Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Spectacular own goals.

If there was an Olympic sport for being a comical buffoon, the antismokers would be guaranteed gold every time.

First up is their advertising of a product that is not allowed to advertise, so we'd never have known it existed if they hadn't put it (and its picture) in the papers.

Before the link, there's one more thing. The product is described as -

Critics say the design of the pack and cigarette, which has a white filter tip, makes smoking look elegant, sexy and classy.

Smoking looks elegant, sexy and classy? Who is saying that? Tobacco companies? No, they are not allowed to advertise at all. They cannot speak at all. The reason they cannot currently speak is that they are currently rolling about the floor, crying with laughter, because those words have come from the lips of the antismokers.

The ad - I mean, article - shows a promo shot of the pack and shows a teenage girl lighting up. You cannot buy that kind of advertising. If any tobacco company showed those images there would be outrage. If any tobacco company said those words there would be shock.

So the antismokers are advertising smoking for teens as being cool and fashionable, and they think (I use the word advisedly) that this will stop teenage smoking.

They bring to the world's attention a new and trendy cigarette that the producer would never be allowed to advertise anywhere and they think they are stopping people smoking.

The ASH drones are out in force in the comments but it's far too late now. All they are doing is making smokers laugh harder. Honestly, these people have done some astoundingly stupid things in the past but today they have excelled themselves.

Their second own goal comes in the form of an article on a woman who has given birth after smoking 3500 cigarettes during pregnancy. So, was the baby born nicotine-coloured and coughing? There's a picture of the baby in the article. Judge for yourselves.

Looks fine to me.

Her attitude has caused outrage among health professionals.

Outrage! Outrage, I tell you. Ha ha ha! And a little bit of panic, judging by their hysterical reactions.

Midwives testing her carbon monoxide levels during pregnancy discovered they were six times higher than the level considered safe for the baby.
Specialist midwife Lisa Fendall warned her: 'Your baby is struggling for oxygen, and it's saying "help me".'

As we all know, specialist midwives have a telepathic link to the unborn, and antismokers have been infantilised to the point where they actually understand the 'goo-goo' noises babies make. Unfortunately that's as far as their understanding now extends, but you can't have it both ways.

During her pregnancy Miss Wilcox boasted of her habit - a minimum of 20 cigarettes a day: 'It's making the baby use its heart on its own in the first place, so that when it comes out, it's going to be able to do them (sic) things by itself. Where's the proof that it's so bad to smoke?'

She refused to believe the midwives who told her smoking could cause the baby to be born prematurely, smaller than normal, or with a host of other health problems.

Isn't she wonderful? All those antismokers thumping their little fists and beating their feeble chests and here is Charlie Wilcox who simply does not give a shit about any of it. She refuses to 'believe' and she asks for proof. Does she get proof? No, she gets a snide little 'sic' against her manner of speech.

That is all the antismokers have, you know. Snide remarks and bile. There is nothing else to them at all. They have no value.

Oh, but she goes further.

'I'm not saying smoking is good for your baby. But if you do give up suddenly when you're pregnant, you're probably going to put your baby under a lot more stress, which potentially could do a lot more harm.

This, unlike the rabid babblings of the antismokers, is a valid point. A heavily stressed mother is indeed more likely to miscarry. Does she have a case study to back it up?

'My mate gave up smoking and she miscarried at nine weeks, on the same day I gave birth to Lilly. Me and my friends think it's because she gave up smoking.
'I put it down to her boyfriend actually snapping every fag that she had and banning her from smoking.'

Yes she does. All her mates have come to the same conclusion so there you have it. The court of public opinion has spoken against the tyrannical boyfriend who put that mother under such stress that she lost the baby.

Don't like that, antismokers? That's one real-life case to us. How many real-life cases of second hand smoke do you have so far, with all your doctors and researchers and funding and charities and pressure groups? How many? Sorry, didn't catch that.

Well, antismokers, it seems you've killed a baby. No smoker has ever done that, you know. No, never. You must all feel so very proud.

I have become so sick of hearing smokers saying 'I know it's a filthy habit and I cower at the feet of the Holy Righteous and beg forgiveness. I will take my rightful place out in the cold while continuing to support the pubs, clubs, restaurants and cafes who state they don't want me on the premises' and all the rest of the subservient claptrap.

No, what we need are more like Charlie Wilcox who are willing to set an example and say 'My life, my body, my choice, fuck off.'

And here she is, in the daily papers, reaching the masses in a way no blog or smoker's forum ever could. Thank you, antismokers, for enhancing my daily reading with two of the most spectacular own goals you have ever achieved. Thank you for the further amusement of your drone-responses in the comments.

Care to try for a hat-trick?

Go on. You still have plenty of stupid left in you.

Update: A hat-trick, found in the closing minutes of the day's play. It might not count because it was scored by the Greens but they're all the same team really.


George Speller said...

I'm surprised they didn't refuse to let give birth. They would if they could.

john miller said...

Err, perhaps they're really, really smart?

Previously, you have said that they can only exist as long as there are smokers. This is self evidently true.

They appear to have boosted their donations in view of the increased threat from quintucianal (I'm thinking ahead here, as well as probably making up words, but you get my drift) smoking, promoted by themselves.

Smoking Hot said...

Thanks for thar LI ... made my day!

Leg-iron said...

George - there are those who would stitch smoking women shut. The viciousness of these people would have made Mengele proud.

Dick Puddlecote said...

"Does she get proof? No, she gets a snide little 'sic' against her manner of speech."

And a dog whistle last para about what benefits she claims. Stay classy, Mail. ;)

Leg-iron said...

John - the Dreadful Arnott knows she needs new smokers which is why she, along with the other highly paid Nazis, keep pushing the 'children smoking' theme.

The footsoldiers, the drones, actually believe in the antismoker hype and this sort of thing gives them apoplexy.

That's where the fun lies. There is no way to fight an organisation ultimately run by the unelected of the WHO and which allows no dissenting voices to be heard.

We can, however, make their armies explode. We can bring pain to the drones and we can push the ansurdity to levels even ASH can't cope with.

It has to get worse before it can get better.

Leg-iron said...

Dick - buried in the article was the news that both she and her boyfriend wanted to join the police, but the police have a recruitment freeze.

So they are 'unemployed' rather than 'dole scroungers'. I'm betting they would rather be working.

Actually I wouldn't care if she was on the dole career path by choice. She has not cracked under antismoker pressure, and is a model of defiance.

View from the Solent said...

Those comments are glorious.

"I don't really understand how anyone can think smoking could EVER look 'elegant, sexy and classy'"

Obviously never seen any Bogey movies when younger. If they were ever young.

unborn smoker said...


i agree, women smoking is not a problem - women speaking, however, definitely is. it's not the content, you understand (everyone has the right to repeat the same bunch of crap every day, and, on principle, i defend the right of womenfolk to talk more crap than anyone else), but it's the unrelenting rigour running rap-a-trap rhythm of the discursive delivery which beats me - like an opera of orgasmically obstinate ostinato by philip glass, on one note. when i get out, i'm going to do something about it - invent simultaneous sonic-sensitive-subtitling or something.

kitler said...

LI, here's a treat for you. Check out this exploding cigarette from 'Destroyed in Seconds'...


Anonymous said...

I live in an outdoor smoke-banned city and the anti-smoking propaganda is intensive. There was recently an ad campaign against teenage smoking run on the sides and backs of buses. In it, they had a lovely photograph of a young teenage girl smoking and then saying something about it doesn't really look quite so sexy after all, using that type of language. All in all, everytime I saw that ad flash by, it was more like advertising to youth to please pick up the habit and showing them exactly how sexy it really was. Made me laugh how stupid anti-smokers actually are.

Anonymous said...

What a defiant young lady, good for her.

The pics in the Mail say it all and THIS is what REALLY gets up
the antismokers noses.

They couldn't give a shit about anyones "health" , but defiance
to a control freak is more than they can bear.

Lets have more of it I say.

ciggy, wrath of nokia said...

oh bad day...yeah, it's not smoking that needs banning, it's advertizing. adverts? fucking satanic sexualized subverts, you mean. what those unreconstituted fucking lard-brains at cadbury's don't seem to understand is: it's not how you look that counts, but how sweet you taste...mmm...and believe me, i taste far sweeter than anything any cadbury executive's ever gonna spunk into one of their cheap 'n crappy candy-bars...and when i take these crafty little cunts to court my bare black ass is gonna be the prime witness in the box man...suck it 'an see guys...forget this fat-arsed choc-bloc, it just ain't got a case..."bliss"? me pussyhole...them judge 'n jury's gonna come out straight in my favour boy...huh...cadbury's don't know the meaning of the word...but guess what...they're gonna know the meaning of "agony"...right after i get hold of them by the fucking curly wurlies...hmmmm...you know, i just had the idea for a new brand of perfume...

Snowolf said...

During her pregnancy Miss Wilcox boasted of her habit - a minimum of 20 cigarettes a day

There's the obvious gag about her only smoking 10 a day before she was pregnant, but then she had to start smoking for two.

Anonymous said...

The gas in cigarette smoke 'that could save a pregnancy'

"Carbon monoxide could help control a life-threatening condition in pregnant women"
"The Canadian research followed the observation that women who smoke are less likely to develop pre-eclampsia"

How Does Smoking Reduce the Risk of Preeclampsia?

Carbon monoxide touted as a potential treatment for pre-eclampsia

"The ideal would likely be to maintain carbon monoxide levels comparable to a moderate (say one pack per day) smoker without all the bad stuff in cigarette smoke," he added."

"In fact CO is produced as a normal part of a reaction that generates antioxidants in the blood when tissues are inflamed. It was once dismissed as a worthless by-product of this reaction, but now it seems that the gas itself has the ability to calm inflammation in humans too.

"Your body is already loaded with carbon monoxide," says Huib Kerstjens,"

Instinct, it's a wonderful thing.


Giolla Decair said...

The teen in the mail article isn't even smoking one of the new sexy cigarettes, just an old fashioned cool cigarette (you can just make out it has a tan filter.

I'm amazed they didn't set up a photo shoot with a suitable model, yo demonstrate just what a sexy image the tobacco firm was aiming for.

Obviously if any pretty young ladies would like to volunteer to correct this over sight...

Anonymous said...


When I was pregnant with my first child in the early 80's, I asked my Doctor, also my neighbour and friend, having explained the plant chemistry, exactly why they were now telling pregnant women to give up smoking, as surely this seemed unnecessarily stressful at such a time.

She told me that there was concern in the medical profession that young figure-conscious women might continue to live mostly on coffee and cigarettes, thus ending up with an underweight baby.

A perfectly logical concern that could have been relayed to the patient, without the anti-tobacco window dressing.

It's quite amazing how that little white lie has been warped and twisted over the past 30 years.


smokervoter said...

This story is really growing legs. I've just heard it on Los Angeles talk radio for the second time in two hours. The twerpy thirty-something narrator sarcastically almost breaks out in snide giggles as he reads it out. I treasure Miss Wilcox for her ballast, better a model of defiance than a model citizen 'only followink orders' from der Nanny.

unborn smoker's mother (pro-choice) said...


holy hell, smoking cigarettes whilst pregnant introduces extremely harmful toxins into the systems of both the foetus and the mother, restricts both their oxygen supplies, and can adversely affect the development and health of both parties bloody irreparably. quite honestly, i'm utterly appalled that my little baby's been wickedly disseminating such false information and recklessly endangering the lives of other sproglets, who, unlike he, are predisposed to being of an innocent and unsuspecting nature. my god, i'm clearly rearing a genocidal totalitarian maniac - i'm booking for a termination immediately.

sir trevor mcbonard said...


it has just been announced by kraft foods inc that professor satoshi kanawaza, from the london school of economics, has been dropped from his post as chief psychology consultant for the cadbury dairy milk bliss advertizing campaign. the stupid blind old buffer.

Zaphod said...

Charlie Wilcox has spirit. Good for her!

max splifford said...

02:27, 19:47

well, first-things-first...this is all just so crass that i'm not entirely convinced that it isn't all a put-up, and naomi isn't in on it...but yes, cadbury's seem to have got this completely arse-about-face. the traditional recipe for promoting chocolate has always been to play-up the sexuality of both the male giving the confectionery and the female receiving it - this is a win-win scenario and sells to men and women alike by associating the product with an erotic allure. now...for some inexplicable reason...the advertizers in this instance have tried to be clever and decided to deviate from conventional wisdom...they have targeted the female market and gone for the cheeky "chocolate is better than sex" message (which is humiliating to men), and have attempted to get this idea across by denigrating the most famous supermodel in the world...it's all very negative...and the internal humour doesn't even possess the integrity to carry the naughty racial gag and get away with it...it's basically just not funny...and so it doesn't work...the fundamental problem appearing to be that the fanatical feminist executive in charge of production, who concocted the original comic ad-angle, committed the heinous offence of tangibly allowing her own racism to override and dilute the essential sexist thrust of the presentation...errr...although having said that, i reckon the company could still re-jig the tag-line in a way which might make even the dissed detonating diva herself smile...how about: roll over tiger, there's a new stud in town...?

tee'd off said...


hey splifford, prepare to have a nine-iron driven straight up your bunk-hole.

Anonymous said...

I see that the girl is taking a real kicking in the comments - over 700, at this time! One of the latest six, "Poor baby and I'll bet she feeds her artificially"

I sometimes wonder if The Mail has its tongue firmly in its cheek. I mean, surely it must have occurred to The Mail that their article re the new Vogue cigarette was wonderful advertising for the cigarette? Also, the smoking mum shows that smoking does not harm foetuses? Is it possible that they are deliberately publishing these articles to show how ridiculous Tobacco Control is?

judge jizzo said...

02:27, 22:05

objection milady - first, may i respectfully point out that milady's ass is not strictly speaking a 'witness', but would more correctly be entered as an 'exhibit'. second, i should like to take issue with the honourable mr splifford's hypothesis that the advertizer is attempting to target the 'female' chockie-scoffing market - if this were indeed the case, the advertizing agency would not have opted to ridicule a celebrated black woman, thereby risking instant alienation of the entire black customer-base. of course, in their defence, the confectionery company's intent could have been to make reference to the forename-famous celebrity in the manner of a metaphor for universal sexuality, with no racial or gender-specific subtext implied, thus selling the "chocolate is better than sex" concept to all and sundry - although, it must be said that this presumption is highly unlikely, given the chockie company's previous for being a complete bunch of twonks.


would milady be so kind as to send me a sample of the latest scent she is producing - or, preferably, a personal garment impregnated with it.

opinions powered by SendLove.to