Tuesday, 26 October 2010

A crack in the smokeless zone.


As many have already noted, smokers are now being evicted from their homes for smoking. In America, for now, but here I already see the ancient and infirm shivering outside so-called 'retirement homes' because they cannot smoke in there. For the sake of the staff, who are to be protected from the truth that second hand smoke has never been shown to harm anyone, ever. That's 'caring for the elderly' these days. Evictions will surely follow. Fix it before I get there or there's going to be trouble. You have about twenty or thirty years.

The smokophobes are now trying the 'science is settled' argument that has worked so well for the Church of Climatology. Their rhetoric, just like the Climatologists, is becoming ever more shrill and panicked. They are being found out in their lies and they are starting to realise it.

Interesting things are starting to happen. Where the MSM would previously no more support smokers than the German national press of 1940 would have dared publish a piece saying 'Jews aren't so bad, you know?', commenters are beginning to question - in the press - what exactly makes smokers so evil.

Dick Puddlecote picked up on this one at CIF. Today there's another one in the Telegraph, written by Runway Head himself. This time there's even a mocked-up image of Smoky Popy Time (for which the grovelling fool apologises in the article. Stop doing that. Say what you mean and mean what you say.). The smokophobes are out in force with their fake science and personal-prejudice-facts as usual. Just as I'd expect no parent to take anything I say about child rearing seriously, how can anyone expect me to take the word of someone who has never smoked when it comes to smoking? If I am an addict, how can I possibly use public transport? How can I fly, without smoking for two hours before the flight, during the flight and in the receiving airport? How did I get to China without smoking? How did I get back? If it's all about nicotine, why don't the patches and gum work? Why have I not switched entirely to Electrofag?

It is not an addiction, it is a pleasurable hobby. You might as well regard railway modelling or crochet as an addiction. All this talk of 'addiction' is the reason some smokers who don't want to do it any more can't stop. They are not addicted but they believe they are. They exhibit the symptoms they have been told to exhibit. The same ones every time. No variation at all and no individuality. Isn't that a little odd?

The smokophobes declare it an addiction, they scream the 'no safe level' crap, they howl about being offended by the smell. The same discredited arguments, the same selfish whining, the same bleating about the trivia of a small amount of smoke, the same insults, the same threats and abuse. Nothing new. Science can never be settled. Their science is settled because it was never science at all.

Well, now their prejudices are being questioned, even by the MSM. The cracks are widening.

They'll fight but they have fired all their bullets already. They have nothing new. Nothing more to threaten us with. All they have - all they ever had - is spite.

If even the MSM can see that now, the tide might not turn yet but at least its advance has been slowed. Maybe even halted.

It's early days. What happens next will be interesting.

I still say - no compromise. All they need is one sign of weakness and the wedge goes back in. Show no mercy.

We've been shown none.

19 comments:

Paul said...

The Wall won't come down for a long time yet. Too much hatred, too much spite. Not only from the establishment in general, but by 'normal' people.

Joe said...

LI I know your an aficionado of electro-fag can you point me in the direction of one that doesn't kick the snot out of me throat please? :)

Leg-iron said...

Not as many as it appears.

The smokophobes are not as numerous as they pretend. looking at the forums over the years, I'd be surprised if they managed above the hundreds.

Most nonsmokers don't give a stuff about smoking. Some have been caught up in the hysteria but not all, and the ones who were are starting to think 'hang on...' because they used to go to the pub too, before their friends stopped going and the pub closed.

The trouble is in that definition of 'normal'. I am normal. Nobody else is, because nobody is like me.

That's what they use as a definition. That's why they have always and will always fail.

Leg-iron said...

Joe - I have two. I use the Titan for funny flavours and the Njoy for standard smoking replication.

The first hit from a new or refilled cartridge is a whack, whichever I use. They settle down after a few shots.

There are many variants out there, almost as many as there are different cigarettes. Which one are you using?

banned said...

"how can anyone expect me to take the word of someone who has never smoked when it comes to smoking? "
Quite so, I was cajoled into attending a 'smoking cessation' meeting but as soon as 'she' admitted to have never smoked herself half of us walked out. 'She' was a deeply dippy woman with no obvious talents who had clearly just landed herself a non-job, hopefully now cutbacked.

Over the years I have heard one or two people voice support for the smoking ban, I'm in favour of it in offices and public transport; in restaurants it was becoming socially unacceptable all by itself. But in pubs NO, Never once have I heard anyone voicing support and have lost count of the number of non-smokers (both on line and out there) who say "I don't smoke but I object to the nannying fascism that prevents your freedom to do so and which diminishes my social life because my smoking mates no longer go to the pub/bingo/cinema or whatever".

Onus Probandy said...

I don't think you are being anywhere near cynical enough.

From my blog...

Answer me this: if you wanted to create a law that said "smokers are evil and must be locked away in cupboards... that must not be closed to the air... and must be at least half a mile from anyone who might detect more than two parts per million of smoke in the atmosphere", who would you get to do it: (a) a smoker; (b) a non-smoker

Anonymous said...

Get back on earth ,Folks
Anti smoking bullying zealots are
no different from any other bullies
Get them alone,ask them to open
their yelping traps and then give them a taste of sadness.
You do NOT deal with fanatics with
ddigital dithering and tears of
remorse.
Seek them,find them,sort them
The only way liberty was ever
maintained

JJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JJ said...

Turning tide?

Leg Iron did you see that item on Newsnight last night? A reporter was asked to find out what political significance there was in Nick Clegg admitting that he enjoyed smoking. The reporter seemed bemused as to why there should be any significance at all…now that’s a first!

Anyway - no matter how many people he asked…absolutely no one was in the least bit interested that he smoked – it was a question of – well so what?

This ties in nicely with your comment ‘The smokophobes are not as numerous as they pretend’.

Slowly, slowly catch the monkey - eh?

Slamlander said...

That link in your first paragraph is for an incident in Vancouver, Canada, and not in the States, sorry.

One of your links did lead me to a Vid that I did use, which I posted at http://slamlander.caselle-vpn.net/?p=1479 , thanks ;)

Eddie Douthwaite said...

Link to the Daily Mail article re Nick Clegg smoking:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323375/Nick-Clegg-confesses-nicotine-secret-Radio-4s-Desert-Island-Discs.html

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

Two Crocodiles were sitting on the bank of the river Thames at Chiswick.

The smaller one turned to the bigger one and said, 'I can't understand how you can be so much bigger than me. We're the same age. We were the same size as kids. And look at us now. I just don't get it.'

'Well,' said the big Croc, 'What have you been eating?'

'Politicians, same as you,' replied the small Croc.

'Hmm. Well, where do you catch them?'

'Down the river near the parking lot by the Houses of Parliament.'

'Strange. Same here. Hmm.. How do you catch them?'

'Well, I crawl up under one of their Jaguar cars and wait for one to unlock the car door. Then I jump out, grab them by the leg, shake the sh*t out of them and eat 'em!'

'Ah!' says the big Crocodile, 'I think I see your problem. You're not getting any real nourishment.
See, by the time you finish shaking the sh*t out of a Politician, there's nothing left but an ar*ehole and a briefcase.'

Pat Nurse said...

JJ - I blogged about the Newsnight programme last night. Pathetic reporting!

LI - tobacco is a herb. The antis portray it as a drug to hype up the false addiction aka weak pathetic smoker image

timbone said...

May I add to what Pat said. It is interesting how many medicines contain naiacin, yes, the posh name for nicotinic acid or nicotinacide, oh, let's not forget vitamin B3

Anonymous said...

US ruling turns smokers into junkies - 1994
"Nicotine is addictive, a panel of experts on drug abuse decided last week. The decision leaves the door open for the US Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco as it does other addictive substances.

Over the past few months, the FDA's commissioner, David Kessler, has been campaigning for tobacco to be regulated in the same way as many other drugs. To do so legally, he must demonstrate that nicotine is a powerful drug, and that the tobacco companies depend on nicotine's addict-iveness to keep smokers smoking. But the tobacco companies continue to insist that nicotine is not addictive. To settle the issue, Kessler asked the Drug Abuse Advisory Committee to give its expert opinion."

"Despite this, a handful of scientists - inside and outside the tobacco companies - claim the Surgeon General stretched the traditional meaning of addiction too far. They claim his report adds to the growing abuse of the word as in pop psychology's 'food addiction' and 'sex addiction'.

'The smoker's ability to think or reason clearly is not diminished when making the decision to quit or continue smoking. In short, this is clearly not a behaviour that the smoker has lost control over.'

"He points out that until the 1960s, most definitions of addictive substances included the intoxicating effect. He said that this part of the definition should still apply, and as nicotine in normal doses is not intoxicating, it should not be considered addictive."

"Some scientists outside the tobacco companies agree. For instance, Robert Cancro, head of the Department of Psychiatry at the New York University Medical School, claims that 'addiction' has become 'a modern shibboleth'. 'A person who seeks pleasure from smoking . . . is different from a person 'strung out' on drugs. The former may enjoy the activity and pursue it; but the latter will reshape his life to obtain the drug,' he said.
Robert Cloninger, professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis, also rejects the notion that nicotine is addictive. He does not believe it causes loss of control over behaviour or physical dependence"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319381.300-us-ruling-turns-smokers-into-junkies.html

Stitched up like kippers.

Rose

Anonymous said...

"...they howl about being offended by the smell. The same discredited arguments..."

Discredited?

You mean, you know for sure that I am not offended? Or that I can't smell it?

What, exactly, do you mean?

Anonymous said...

Sooner smell ciggie smoke than FARTS and sweaty bodies in the pub.

Leg-iron said...

Anon 12:58

I'm used to seeing a sentence, or part of one, taken out of context to produce what passes for 'argument'. However, taking part of one sentence, part of another, sticking them together and calling it one statement is a new low. Congratulations, you have scraped right through the bottom of the barrel.

What I meant by those two separate sentences is what they say. The complete sentences, not just the two bits you chose. It's not hard to work out.

You put me in mind of an obscure quote. Who said this, in which film?

"I mean it like it is. Like it sounds."

Hint: TV film, very weird.

Leg-iron said...

Slamlander - you're right. Canada, America, it's 'abroad on the left' and Europe and Asia is 'abroad on the right'.

Soon my geography will descend into a simple division into 'Tolerant places' and 'Smokish Inquisition places'.

There won't be many of the former so I'll need to know where they are. So I can get in quick before they fill up.

opinions powered by SendLove.to