a cigarette. Intolerance is ugly no matter who is spouting it. It reminds me of people who are pro-abortion but anti-death penalty. Conversely (and perversely), on the other side of the stage are the ones who are anti-abortion but pro-death penalty. So lets cut the hypocrisy, and move on. Choices are choices, and when someone makes one, we should just shut it and find something useful to gripe about.

kellbrow
kellbrow

What a piece of crap Boehner is.  Great message for the youth of America!  Smoking is so great, it's better than being POTUS!  I've had several family members and friends die of smoking related cancers.  It isn't pretty, and it's no joke!

FrankGulla
FrankGulla

The President is not allowed to smoke cigs or drink wine ? Really ? The person who is supposed to uphold the Constitution doesn't have that kind of freedom ? Why ? I hope it's NOT b/c he/she is supposed to be a role model for its citizens. We are not children, so please don't treat us like children. As for the eternal burning question " What about the children ", let parents worry about that. This country loves its children SOOOO MUCH that responsible adults are having more and more of their rights taken away. Instead of sheltering kids from everything, I think that information about the so-called "evils " of the world are a good thing. Ignorance is not a good thing. It is o.k. for a child to know about these things so that when they become of age , they can make an informed decision on what to do and not to do.Complete ignorance will lead to an emotional explosion and when child leaves the house(or maybe sooner) he/she will try everything just for the experience and will go overboard.

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@chris876541He better attend to the Benghazi, IRS investigations first before entertaining of going about in late night shows, much more a Presidential run which he wont win anyway.

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@AzBabyBoomerNever mind the bawling, weeping and the crying. The man is just..... never mind.

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@sapienceIf marijuana which has more carcinogens than tobacco is acceptable why cigarettes ?
 It is the liberalization and wussification of this country that is really appalling.

chris876541
chris876541

@sapienceHe'd be rejected because he's John Boehner... it would have little to do with his smoking.

chris876541
chris876541

@SallyQuickHey, he'll be covered by the best healthcare paid for by US citizens, so it's no big deal...

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Think_again As a smoker he can get upwards of 50 million American smokers votes after all the smoking bans that have been pushed by Mr Obamas administration and all based upon JUNK SCIENCE. The abuse that Obama has allowed with Federal Grants to non-profits for ILLEGAL LOBBYING is beyond reproach. They openly broke federal laws on grants and IRS laws on non-profits and lobbying activites by doing this. Even the Inspector Generals Office told them to stop it yet continue to this day thru CDC,NIH,NIof Cancer and other federal depts. that have grant making capabilities.............

Think_again
Think_again

@JohnDavidson 


Seriously dude? Our dislike of your foul habit, which has detrimental effects upon our own health, puts us in with the Nazis? 


Please find a better reason for living, for your own sake. Please.

Think_again
Think_again

@JohnDavidson 


I take it you're a smoker, JohnDavidson. You forgot to mention the effects of smoking on the delivery of oxygen to the brain, though you do demonstrate the effects pretty clearly. I'm guessing you smell bad too.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@FrankGulla Colleges being forced to go smokefree by Obama Administration

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative to ban smoking from college campuses last month. This is part of the HHS goal to create a society free of tobacco-related disease and death, according to their action plan released by the HHS in 2010.

Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.

http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_f8068f12-0efe-11e2-8b41-001a4bcf6878.html?success=1

Obama administration to push for eliminating smoking on college campuses


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/obama ... z29zJ2V2TV


President Barack Obama has already promised not to smoke cigarettes in the White House. If his administration has its way, American college students will soon be required to follow suit while they’re on campus.

Howard Koh, assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, will announce a national initiative Wednesday at the University of Michigan School of Public Health to stamp out tobacco use on college campuses.

Treeplanter
Treeplanter

@ReneDemonteverde @sapience   Rene, usually I just am an outside reader, and shrug off posts which I disagree with, but not in this case.  Marijuana may well have more carcinogens than Tobacco, but it's a case of dosage.  My mother was a heavy smoker who now has emphysema.  She claimed to only smoke 2 packs a day, but after her diagnosis admitted it was actually 3 packs but had kept it quiet because it was too embarrassing.  Doing the math, each cigarette has enough tobacco to supply 10 to 20 inhalations.  Let's take the average and say 15 inhalations.  If you smoke 1 pack a day that's 300 inhalations, 2 packs 600, and in the case of my Mom, 900 inhalations per day!  Now thinking back to my youth when I smoked Marijuana nearly everyday, my friends and I would share a joint and each of us would get about 3 or 4 inhalations. That was all we needed.  Even at the most raging party, I'd have to say the most I ever inhaled in a single day was 20 hits.  But compared to my Mom, 900 to 3 up to 20, in your view I was the real Wuss, but then again I don't have Emphysema

chris876541
chris876541

@JohnDavidson@Think_againmore than just Obama have pushed smoking bans.  It's more an issue of healthcare costs related to lung cancer, emphysema, etc.  Same for fat people and diabetes.

Think_again
Think_again

@JohnDavidson @Think_again 


Stop -- you're making me like Obama, just when I thought I was done with him.


Of course, the tobacco people have never resorted to lobbying or funded junk science to make their case. No, never.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Think_again@JohnDavidson


If you can find one study that proves harm from second hand smoke You will be the first......And pleas send it to the SURGEON GENERAL he needs it for the rest of his propaganda reports.


If your a rabid anti-smoker who believes in the second hand smoke myth that hitlers own medical group invented for his anti-smoking Laws I guess your in there then.


Besides Hitlers Nuremberg laws that included smoking bans and bans on Jews in particular were all a part of his overall eugenics plan......


Eugenics: the California connection to Nazi policies

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/03/11/10.php

Eugenics: the California connection to Nazi policies_SF Chronicle

Mon, 10 Nov 2003

On Sunday, Nov 9, the San Francisco Chronicle published an extraordinary, most informative article by Edwin Black, that sheds light on the role played by the American eugenics movement in the Nazi extermination policy. Eugenics is a pseudoscience whose purported aim is to “improve” the human race, while eliminating that portion of the race that eugenicists deem “undesirable.” The article is adapted from Black’s recently released book, “War Against the Weak,” published by Four Walls Eight Windows.

Black shows that American eugenics played a decisive role in the adoption of racist and even lethal public policies in the US and then in Germany. Black writes: “Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims.”

“Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of “race and blood” in his 1902 racial epistle “Blood of a Nation,” in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.”

“The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.”

The influence of American eugenicists was even more sinister. American eugenicists influenced the Nazi sterilization, experimentation, and extermination policies–including the medical atrocities first conducted on institutionalized disabled human beings–adults and children. What’s more, the scions of American philanthropy financed German eugenicists and actively supported their pseudoscientific research institutes.

hivemaster
hivemaster

@ReneDemonteverde Dope dealeers don't sell cigarettes because there is no margin for a black market.  You can buy them in a store.

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@TreeplanterI started smoking at fifteen peaked at five packs a day {seriously} and many of my friends started with Mary Jane {yes that is what they call them in the sixties} now two of them have OD on crack and heroin. I am not saying am proud of my smoking. Just quit them cold turkey. They do not call marijuana gateway drug for nothing. My point is that one is as dangerous as the other. But my personal opinion is the that marijuana can lead to more heavy drug use is of much weight than the other. Plus the crime which drug usage attracts. Dope dealers dont sell cigarettes but they do sell marijuana.
 

cherdr23
cherdr23

@JohnDavidson. If you're okay with smoking based on your "facts," that's fine. It can also be okay for those of us who prefer choose to believe the "fabricated evidence" and not smoke.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@JohnDavidson 

I hope they pay you well for shilling for something that kills you. I just can't understand why someone would post a metric ton in defense of tobacco unless they also get paid to do so. It's not that awesome. I mean I like pizza but I don't spend an hour blabbing about it's purported health benefits.

Trust me, no amount of money that they pay you can ever convince me that something that lead to my dads heart attack is good for me.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Think_again@JohnDavidson Are you getting it yet,prohibition doesn't work and especially built upon FABRICATED EVIDENCE to suit the movement!


Its nothing new:



Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.


The bans will be repealed and they used Junk science last the same as this time to justify the bans to begin with!

Think_again
Think_again

@JohnDavidson @Think_again 


You're really not getting this, are you, Sheldon?


On the other hand, you may not be an actual person here, but rather a test version of an automatic Google search engine masquerading as a commenter. The horror!

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Think_again@JohnDavidson I gather your mother smoked during her pregnancy with you then:


Another Insane claim by tobacco control researchers:


Smoking increases chances of child being gay in adulthood, controversial study claimsA neuroscientist has claimed a woman's lifestyle during pregnancy is directly linked to the development of their children, influencing whether they may be gay and having an impact on their IQ


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10582504/Smoking-increases-chances-of-child-being-gay-in-adulthood.html


Care for a lil 3rd hand smoke too.......even more baseless claims by TC

Think_again
Think_again

@JohnDavidson @Think_again 


Sounds yummy -- I want me some of that. Please breathe it straight into my mouth so I don't miss a thing! Nothing says 'I love you' like a kiss from a smoker. You romantic you!

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Think_again@JohnDavidson Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

Think_again
Think_again

@JohnDavidson @Think_again 


Then by all means, go on smoking, John. Rest assured that you will be safe. And if you want to smoke, take it outside and don't spoil my meal. 


Because whatever you find on the internet that supports your opinion must be true. And anything that challenges it will be debunked, also on the internet. How comforting the internet is! You can say anything and be indisputably right! Anything! Woohoo!!


Bye.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Think_again@JohnDavidson


When you look at the actual studies your gonna find the Tobacco Companies were actually pretty honest about there reports.......to this day they have never proven smoking causes one thing in anybody!


JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.


http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409


"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@JohnDavidson @Think_again 

How much do they pay you? I mean I have a crummy job but I don't think any money in the world could make me try to sell the benefits of smoking to anyone. 

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Think_again Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/



(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.


[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
[7.181]).


JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Think_again@JohnDavidson


You've actually got proof of diseases to direct smoking like end point causation please Mr I got em produce them as they do not exist..........All you have are LInked to studies of statistical manipulations......


What you don't seem to realize is all they were able to do was see the chemical and physiological bodily changes that occur during smoking and that's it. The observed changes disappear within minutes to hours but do no harm to the body that can be found. So they took it to the next level using Statistical manipulations of epidemiology to try and make whats called a '' CAUSAL LINK''. They don't want toxicology involved as that would mean they cant prove their manipulated theories of linked to effects of disease outcomes.



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.

Think_again
Think_again

@JohnDavidson @Think_again 


Like caffeine, yes, plus being an addictive drug that tobacco companies use to get you hooked, making you willing to tolerate all of the downsides of smoking (and there are many -- you want the studies, I got 'em) and justify your expensive and destructive habit to the death (literally), just like any other junkie. Junkies will go to any lengths to justify their habit.