Smokers were once restricted to designated smoking zones. Now we are excluded altogether. Antismokers who liked a drink were ecstatic, they could have the rapidly-closing pubs to themselves, right up to the cry of 'Very last orders, please'.
Oh, they are still safe in the warm pubs for now, but Colchester is leading the way...
Smokers will recognise the method behind this move at once and will know where it leads. The definition of anyone drinking as a 'drinker' sets them apart from humanity, just as anyone smoking ceases to be human and becomes a 'smoker'. They must be kept separate from real people. At first, they are given a special place to go.
The article is simply standard technique in action so let's skip straight to some of the comments -
bobbydionysos Today 05:31 PM
great idea. i suggest the mid-atlantic.
aerojack7 Today 05:18 PM
Why tolerate these sots at all? Round them all up and put them in tent cities on the outskirts until they sober up. You can then direct them to the different agencies to assist them in cleaning up their act.
There should be near zero tolerance with out of control people in public spaces. There are plenty of alternatives to just letting them run amok. Compassion some times takes the form of a swift kick in the pants.
Skep41 Today 04:49 PM
If the spouses of these drunken sots made it easier for them to imbibe they would be castigated as 'enablers'. Now, in these degenerate times, these drunken slobs, awarded the ennobling appellation of 'anti-social problem drinkers' by an indulgent community are considered a needy group of under-served citizens in dire need of a safe, warm venue to work out their psychological quirks. I have a better idea; why not turn the firehoses on these odiferous hunks of human refuse? They'll soon go away.
Does the tone sound at all familiar? Smokers everywhere will recognise the bile and spite in those words at once.
Welcome to Denormalised Club, drinkers. Oh, today it's just those in the street and note that there is no indication they are causing any actual trouble there. Just drinking. Like you do in pubs at the moment. Pubs are indoor designated drinking areas so you're perfectly safe, aren't you?
Smokers used to have indoor areas, and just look where we are now.
I have no doubt that CAMRA will be fully supportive of this move, and of the next one which will be to ban drinking outdoors altogether, because they think it will never affect them. They can dash into their real ale dens and cry 'Sanctuary!' and no ban shall cross the threshold. No ban on any normal pub activity has ever happened, no Western country has ever completely banned alcohol consumption, and if you believe it will stop with Colchester removing the unsightly from the streets, I have a bridge for sale.
So, who's next? Removing anyone over a certain waist size from public view lest they offend the Precious Ones? Police called to stop people putting too much salt on their chips? Ridiculous? Of course it is. Never happen. I mean, it's not as if anyone plans to stop people smoking in their own private cars or homes, is it?
In a way, I'm glad I was in the first wave of denormalisation. It means I will not be shocked by the next wave, nor by the one after that. They aren't coming for me, they've been for me. I've been dealt with.
Now they are coming for you.
So what's it going to be then, eh?
27 comments:
Yup, it's all as you predicted. Those comments would be frightening if we hadn't been expecting this sort of thing anyway.
I'm just waiting for CAMRA to come out with 'We support this move fully. Please don't hurt us'.
They'll imagine prohibition won;t apply to them.
Did Manchester bring in their per unit pricing scam?
I can't find anything searching the web. Probably not looking in the right places!
Sigh. I knew there was a reason why I should start brewing my own.
There is a line in the article:
"We need to bring these people back into society, so they can make a meaningful contribution"
My one big goal is to opt out of society.
Scary words.
I was just wondering over on my blog if these newly proposed 2/3 of a pint glasses might not actually turn out to be part of a move to nudge us away from pints and drinking generally.
http://www.anonymong.org/2011/01/06/nudge-nudge-drink-drink/
"We need to bring these people back into society, so they can make a meaningful contribution"
Yes, but would that be a society you'd want to return to?
William - the Manchester thing went quiet, so I don't know how that turned out. Although i suspect if it had succeeded it would have been trumpeted by now as the next great thing.
£60 a week - it doesn't take long to make wine or beer.
Wine can be made from any fruit. You don't need to buy anything that might be suspicious, in fact if you buy a lot of fruit you will be approved of ;)
All you need is a good stock of wine yeast before you start.
Bucko/Bill - it doesn't look like those drinkers want to be part of society either. If they did they wouldn't smoke or drink.
But then, when you read the comments left by 'society', who in their right mind would want to be part of it?
Giolla - that was my first thought when I read about the 'schooners'. Eventually to be replaced with sherry glasses, no doubt.
It does change the old pessimist/optimist thing. The glass is neither half full nor half empty now.
The glass is too small.
I have a feeling it won't be long before it costs the same though.
Of course it'll cost the same they'll have to increase the tax on it to pay for all the costs to the NHS that's caused by second hand drinking.
it doesn't take long to make wine or beer
To be pedantic, it can take a very long time if you want quality. It'll take at least a month or two for simple things like session beers or vodka*. Fruit wines are pretty fast and might need no more than a few months ageing, for for more complex flavours - root or grain wines, whiskys - it can take years.
The best wine I ever made was utterly foul at six months old, but nectar at two years. (HE Bravery's 'Canadian Whiskey', if anyone is interested)
*so I've heard. I haven't tried distilling myself.
@Giolla - two third pints:
I agree - just as changing the size of a unit (someone quietly decided that a bottle of wine contains 10 and not six units)is part of the process.
Jay
PS is it coincidence that the photo in the article shows someone smoking? Don't think so. So it's smokers who are also the 'drunks'.
You can read them like a book.
Jay
Aren't those guy drinking outside because they aren't allowed to smoke inside?
It happens here, even in Winter. Bar denizens take their drinks outside so that they can smoke while drinking.
Could I recommend First Steps in Winemaking by CJJ Berry?
Its particularly good on wild ingredients and if I remember correctly, describes making sterilizing solution from campden tablets and citric acid without ventilation, as being like a gas attack on the Somme.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/First-Steps-Winemaking-C-J-J-Berry/dp/1854861395
Rose
Well that's the "smokers" and the "drinkers" done, then.
They'll be coming for "Eaters" next.
Oh, er...(I see)....they already are..."obesity" is just the first step....
I once went to a hospital and outside they had a smokers shelter....
Shelter my ****
It was a blue frame with no roof, no sides and no sodding shelter at all. Basically just a big blue metal frame where smokers had to stand to make them look stupid.
I stood outside it and lit up.
Well if you are going to pretend that common plant chemicals in vegetables are deadly, you have to make it look real.
"In 1975, British delegate Sir George Godber informed the World Health Organization how to get smokers to quit: foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air."
"Many plants of the Solanaceae family, which includes the genus Nicotiana, of which the tobacco
plant is a member, contain solanesol; particularly those that contain trace amounts of nicotine.
These include the tomato, eggplant, potato, and pepper.
The potential interference due to these sources is negligible, cooking being the only likely potential source of interference. An interference of this type would bias results high, overestimating the contribution of ETS to RSP."
Terrifying,eh?
Rose
"Odiferous", "Refuse".
'Stink'. 'Filth'.
Get the idea?
That one's easy Leg-iron. It'll be writing DOWN WITH THE RIGHTEOUS in your diary (blog).
This evening had some BBCPRAVDA report about house fires in Scotland over the festive period being ringmastered by some local fire chief, and he said the the six deaths in Scotland were caused by three causes - 1) Alcohol, 2) Alcohol, 3) ALCOHOL.
Then he made a blatantly political statement asking (or demanding) the MSP's to "TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT".
Then the predictable array of bansturbators came hot on his heels, lastly by Nicola "minimum pricing" Sturgeon".
Happy New Year, 6 folk die from over-indulgence and we all have toe the line.
I wish i could remember his name, I'm sure it's the Strathclyde fire chief.
Funny no mention of smoking though...
Funny no mention of smoking though...
Oh, I don’t know. I think that most erstwhile enthusiasts for the anti-smoking movement realise, privately at least, that now that the ban is in, many people – including now lots of non-smokers – dislike it and have been made suspicious and mistrustful of “the authorities” because of its draconian and intrusive nature. It’s like Leggy has always said – somewhere down the line the Righteous always end up being hoist by their own petard, either by ending up with so many enemies that there isn’t anyone left to call “friend,” by working themselves into a corner through the tangled web of stories and exaggerations which they have woven, or simply by getting too big for their boots and over-stepping the mark. In the case of the anti-smoking Righteous, I think they’ve done at least the last two and they know it. I simply don’t think that there is any public enthusiasm for yet more anti-smoking proposals – or am I the only one who’s noticed how little media coverage the new, increasingly imaginative, health-related scares get these days? In a way, the public have been truly “anti-smokered” out and are, quite frankly, getting a bit bored with ASH and their chums banging on, and on, and on about it.
But of course the Righteous, as a breed, don’t give up, do they? They just leave behind them those of their ranks who were previously so helpful and move onto pastures new. Like drinking. And of course, by focussing on drinking and omitting any mention of smoking, I guess they are hoping that the gullible public won’t see them as the same old control freaks re-cycling the same old tactics. The saddest thing, of all, however, is that in that particular respect, they are probably right.
I'm still waiting to for "second-hand drinking" or the more elegant "passive drinking" term to slip casually into the lexicon as if it was always there. Another 10 minute hate for health announces a new round of dogpile on the scapegoat.
I've seen the terms trialed but they sound so stupid and haven't been incorporated into healthspeak yet. Patience. "24 hour drinking"...it's what's for dinner.
Once this gets rolling, how long will it take for the realization to dawn on the the sippers and drinkers, still happily slurping their spirits in smoke free bliss that their number is up?
MadMaude: "A selfish active drinker took my 6 year old daughter away in a blatant and intentionally arrogant extroverted suicide.... you glassy eyed smelly drunks need to be dunked and monked...."
What elegant and rational arguments will they make and how will they respond as even the most sensible counter is rejected by wanna be bullies anxious to get the boot in?
Have fun folks, better find those studies quick....
Wait, what happens to "light beer?"
Never mind, I want it to be a surprise.
WHO gets nod to tackle harmful use of alcohol - 2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2267900320080522
Public 'must be protected from passive drinking'- 2009
"PEOPLE should be protected from "passive drinking" in the same way they are protected from second-hand smoke, Britain's top doctor said today.
Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer for England, called for society to recognise the consequences of one person's drinking on another's well-being - a phenomenon he labelled passive drinking."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23662758-public-must-be-protected-from-passive-drinking.do
Rose
Post a Comment