Busy tonight so I'll just do a Hari during my smoke-break and give you other people's work to read.
The antismokers are having a day off from smoker-bashing. They are at the races. Naturally, they're bashing someone while they're there. It's what they do. Taking money from companies whose products might kill people is a bad thing. ASH insist on this absolutely.
As for the mortality of smokers versus the immorality of antismokers, listen to the wise words of Grandad.
Dick Puddlecote plans a visit to Stony Stratford and extends an open invite to all. Watch out for Unite Against Smokers turning up to counter-protest by whining and coughing and waving limp wrists.
Max Farquar has found something that even the Dreadful Arnott must agree is far more disgusting than smoking.
Finally, there is something out there that's killing 25 people a week, and doctors claim that only ten percent of cases are reported so the true figure is likely to be 250 a week. This terrible killer costs the NHS £466 million a year, and again, that's only ten percent of the true figure which would be around £4.5 billion. It kills faster than smoking has ever claimed to, and it costs the NHS more than the most lunatic assertion for the costs of smoking and yet there's not a peep out of ASH or any of the other Righteous groups. Nobody is demanding that the users of these substances pay for their own treatment, nobody is complaining about 'their taxes' paying the NHS to look after the victims of these substances, nobody is calling for the companies producing them to be silenced, ostracised and punished.
Why so silent, ASH? Could it be because it's your funders who kill people faster than the accumulated claimed deaths from anything that can be even remotely linked to smoking?
Who is 'in the pay of the killers' now, eh, Dreadful? Are you going to refuse sponsorship from them in the future, I wonder? Taking money from companies whose products kill people is bad, isn't that what you've just finished saying over at the race track? So you'll be sending that Pharma money back, I take it?
I won't be holding my breath. It makes it hard to smoke.
13 comments:
Something was floating about in my mind that I could not quite identify - and then it struck me. ASH cannot claim that the recession is both harming pubs and not harming pubs at the same time.
Here are some recent posts by ASH. I trust that people will see the basic contradictions. "Oh what webs we weave......."
-------------------------------------
“”Data from the Office for National Statistics shows a net increase in the number of people visiting pubs since the smoking ban. When England went smoke-free in 2007, the number of premises licensed for alcohol increased by 5 per cent, and it has continued to grow every year since.”"
That from Emily Duncan in the Independent 29th May 2011 “The unstoppable march of Big Tobacco”
-----------------------------------------
."""Pubs, like all small businesses have been hard hit by the recession...""" From Arnott.
------------------------------------------
"""However, the pro-tobacco lobby’s claims that the smoking ban has led to pub closures are unfounded. In 2007, the year England went smokefree, the number of licensed premises for “on sales” of alcohol actually increased by 5% [4] and there has been a net increase in the number of people reporting going to pubs since the smokefree law came into effect. [5]"""
Essentially, it is the same statement of fact, but from ASH on 29th June 2011 and unattributed.
Arnott, of course, comments:
""“Pubs, like all small businesses have been hard hit by the recession. But the tobacco lobby group assertion that thousands of pubs in England and Wales are under threat of closure due to the smoking ban does not stand up to scrutiny. The British public are enjoying the benefits of smokefree drinking and dining and there is little appetite for a return to the bad old days of smoky pubs.”""
-----------------------------------------
Is ASH contradicting itself or not?
"Busy tonight so I'll just do a Hari ..."
I do love the way the English can make a man a total laughing stock AND a new byword for something inside a weekend... ;)
and give you other people's work to read
You've got to be careful using language like that. Any minute now someone will crawl over to my place to accuse me of being in the pay of big tobacco!!
There's a big article on smoking in the 'Indy' today...
Not only are ASH taking money from a lethal industry, but one which experiments on animals too. Perhaps the animal rights crowd might like to pop down to Shoreditch and daub threats on a few cars.
03:45
probably very true, but hardly likely to spark off a revolution.
now, moving on to more important matters, i would like to outline the conservative party's position on housing benefit and explain how our policies differ from those of the labour party. yes, well...we wanted to cap housing benefits because current levels are inflating market prices - but some of our natural born voters (landlords) have whispered, pretty damned loudly, in my ear-hole and pointed out pointedly that the exhorbitant rates of housing benefit, which they currently skim off corruptly colluding councils, are all that stands between many buy-to-letters (who rashly invested at the height of the insane housing boom) and certain bankruptcy. so...let's get this straight...apparently...if these houses are repossessed, the market's going to plop like a jumbo without kerosene - therefore, taking into account the impending imf-advised interest rate rises which we should have introduced ages ago, but shirked, there's no way this government can afford to cut housing benefits...
so you may wish to ask how our policies contrast with those of the labour party? well, they don't actually...except for the fact that we're not terminally infiltrated by foreign fundamentalists and extremists...we, in the conservative party, obviously prefer to breed and train our own home-grown terrorists, and then send them to invade sovereign third-world countries in order to carry out essential humanitarian oil-exploration and exploitation.
I'm reminded of a long running soundbite made by the anti-smoking lobby.
"What other product, when used as directed, will kill you?"
It would appear the answer is Champix.
Amusing or tragic, can't decide at the moment.
Hey, Leggie....what do you think of this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/iceland-considers-prescription-only-cigarettes
I'm only asking...
I have finally worked out what ASH could say that would make me quit smoking (if it were true, of course):
"Smokers never die. They just get older and older."
Now that's a scary health warning, Arnott!
Junican - ASH are masters of doublethink. Their drones haven't noticed. They're too busy shouting about smokers being stupid.
JuliaM - thanks for that tip. I am preparing a response (please feel free to laugh like the Joker).
DickP - good point. Set a Righteous to catch a Righteous, eh?
Manwiddicombe - absolutely everyone who has even the slightest objection to the smoking ban is in the pay of Big Tobacco. I'm surprised the tobacco companies have any money left at all.
RTS - ASH's pals produce an awful lot of things that can kill you when used as directed. Faster and more efficiently than cigarettes too.
PTB - that's terrifying. I hope they never catch on to that.
Jones - that sounds wonderful. Prescriptions are free in Scotland. A lifetime of free smokes? Bring it on!
A damn sight safer than Champix too.
Post a Comment