Thursday, 15 December 2011

The meaning of vendetta.

I own no Apple products and never will. They declared some time ago that their warranty is invalid for smokers. .I don't care if they change their minds. Mine will not change. Apple are off my options list for all things forever.

I no longer donate to nor buy from PDSA even though I was a regular in their shop, since they declared their belief that second hand smoke harmed pets. I don't care if they change their minds. Mine will not change. PDSA have ceased to exist as far as I am concerned.

Now, (via Pat) Pepsi are on the list of things I will never buy. No product even referring to that company will get a penny from me for as long as I live, no matter what they say in future. There is no going back. A vendetta is for life.

No apology will I accept. None. They have joined the Antismoker Nazis and there will be no forgiveness from me under any circumstance, ever.

This is my vendetta. It means nothing to you and nothing to those companies but it matters to me. I will not pay to be bullied. You can buy all the smokefree stuff you want, you can support harder and harder intrusions into your home and life all you want. I support none of it.

The smoking ban was not just an inconvenience for smokers. It was a starting point, a proof of concept. It was  proof that the Righteous can control what happens on private property. Pubs and clubs and cafes and restaurants. All private property. Shops didn't allow smoking even before the ban. It was their choice to decide what happened on their private property. It's not their choice now..Many of them have not understood the difference.

So the Righteous can now dictate what can and cannot happen on private property and the owner has no say. The idiot drones support it and continue to pay money to those businesses that support it. Controls of anything anyone does on private property is just fine with them. They think it will only apply to those they disapprove of.

How would you describe your home? Private or State-controlled? Where are we now? Is an Englishman's home his castle or just another local amenity under State control?

"First they came for  the smokers..."

I'll modernise that.

"And when they came for Pepsi, the smokers said 'Fuck you'".

Seek no sympathy here, Pepsi, when they come for the fizzy drinks. They have already started on you in some places. Sympathy?. Smokers have long forgotten the word.


Captain Ranty said...

I have a huge list of companies that I boycott.

I even have a state on that list: California.

I will not buy anything made in California. That includes red wine and I drink a goodly amount of it. I always ask in restaurants, in bars, on planes and if it is from California, I won't touch it.

Philip Morris tobaccos are out too. I discovered that they chip in and support smoker bans.

With friends like them, etc etc.


Pat Nurse MA said...

Great post LI and this : "The smoking ban was not just an inconvenience for smokers. It was a starting point, a proof of concept" was why I was against bans when the idea was first mooted in the 90s. They had to keep droning on and on until they got a bigoted and stupid govt in like Labour to give some of credence to what is simply exclusion because of hate.

I hate them all, and like capt ranty, my list of boycotted goods and countries just gets longer each day.

And when they come for Pepsi, I'll applaud.

Anonymous said...

Yes! Pleae DO boycott California products and services - please - yes!

California has stepped up the anti-smoking ads nightly and on prime-time commercial TV, meaning high cost ad placements in the most prominent expensive slots.

And they are all big Hollywood production numbers, high budget ads. And it's a constant streaming of new ones that debut weekly. They are turning them out faster than Leni Riefenstahl.

Tonight debuted this weeks' episodes, one showing little kids claiming things like "I smoke one pack a day but am down from two" and "I am trying to quit but still smoke a pack a day" - then saying that because of SHS, children are in essence smoking - and in case anyone thought the ad cute, they add "and it's no laughing matter".

And the other latest debut of the week shows a man standing off by himself at the far distance of an outside area lighting up a cigarette, and within seconds a lady with small child some dozens of yards away on the far side of this area is pulling out a gas mask and putting it over her child's face. Then when the smoker looks embarassed and flustered, then stubs out the unsmoked cigarette in the ashtray (I'm surprised they permitted showing an ashtray), the lady begins to take the gas mask back off her child and smiles a big toothy grin, as if to say "I win and you lose" to the smoker - all the while the babbling over top is saying something about "if you see someone smoking, make sure to speak up" to tell them to put it out outdoors that is.

So yes, please DO boycott California products and services - and boycott it in plenty - at all times.

The hateful disgusting bastards deserve it for taking things to an all time low, even Hitler would have been proud of seeing.

Twisted Root said...

Gladly added to the list, although chances of using the product were slim anyway. It's a pity that spreading false rumours to anyone you meet about the negative health effects of Pepsi is illegal, immoral and unlawful so I would never do that.

Just imagine, no one could get away with doing such a thing without receiving plenty of attention from the law. Could they?

Anonymous said...

California has been on my list as well for some time. Once visited and enjoyed many years ago but never again.

Pat Nurse MA said...

I'm with you all on California. I visited in 1997 when there was no ban and choice and it was great.

In 1999, the year their ban came out, I visited again. I went into a bar and asked incredulously if it was true I couldn't smoke in there.

The barman replied : "Yes ma'am" as he reached below the counter and pulled out an ashtray.

"But it's my bar and I say you can do as you like."

I have no idea how many other bars may have ignored the law.

New York is also off my list - unless Audrey Silk holds a smokey drinky for visiting smoker allies - but even there I hear there is a modicum of choice in bars for smokers.

Lord T said...

Our homes have been state controlled for quite some time. I think by now even the lollipop man can come in if he wants to without a warrant.

Anonymous said...

There is (or maybe was) a law when the ban first came out 16 years ago that said for owner run bars with no employees, owners could opt in these small bar situations to allow indoor smoking and in the entire state are just a tiny handful, maybe one in San Francisco, a handful scattered throughout the state.

However, liberal-progressive Tom Amiano, who was in San Francisco politics as gay supervisor in advocacy for gay marriage rights and legalization of marijuana and who fought full heartedly for the legislation making tobacco retailing illegal in drug stores as well as endorsing the multiple outdoor San Francisco smoking bans left office for a bigger role in Sacramento in the State Assembly, which is entirely liberal-progressive controlled, as are all offices in California - and since then has gone on to say that the few remaining owner bars that permit smoking will soon lose that right as it is a "loophole that needs closed" - is to paraphrase his quote when he boasted about going after that "loophole" next.

Boycott them all. No tourist dollars and frankly, if you've seen any modern tourist site these days anywhere in the world, then Fisherman's Wharf is just another fake tourist trap, but one where even outdoor smoking has since been banned.

Sometimes tourists will have very confused and sad looking faces, because they will want to smoke a cig but there's nowhere to do it and the signs are everywhere spouting fines, even outdoors.

So it's not like it was in the early part of the ban, 16+ years later it's only gotten worse.

Anonymous said...

Do Apple computers have smoke detectors? If, as a lifelong non-smoker, I sit next to a smoker while operating my Apple computer, is my warranty invalidated? Do I have to take a blood test to prove that I do not smoke? Is my warranty voided by visiting pro-smoking or libertarian sites? Was Steve Jobs cremated?
I was on the point of buying 2 high end Macs but it looks like I'm stuck with Windows.

Lord T said...

Anon, Well they check for smoke and they won't now if it was you or a third party. So I guess you have to keep them in air coditioned rooms.

I await the first law suit with interest.

I of course just won't buy one.

James Higham said...

You need to make a definitive list and post it, so everyone can avoid them.

Leg-iron said...

James - it would be quite a list!

The Apple ban was one of the most bizarre. All those toxic metals and carcinogens in the make-up of electronic equipment and they're scared of a trace of smoke!

If they test for smoke particles, then candles and incense will show up too. There won't be many whose repair warranty will be honoured.

Anonymous said...

Yep, me too. I have a long list of places, goods, hotels, Holliday parks etc that I will not spend a penny with. Not to mention cut up blood and organ donor cards. If I could opt out of NI contributions too I would.

Anonymous said...

Two things I've stopped doing since the smoking ban are donating to CRUK and carrying an organ donor card. I never was a blood donor but am curious as to what would happen if all smokers stopped donating blood. Perhaps few blood donors are smokers. Does anybody know how close our blood banks get to running out? If we could get the smoking ban repealed with this one simple act, it would be a bloodless coup.

Anonymous said...

Can I add this to the list?

Scotts Miracle-Gro Joins List of Companies Who Plan to Fire Smokers
"Lighting up, even at home, will cost them their jobs"

"Scotts took dramatic action because it wants to hold down health-insurance costs by “helping people live healthy lifestyles,” said James Hagedorn, chairman and chief executive."

"Scotts has a dismal health and safety record, with its prolonged exposure of its employees to contaminated vermiculite (see below) demonstrating just how little weight the company gives to the welfare of its employees."

"However, information the company submitted to federal and state regulators in the 1970s and '80s showed that workers were exposed to short-term asbestos levels well above 10 fibres per cm3 of air - more than five times the level allowed under Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) regulations at the time"

I"n 1986, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that asbestos exposure at any level has the potential to cause cancer and in 1989 prohibited the manufacturing, importation, processing and distribution of most products containing asbestos"

EPA Asks Nine Major National Chains to Pull Illegal Miracle-Gro Pesticides From Shelves

"EPA ordered the Scotts companies early this week, and now its major distributors and retailers, to immediately stop selling and distributing Miracle-Gro Shake 'n Feed All Purpose Plant Food Plus Weed Preventer and related pesticide products which can be identified by the invalid "EPA registration number" 62355-4 listed on the package."

"We're taking these steps to ensure that the product does not end up in consumer's homes," said Region 5 Administrator Mary A. Gade. "Our advice to people who have purchased these products is to not use them and store them in a safe, cool and dry place such as a garage or utility shed."

Scotts: 1 worker to blame for recall
"Mary Gade, regional administrator for the EPA in Chicago, said she was offended by a Wednesday news release from Scotts, in which CEO Jim Hagedorn said the EPA told the company to stay silent until a recall plan was approved.

She said that wasn't the case and that the company could have told the public any time since Monday, when the agency ordered Scotts to stop sales of the products"
"The EPA said the registration numbers that Scotts used for these herbicides don't exist. That leaves the company open to fines of up to $6,500 for each shipment of herbicides it made to stores and its lawn service. It's unclear how much that could total."
"Gade said she thinks the plant food was on the market since 2006. She said the commercial fertilizer was about a year old.

"It's unprecedented of a major manufacturer to have this kind of problem," Gade said. This isn't the first recall the company has announced for inappropriate chemicals"

I think that just about covers it.


Anonymous said...


Your spaminator seems to have got me again.
Mind you, it was a huge post with lots of links,so it was only doing it's job.


Frank Davis said...

I've created a Boycott Pepsi image, which can be found here, and a smaller one here. It should have a transparent surround. It'll be up on my blog later tonight.

hangemall said...

Leg-iron, O/T but the UK bends for foreigners yet again.

At max Farquar's place

blogger has computers siezed

PS @ Frank Davis concerning L-I's previous post, I was referring to your comment at Ranty's about Gestalt psychology being another word for bollocks. I put in the example the other day to try to clear up any confusion.

Anonymous said...

"They have already started on you in some places"

Precisely. That’s why they’ve done this now. It’s the corporate equivalent of the playground weed pointing out an even weedier boy as a suggested target to the school bully in order to detract attention away from himself. But if they think that’s going to work for more than a week or two, they’ve got a nasty surprise in store. There are far richer pickings - both financially and in terms of self-satisfaction - to be had by Healthists these days in targeting an industry which has (I’m guessing) around an 80% usage rate amongst the population than there are from an industry which, these days, has only approximately 20% usage.

Personally, with Bacardi & Coke as my own tipple of choice, I’m often informed by bar staff that: “It’s Pepsi – is that OK?” To which my answer has always (until now) been “Yeah, that’s fine.” No longer. The question now will be answered with a definite: “Yuk, no. I’ll have it with orange juice instead, thanks.”

Anonymous said...

Here's a more detailed article about it which explains it a little better. It is still unacceptable that they meddle in people's private lives whether the insurance companies charge more or not. With the no. of employees Pepsi must have all through US I am sure they can negotiate better deals for their employees.

Anyway, I was thinking that perhaps the more well versed of us) can send this call for a boycott including my post in the Pepsi F/B website to the reporter of this New York post article. He just might pick it up as worthy news since it would be coming all the way from England.

Here's the article: (the reporter's e-mail is at the bottom)

Here's the F/B page where I posted under CAGE and Patsy and Michelle Gervais also posted.

Iro Cyr

Anonymous said...

I also boycott any newspaper or mag that editorializes against smokers or in favor of bans and taxes or repeats crazy "studies" uncritically.

There's nothing in my Apple warrantee about smoking. I did, only once, have to bring it in for a fix and got a snide comment about cat hair under the keyboard (it was there, too; cat seems to like the heat of the computer) but nothing about smoke and since smoke doesn't shed, I doubt they could know.. But there was nothing in the warrantee about cat owners either. I think that story about smoke had its origins in a single incident, but I'll google it now and check.

Neal Asher said...

You should check the paperwork on a HD/DVD recorder if you have one. The warranty on mine is void because I smoke.

English Pensioner said...

Have you not seen this in today's Mail?
Men who smoke when they are trying for a family could raise the risk of their children suffering cancer.
As apparently sperm production takes 3 months, so you will need to stop smoking for this period before trying to have a child!
Now I'm a non-smoker, but the fanatics are really straining my credulity these days.

opinions powered by