Many other bloggers who I may have linked to once or twice in the past have commented before on the denormalisation of smoking, and the dehumanisation of one’s enemies is a tried and tested technique. So it was quite fascinating to watch a very blatant example of such a thing on BBC4 tonight in The Smoking years. Notionally a historical program the propaganda aspects weren’t even thinly veiled with smokers referred to as “creatures” and a separate species from early on and in the blurb on the BBC’s web site:

Timeshift reveals the story of the creature that is ‘the smoker’. How did this species arrive on our shores?
….
The Smoking Years tells the unnatural history of a quite remarkable – and now threatened – creature. Warning: smoke-filled nostalgia may damage your health.

The reference to smokers as a separate and worth less species was fairly unrelenting, with the first world war being described as providing the ideal breeding ground, and smokers benefiting from the ingenuity of others – with the development of mass production allowing for cheaper cigarettes to be produced. The obvious comfort and enjoyment of cigarettes by soldiers was closed over as quickly as possible to discuss how importing cigarettes prevented the import of vital food and munitions, and the use of pre-war tobacco cards by the Nazi’s to identify allied ships.

Moving into the fifties we learn that cigarette smoking is the direct cause of 95% of lung cancer. Though there is hope as apparently only one in two smokers die, so take up smoking and you’ve a 50/50 chance of immortality! Unless of course in fact everyone dies regardless of if they smoke or not. But that 50% mortality rate is why big tobacco need to “recruit new customers”. Into the 60′s and when a small survey asked if there should be optional non-smoking sections 80% said yes, this was seen as over whelming hostility to smoking rather than maybe people being considerate and in favour of choice? But it’s ok because we’re told that the “Smoker has been herded into a new ecosystem.” where they can be easily identified. After all the smoker has apparently “accepted it’s fate to live in a smoke free world“, as apparently asking to smoke in someone’s house is now as horrifying as asking to shoot up would be!

As a final interesting adjunct to the program it was followed by a trailer for a show that challenged celebrities to give up drinking for Christmas. Not subtle but then the puritans never have been. As a final thought watch the show and just substitute the word “smoker” with any approved of minorities you like and think how many complaints the BBC would get for that.

 

New Cavaliers Given our Glorious leaders recent warming up of an oft mooted idea to introduce Alchohol price fixing I thought I’d revisit a bunch of articles I’ve had sat open for months now, after of course first observing that such price fixing is verbotten by his masters in the EU as numerous bloggers have observed every time the idea is returned to. They’ll just have to resort to increasing tax (already about a third of the cost of a pint) and ever more dire warnings on bottles as they did for smokers. This re-use of the same tactics is something that other commentators have mentioned time and time again, and every time it gets mentioned the list of places where the same processes can be seen grows longer. If any of this was really for health reasons they’d just ban things out right, rather than forcing simple pleasures (like meat) out of the reach of the 99%*. The way that it’s not just what we imbibe or inhale that gets clamped down on but all manner of expression of free thinking association and fun does rather suggest that the state has once more got a bad case of the puritans.

Sticking mainly to beer and drinking which is a subject close to my heart and even closer to my liver, I’ll observe as many other have the way the age limits in supermarkets has crept up? Remember you can legally buy your own booze at 18 but supermarkets now ant you to be 21 or 25 (has anyone seen higher?). Pubs reportedly now balk at selling a drink to people accompanied by children. Even that CAB article I linked to claims you have to be over 14 to have a drink with a meal, which is odd as I’m sure that I had the odd small drink when out at the restaurant with my family at a far more tender age. Has my memory failed me with advancing years, or has that law been changed quietly whilst I wasn’t looking?

That’s the problem really so many of these changes that whittle away at merry England are done on advice or un-remarked changes to minor regulations. Look at the salami slicing that resulted in smoking being banned almost everywhere and they’re working on the few remaining places. Of course given we spend almost £60,000 on booze in a lifetime that’s a fair chunk of tax they want to keep. So get yourself a home brew kit (works out at about 50p a pint after initial costs or less – even with start up costs it’s only £1.50 a pint) and break out the speak easy signs. If we’re making our own booze (and tobacco) that’s less tax they’ll have to stop us enjoying other things, and they’ll be happy as their figures will show fewer people drinking and smoking. At least until they notice and try to work out how to stop us making our own fun, which judging by human history to date would be a task more futile than King Cnuts.

Perhaps 2012 may be the year for the rise of the New Cavaliers, the outfits are better and it’s more fun than puritanism. Save money, fight the state and have fun all from the comfort of a warm seat and a foaming brew. Being as self sufficient as you can has become a radical act, it deprives the state of revenue, and weakens their control on us. Mind be careful if you swap your own brew with friends as the taxman wants his share from barter as well. So answer the call to arms for New Cavaliers, drink up in the struggle against Islamism and consider it may be beer is best.

* Sorry couldn’t resist that.

 

For a very long time many people have been pointing out that the prohibitionists are coming after everything they can now they’ve seen how well the tobacco ban is going. Well now apparently the smoking ban has been declared a success, so will they come after the next targets with more vigour? Well for those that haven’t noticed they already are:
Having removed smoking in films they want drink free movies,
Tighter drinking controls,
increasing numbers of warnings on packaging,
higher taxes
Or a “new” one this time round rationing
Those tried and tested methods used for smoking, and being applied to drinking are already being lined up for fast food, soft drinks or salt (and salt in food generally)

Of course you can upset them by brewing your own amongst many other things.

(Sorry of this isn’t up to my usual low standards I’m operating on a confused body clock at present)

 

Thinking about my last post during my morning ablutions, a simple question occurred to me (and before lunch simple questions really are all I can manage). I know it’s been asked before but I think it’s worth asking again:

If tobacco and alcohol are so dangerous why aren’t the anti smoking/drinking campaigns asking for them to be banned?

Seriously think about it, none of the pressure groups that claim that smoke and drink are destroying lives, wrecking society and killing thousands of people a year at extreme cost to the NHS are actually asking for them to be banned. If they’re really that dangerous why not? After all we banned the use of asbestos, we’ve reclassified numerous other drugs as illegal why no campaign for an out right ban? Just more and more taxes and greater restrictions.

ASH themselves say:
We do not attack smokers or condemn smoking.
But why not if they want to eliminate the “harm caused by smoking”, how can they not condemn smoking, if it’s as dangerous as they say. Surely that’s a bit like saying:
“We want to eliminate the harm caused by people shooting themselves in the foot, but we’re quite happy for people to shoot themselves in the foot”

I suspect there are three obvious answers:
1) They’re lying but going for an out right ban they know wouldn’t work (pretty much proved by prohibition).
2) They’re self serving control freaks, that know if they ever get us all to stop with our filthy habits they’d have to get real jobs and they’re much rather just meddle in other peoples lives.
3) Both of the above.

If anyone’s got an alternative answer to why none of these health campaigns don’t out right ask for things to be criminalised (as the anti-drugs groups do), I’d love to hear it.

 

Review the smoking banWhilst I still posses my doubts and a certain cynicism towards the new government e-petitions site I figure that it can’t hurt to try it. If nothing else it gives them another thing to ignore and us another thing to point at and say “look you’re ignoring us” – one day this might achieve something. However in the meantime Dick Puddlecote has brought to my attention a petition to “review the smoking ban“, not repeal just you know maybe see if it could be relaxed a bit. It’s even support by Anthony Worrall Thompson so it’s got celebrity kudos and everything.

The antipodean media has noticed that smoking bans are illiberal and maybe it’s gone a bit far. As they say we all “know” that we’ve been told that smoking is terribly bad for us, however over here there are murmurings about banning smoking on cruise ships which would require either a change to maritime law or the simpler method of cruise companies catering to their customers so maybe you could have drinky smokey cruises for those that like them. Also in the firing line are e-cigs even though they don’t have to contain any tobacco or nicotine at all, mine don’t just coffee so what’s there to control – except of course it makes it harder to spot the “smokers” and nicotine is big business these days so heaven forfend that it not rake in huge profits and taxes.

There are load so f reasons to sign it, but I think that has it nailed best “via LegIron)

“However, Smoking Hot raised a good point. One of the staples of the smokophobe’s imaginary world is the phrase ‘most smokers support the smoking ban’ and if we don’t sign this petition, they’ll hold up the low numbers as proof.”

I’d actually extend that to say even us that don’t smoke were never really asked, and I know an awful lot of people who having seen the effects of the ban would be glad to see the back of it. So do sign the petition and spread the word.

 

Shant and a smokeAn article in the register the other day has given me an idea as to how one might bring back smoking in pubs without any need for a change in the law.

The article reports that an American bar has gone self service by use of RFID cards (contactless payment cards) and flow control pumps. So tap the pump with your card and it will let you dispense so much beer. Now sadly this won’t work for real ale but what I can’t help but wondering is this.

If no one is in the pub working because it’s entirely self service, then it’s not someone’s place of employment so surely they’d be nothing to stop people smoking there. The barrels etc. could be in a separate building so that wouldn’t be a problem, if the pub wanted to use it’s own cards then they could sell them and top them up in a separate building as well.

So the only person who’d ever need to work in the pub would be who ever cleans the place up, which would be done when it was shut and no one was smoking there, so again surely not a problem?

Of course the legislation does cover “all public places” which could be a snag but if it were a private club? It wouldn’t fall under the auspices of people working there, it’d be interesting to argue that you’re “seeking or receiving goods or services from the person or persons working there” as no one works there.

It would sadly be prohibitively expensive to test just how farcical this law is. I suspect ASH would probably claim that the 60 a day cleaner was still at risk of second hand smoke.

Of course it’s worth noting that:
“The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for specified descriptions of premises, or specified areas of them, not to be smoke-free despite section 2.”
So under current laws it would actually be trivial to allow smoking in all sorts of places without any need to change anything at all.

 

Polar bear smoking on a block of iceHaving had occasion recently to journey to the fair city of York I picked up a copy of New Scientist to read on the train back home, and came across a few articles that were rather interesting, so in the order in which I encountered them.

The first concerned the ethical problems for anti-addiction drugs – now obviously helping people beat an addiction is a good thing. The drugs described though are vaccines that prevent you getting a high from the drugs, and as the article observes there is the risk that this will just cause addicts to take much larger quantities to get the same high. Nestled within the article between heroin and cocaine and talk of Amy Winehouses death was that they’d also done clinical trials of a nicotine vaccine. Now I’m no scientist* and this is just a flight of fancy but surely vaccines are normally administered before you get ill as a preventative so wouldn’t the more logical use of these drugs be to give them to children to prevent them acquiring the addictions in the first place? Now that’ll be a fun arms race kids Vs the vaccines as they experiment to find out what will still get them high, followed no doubt shortly after by huge law suits when it turns out the vaccines interfere with vital medical drugs.

The next article concerned the use of smart phones to augment CCTV monitoring, the chilling subtitle on the article really says it all:
“These networks will give the government eyes and ears in a thousand places at once”
The general thrust of the article is that with so many sensors on all those smart phones why not get them to report back to the state what’s going on. The two current examples are innocuous automatic detection and reporting of pot holes and GPS jamming signals. But ti rapidly starts talking about making some level of state desired monitoring compulsory by legislation as there are “major public safety issues at stake”. Once that’s done of course requiring additional monitoring devices to be added or getting extra data back will be a terribly easy and seductive idea for most governments. Again a small suggested idea is using bluetooth and such to identify and track stolen handsets, of course an application that’s doing that could very easily also be used to track the movements of phones belonging to “people of interest” (anarchists perhaps), and another suggest again moving from public safety to individual monitoring is that maybe in future your phone could check if you’ve had too much too drink or taken drugs the Government doesn’t like. As it says unless clear principles and checks are in place mission creep will happen, I’d suggest that if we let them even start down this road mission creep will happen regardless – no doubt due to unusual or extreme circumstances as a temporary measure or some such.

The final article I think answers a question that has been puzzling LegIron, why are smoking related diseases increasing as smoking decreases. The answer global warming!

“Air pollutants emitted decades ago are coming back to haunt us. As the Arctic warms, persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, trapped in snow and ice are being re-released. This unwelcome return has been suspected for sometime but is now confirmed by 16 years’ worth of data.

POPs travel around the globe on winds, build up in food and water supplies and accumulate in animal body fat. They have also been linked to serious human health problems, including cancer and can be passed from mother to fetus….”

Now if I’ve understood previous anti-smoking “science” that article surely adds up to dangerous levels of tobacco smoke being trapped in the Arctic and now being released due to man made global warming!!(Is it global warming this week or climate change?). Which can only mean it’s going to get far far worse as we melt back through time to the days when everyone smoked everywhere and all died of cancer before they were 5. At least following LegIrons excellent lead I’ll wager you could convince an awful lot of people that that’s what’s happening.

*Actually not entirely true I’m a few retakes short of being a scientist

 

In case I ever doubt the value of even small protests ever again it’s with some cheer that I pass on reports that councillor Bartlet has withdrawn his motion to ban smoking in Stony Stratford – to allow those opposed to the ban time to prepare their arguments. The Boiling Frog and Dick Puddlecote have more details. Yes it was a small battle and yes he’ll no doubt try again, but these days I’ll take whatever victories I can.

 

Stop the nany state
Not going to say much about the recent protest in Stony Stratford as Dick Puddlecote has said pretty much everything that needed to be said. The turnout seemed to be predominantly local – though the record for furthest travelled must got to a chap over from Russia. The anger both at the proposed ban and the councillor in question was quite pronounced. For a very sodden Saturday morning the turnout seemed really quite respectable, and the atmosphere was very friendly and sociable. The general message did seem to encompass more than just the local ban, and reflect a growing dislike of the restriction of civil liberties, but then again it was a very self selecting group.

I’ve a few photo’s up on Flickr. Due to unfamiliarity with my little video camera I’ve caught neither all of the speeches nor all of the speeches I did capture. However for what it’s worth what I did get can be found here:
Patrick Hayes:

Roger Helmer:

David Odell:

BBC interviewing Nigel Farage:

Nigel Farage:

As ever was good to meet up with the usual rag tag crew of malcontents that seem to frequent these things.

 

Well more freedom demo at the Vaults bar in Stony Stratford, but given Councillor Bartlett’s behaviour so far it does look like we’re dealing with an intellectually unarmed man. Realistically the chance of Mr Bartletts proposals “to ban smoking outside” going through even without a demo are very very slim – but of course we’ve seen that before many times. The first time a ban is proposed it’s laughed at an ignored, so next time round the lack of protest is cited as evidence that people don’t mind. This gets repeated a few times till a ban is brought quietly in somewhere and then other places cite that as evidence that it’s reasonable and that something must be done and then whilst most people are still going “nah, you being daft” the bans spread and is being happily enforced by puritans everywhere. Just consider how many places you can no longer sit quietly enjoying a quiet drink as drinking’s been banned in public places. That there are already laws to deal with anti-social behaviour (what ever that may be) littering and all sorts of other things that are the actual problem doesn’t stop further bans being called for. Much easier to be seen doing something and have a ban that affects everyone rather than enforce existing laws.

So even if you don’t smoke this is important, as do we really want such blanket bans of legal behaviour being introduced by councils? Do you really think that a bit of smoke in the open air by a road side is a problem? There’s even some evidence that smoking may have some health benefits (H/T Dick Puddlecote). So if you’re at all able to come along to Stony Stratford to protest the proposed ban and of course have a drink (before they try banning that again as well).

If you don’t see the thin end of this wedge consider that they’re no claiming that there’s no safe level of alcohol, water is bad for you and salt’s bad as well. All ludicrous but all things that keep coming round and around in the same way previous bans and restrictions have – so lets start fighting the battles earlier rather than waiting till the bans, taxes and restrictions are already in place. Looks like Stony Stratford is the place to say enough already.

See you there?

© 2011 Anonymong Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha