Banning SHS at Home

H/T WS. More fascism. Banning SHS in the home:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) — The last refuge is vanishing for besieged smokers — at least in Honduras. A new law that took effect Monday says family members can call in the police on people who smoke at home.

The new measure bans smoking in most closed public or private spaces and orders smokers to stand at least six feet away from nonsmokers in any open space.

The law explicitly bans smoking in schools, gas stations, nightclubs, restaurants, bars, buses, taxis, stadiums and cultural centers but it doesn’t clearly ban smoking at home.

A clause, however, expressly says relatives or visitors can summon police to deal with smokers at home: “Families or individuals may complain to law enforcement authorities when smokers expose them to secondhand smoke in private places and family homes.”

Rony Portillo, director of the Institute to Prevent Alcoholism and Drug Addiction, said those who violate the law will first receive a verbal warning and after the second offense could be arrested. To be released they would have to pay a $311 fine, the equivalent of a monthly minimum wage salary in Honduras.

I guess that’s one way of starting to make smoking at home illegal, at least in the company of other people. It’s also a way to start to make smoky-drinkies illegal.

Seems there’s no limit to how much they’re prepared to coerce people to get their way. Why don’t the cunts just make tobacco illegal?

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Banning SHS at Home

  1. Anonymous says:

    Now here’s one of my oddest musings for you, Frank, and it’s a bit of a nut-job one, I’ll admit. I’ve often wondered exactly what it is that organisations like the WHO have so much against smoking. There are lots of possibilities, of course, but one that I’ve often come back to (and often the only one which makes sense to me in terms of their total and utter obsession with it over and above all else which they have to deal with) is that there is something really, really, really good about smoking, and they are terrified that people will realise it – so they’re determined to stamp it out before people cotton on.
    Now, I know there’s lots of medical evidence of good things that smoking does, like alleviating allergic asthmatic conditions and stimulating mental processes to discourage things like Alzheimer’s and lifting one’s mood to alleviate depression, but I’m talking here about something really, really, really good at a kind of spiritual level. Almost like it’s one of God’s (or whoever’s) special gifts to mankind – the salve for the soul and the nourishment for the mind. And I have to say that when I see things like the floods in the extending ban-land that is Australia and the recent earthquake in “tobacco prohibition by 2017” New Zealand I start to wonder if there’s a bit of divine retribution going on – almost like a higher power is saying: “Enough is enough. I’ve given you this wonderful thing which can lift you up to be more than just animals crawling on the earth, eating, sleeping and spawning, and all you do is attack it and attack those who appreciate it. I’ve let you go so far with your petty complaints and moans and telling fibs to each other, but now I’ve lost patience with you. Just stop. Now.” There’s 9/11, too, of course, which took place in prohibitionist New York, but I’m not so sure about that one because divine retribution (traditionally) takes place through “natural forces” rather than man-induced ones. But it’s another possibility. When I start thinking along those lines it makes me very, very glad that I don’t live in Canada! It increasingly seems, these days, that where bans become too harsh, too unfair, too restrictive, some kind of disaster follows.
    And with bans extending worldwide at a rate of knots, don’t let’s forget that nasty great caldera bubbling away underneath, ironically, that “spiritual home of the anti-smoking movement,” the USA. You know, the one which, if it blows (which it is due to do) is likely to wipe out pretty much all of modern civilisation as we know it. That might just be God’s (or whoever’s) last word on the matter if man doesn’t pull his horns in on this.
    There. Told you it was a nut-job, didn’t I? One of my madder theories on life ….

    • Anonymous says:

      Almost like it’s one of God’s (or whoever’s) special gifts to mankind – the salve for the soul and the nourishment for the mind.
      Isn’t “the salve” for the soul supposed to be the repetition of a “mistake” until it is recognised as such?
      And I have to say that when I see things like the floods in the extending ban-land that is Australia and the recent earthquake in “tobacco prohibition by 2017” New Zealand I start to wonder if there’s a bit of divine retribution going on…
      The first thing that springs to mind:
      Did these disasters differentiate between smokers and non-smokers, believers and non-believers and so on? Why not?

      • Anonymous says:

        “Isn’t “the salve” for the soul supposed to be the repetition of a “mistake” until it is recognised as such?”
        Oh dear! Then I think that humanity is in for a bit of a long wait for its “salve,” being as we don’t, as a species, seem to be very good at learning from our previous mistakes – as the targeted persecution of smokers around the world clearly indicates ……
        Did these disasters differentiate between smokers and non-smokers, believers and non-believers and so on? Why not?
        No, of course it didn’t. But I don’t think that this kind of retribution works in quite the same way as the kind of individual “punishments” or “retributions” which we dole out to each other in human-land. I think it’s more of a retribution towards a whole group of people (or a nation). I think that God (or whoever’s) perspective is much wider than our little human one, no matter how broad-minded we are, and thus we don’t always understand the reasoning behind things and why they don’t make exceptions for the “good” people – because that’s how we as humans reason things out.
        But to put a human perspective on it for a minute, maybe it’s aimed to say something along the lines of: “For goodness sake, will you all just get a sense of damned perspective on life and pull together rather than squabbling amongst yourselves. Non-smokers – stop feeling smug and moaning about a little smell. You’ve got to the point now where you’re just indulging in gratuitous bullying against supporters of my magic plant, and I didn’t put it there for that purpose. Smokers – stop being so darned wimpish and be a bit assertive, will you? There’s plenty of you – just because you personally may not be too affected by the bans doesn’t mean that there aren’t smokers out there who are really badly affected by it – you should be pulling together, too, and standing up to the bad elements in your midst, not just getting by in your own little way or leaving it to a tiny handful of people to fight your battles for you and “rescue” you. No? OK then, I’ll give you all something which you won’t like one little bit, but which will make you pull together.” A bit like a parent sending both of their kids to their bedrooms for squabbling with each other, regardless of who started it, but bigger!
        But then again, these are just musings, and I’m not God (or whoever) – I did apply for the job but got turned down! Ha, ha, ha! – and of course I don’t rule out the possibility that it’s just good old Nature doing what she does ……..

        • Anonymous says:

          Smokers – stop being so darned wimpish and be a bit assertive, will you? There’s plenty of you – just because you personally may not be too affected by the bans doesn’t mean that there aren’t smokers out there who are really badly affected by it – you should be pulling together, too, and standing up to the bad elements in your midst, not just getting by in your own little way or leaving it to a tiny handful of people to fight your battles for you and “rescue” you
          Looking at the “denormalisation efforts” such as demonising smokers, one is led to believe the anti-smoking lobby did anticipate such behaviour.
          Also, wouldn’t it be pointless to deal out “punishments” or “retribution” to the fearful – especially those who use every excuse they can possibly dream up to justify their behaviour and quickly point the finger of blame?
          Taking a rather wild shot myself now – could it be that it is the retribution smokers might dish out that being feared to the extend of keeping attacks on us going?

        • Anonymous says:

          I forgot – I didn’t apply for the God job – too much work and too little job satisfaction.

        • Anonymous says:

          I forgot – I didn’t apply for the God job – too much work and too little job satisfaction.

        • Anonymous says:

          I forgot – I didn’t apply for the God job – too much work and too little job satisfaction.

        • Anonymous says:

          Smokers – stop being so darned wimpish and be a bit assertive, will you? There’s plenty of you – just because you personally may not be too affected by the bans doesn’t mean that there aren’t smokers out there who are really badly affected by it – you should be pulling together, too, and standing up to the bad elements in your midst, not just getting by in your own little way or leaving it to a tiny handful of people to fight your battles for you and “rescue” you
          Looking at the “denormalisation efforts” such as demonising smokers, one is led to believe the anti-smoking lobby did anticipate such behaviour.
          Also, wouldn’t it be pointless to deal out “punishments” or “retribution” to the fearful – especially those who use every excuse they can possibly dream up to justify their behaviour and quickly point the finger of blame?
          Taking a rather wild shot myself now – could it be that it is the retribution smokers might dish out that being feared to the extend of keeping attacks on us going?

        • Anonymous says:

          Smokers – stop being so darned wimpish and be a bit assertive, will you? There’s plenty of you – just because you personally may not be too affected by the bans doesn’t mean that there aren’t smokers out there who are really badly affected by it – you should be pulling together, too, and standing up to the bad elements in your midst, not just getting by in your own little way or leaving it to a tiny handful of people to fight your battles for you and “rescue” you
          Looking at the “denormalisation efforts” such as demonising smokers, one is led to believe the anti-smoking lobby did anticipate such behaviour.
          Also, wouldn’t it be pointless to deal out “punishments” or “retribution” to the fearful – especially those who use every excuse they can possibly dream up to justify their behaviour and quickly point the finger of blame?
          Taking a rather wild shot myself now – could it be that it is the retribution smokers might dish out that being feared to the extend of keeping attacks on us going?

      • Anonymous says:

        “Isn’t “the salve” for the soul supposed to be the repetition of a “mistake” until it is recognised as such?”
        Oh dear! Then I think that humanity is in for a bit of a long wait for its “salve,” being as we don’t, as a species, seem to be very good at learning from our previous mistakes – as the targeted persecution of smokers around the world clearly indicates ……
        Did these disasters differentiate between smokers and non-smokers, believers and non-believers and so on? Why not?
        No, of course it didn’t. But I don’t think that this kind of retribution works in quite the same way as the kind of individual “punishments” or “retributions” which we dole out to each other in human-land. I think it’s more of a retribution towards a whole group of people (or a nation). I think that God (or whoever’s) perspective is much wider than our little human one, no matter how broad-minded we are, and thus we don’t always understand the reasoning behind things and why they don’t make exceptions for the “good” people – because that’s how we as humans reason things out.
        But to put a human perspective on it for a minute, maybe it’s aimed to say something along the lines of: “For goodness sake, will you all just get a sense of damned perspective on life and pull together rather than squabbling amongst yourselves. Non-smokers – stop feeling smug and moaning about a little smell. You’ve got to the point now where you’re just indulging in gratuitous bullying against supporters of my magic plant, and I didn’t put it there for that purpose. Smokers – stop being so darned wimpish and be a bit assertive, will you? There’s plenty of you – just because you personally may not be too affected by the bans doesn’t mean that there aren’t smokers out there who are really badly affected by it – you should be pulling together, too, and standing up to the bad elements in your midst, not just getting by in your own little way or leaving it to a tiny handful of people to fight your battles for you and “rescue” you. No? OK then, I’ll give you all something which you won’t like one little bit, but which will make you pull together.” A bit like a parent sending both of their kids to their bedrooms for squabbling with each other, regardless of who started it, but bigger!
        But then again, these are just musings, and I’m not God (or whoever) – I did apply for the job but got turned down! Ha, ha, ha! – and of course I don’t rule out the possibility that it’s just good old Nature doing what she does ……..

      • Anonymous says:

        “Isn’t “the salve” for the soul supposed to be the repetition of a “mistake” until it is recognised as such?”
        Oh dear! Then I think that humanity is in for a bit of a long wait for its “salve,” being as we don’t, as a species, seem to be very good at learning from our previous mistakes – as the targeted persecution of smokers around the world clearly indicates ……
        Did these disasters differentiate between smokers and non-smokers, believers and non-believers and so on? Why not?
        No, of course it didn’t. But I don’t think that this kind of retribution works in quite the same way as the kind of individual “punishments” or “retributions” which we dole out to each other in human-land. I think it’s more of a retribution towards a whole group of people (or a nation). I think that God (or whoever’s) perspective is much wider than our little human one, no matter how broad-minded we are, and thus we don’t always understand the reasoning behind things and why they don’t make exceptions for the “good” people – because that’s how we as humans reason things out.
        But to put a human perspective on it for a minute, maybe it’s aimed to say something along the lines of: “For goodness sake, will you all just get a sense of damned perspective on life and pull together rather than squabbling amongst yourselves. Non-smokers – stop feeling smug and moaning about a little smell. You’ve got to the point now where you’re just indulging in gratuitous bullying against supporters of my magic plant, and I didn’t put it there for that purpose. Smokers – stop being so darned wimpish and be a bit assertive, will you? There’s plenty of you – just because you personally may not be too affected by the bans doesn’t mean that there aren’t smokers out there who are really badly affected by it – you should be pulling together, too, and standing up to the bad elements in your midst, not just getting by in your own little way or leaving it to a tiny handful of people to fight your battles for you and “rescue” you. No? OK then, I’ll give you all something which you won’t like one little bit, but which will make you pull together.” A bit like a parent sending both of their kids to their bedrooms for squabbling with each other, regardless of who started it, but bigger!
        But then again, these are just musings, and I’m not God (or whoever) – I did apply for the job but got turned down! Ha, ha, ha! – and of course I don’t rule out the possibility that it’s just good old Nature doing what she does ……..

    • Anonymous says:

      Almost like it’s one of God’s (or whoever’s) special gifts to mankind – the salve for the soul and the nourishment for the mind.
      Isn’t “the salve” for the soul supposed to be the repetition of a “mistake” until it is recognised as such?
      And I have to say that when I see things like the floods in the extending ban-land that is Australia and the recent earthquake in “tobacco prohibition by 2017” New Zealand I start to wonder if there’s a bit of divine retribution going on…
      The first thing that springs to mind:
      Did these disasters differentiate between smokers and non-smokers, believers and non-believers and so on? Why not?

    • Anonymous says:

      Almost like it’s one of God’s (or whoever’s) special gifts to mankind – the salve for the soul and the nourishment for the mind.
      Isn’t “the salve” for the soul supposed to be the repetition of a “mistake” until it is recognised as such?
      And I have to say that when I see things like the floods in the extending ban-land that is Australia and the recent earthquake in “tobacco prohibition by 2017” New Zealand I start to wonder if there’s a bit of divine retribution going on…
      The first thing that springs to mind:
      Did these disasters differentiate between smokers and non-smokers, believers and non-believers and so on? Why not?

    • frank_davis says:

      There’s 9/11, too, of course, which took place in prohibitionist New York
      Smoking wasn’t banned in New York city until after 9/11. As in the following report:
      NEW YORK, March 30, 2003
      NYC Smoking Ban Debuts
      I’m puzzled too about their obsession with smoking, of course. I think it’s that they see it is an unnecessary waste of money. Same with alcohol. And in fact anything anyone enjoys doing. Puritans, as I understand them, want to get rid of everything that is unnecessary.
      Frank

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks for pointing that out, Frank – I stand corrected on that one then. Mind you, I wasn’t totally convinced it should be included anyway. And this is all just a weird theory of mine, so it’s open to being completely disproved …..

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks for pointing that out, Frank – I stand corrected on that one then. Mind you, I wasn’t totally convinced it should be included anyway. And this is all just a weird theory of mine, so it’s open to being completely disproved …..

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks for pointing that out, Frank – I stand corrected on that one then. Mind you, I wasn’t totally convinced it should be included anyway. And this is all just a weird theory of mine, so it’s open to being completely disproved …..

    • Frank Davis says:

      There’s 9/11, too, of course, which took place in prohibitionist New York
      Smoking wasn’t banned in New York city until after 9/11. As in the following report:
      NEW YORK, March 30, 2003
      NYC Smoking Ban Debuts
      I’m puzzled too about their obsession with smoking, of course. I think it’s that they see it is an unnecessary waste of money. Same with alcohol. And in fact anything anyone enjoys doing. Puritans, as I understand them, want to get rid of everything that is unnecessary.
      Frank

    • Frank Davis says:

      There’s 9/11, too, of course, which took place in prohibitionist New York
      Smoking wasn’t banned in New York city until after 9/11. As in the following report:
      NEW YORK, March 30, 2003
      NYC Smoking Ban Debuts
      I’m puzzled too about their obsession with smoking, of course. I think it’s that they see it is an unnecessary waste of money. Same with alcohol. And in fact anything anyone enjoys doing. Puritans, as I understand them, want to get rid of everything that is unnecessary.
      Frank

  2. Anonymous says:

    Now here’s one of my oddest musings for you, Frank, and it’s a bit of a nut-job one, I’ll admit. I’ve often wondered exactly what it is that organisations like the WHO have so much against smoking. There are lots of possibilities, of course, but one that I’ve often come back to (and often the only one which makes sense to me in terms of their total and utter obsession with it over and above all else which they have to deal with) is that there is something really, really, really good about smoking, and they are terrified that people will realise it – so they’re determined to stamp it out before people cotton on.
    Now, I know there’s lots of medical evidence of good things that smoking does, like alleviating allergic asthmatic conditions and stimulating mental processes to discourage things like Alzheimer’s and lifting one’s mood to alleviate depression, but I’m talking here about something really, really, really good at a kind of spiritual level. Almost like it’s one of God’s (or whoever’s) special gifts to mankind – the salve for the soul and the nourishment for the mind. And I have to say that when I see things like the floods in the extending ban-land that is Australia and the recent earthquake in “tobacco prohibition by 2017” New Zealand I start to wonder if there’s a bit of divine retribution going on – almost like a higher power is saying: “Enough is enough. I’ve given you this wonderful thing which can lift you up to be more than just animals crawling on the earth, eating, sleeping and spawning, and all you do is attack it and attack those who appreciate it. I’ve let you go so far with your petty complaints and moans and telling fibs to each other, but now I’ve lost patience with you. Just stop. Now.” There’s 9/11, too, of course, which took place in prohibitionist New York, but I’m not so sure about that one because divine retribution (traditionally) takes place through “natural forces” rather than man-induced ones. But it’s another possibility. When I start thinking along those lines it makes me very, very glad that I don’t live in Canada! It increasingly seems, these days, that where bans become too harsh, too unfair, too restrictive, some kind of disaster follows.
    And with bans extending worldwide at a rate of knots, don’t let’s forget that nasty great caldera bubbling away underneath, ironically, that “spiritual home of the anti-smoking movement,” the USA. You know, the one which, if it blows (which it is due to do) is likely to wipe out pretty much all of modern civilisation as we know it. That might just be God’s (or whoever’s) last word on the matter if man doesn’t pull his horns in on this.
    There. Told you it was a nut-job, didn’t I? One of my madder theories on life ….

  3. Anonymous says:

    Now here’s one of my oddest musings for you, Frank, and it’s a bit of a nut-job one, I’ll admit. I’ve often wondered exactly what it is that organisations like the WHO have so much against smoking. There are lots of possibilities, of course, but one that I’ve often come back to (and often the only one which makes sense to me in terms of their total and utter obsession with it over and above all else which they have to deal with) is that there is something really, really, really good about smoking, and they are terrified that people will realise it – so they’re determined to stamp it out before people cotton on.
    Now, I know there’s lots of medical evidence of good things that smoking does, like alleviating allergic asthmatic conditions and stimulating mental processes to discourage things like Alzheimer’s and lifting one’s mood to alleviate depression, but I’m talking here about something really, really, really good at a kind of spiritual level. Almost like it’s one of God’s (or whoever’s) special gifts to mankind – the salve for the soul and the nourishment for the mind. And I have to say that when I see things like the floods in the extending ban-land that is Australia and the recent earthquake in “tobacco prohibition by 2017” New Zealand I start to wonder if there’s a bit of divine retribution going on – almost like a higher power is saying: “Enough is enough. I’ve given you this wonderful thing which can lift you up to be more than just animals crawling on the earth, eating, sleeping and spawning, and all you do is attack it and attack those who appreciate it. I’ve let you go so far with your petty complaints and moans and telling fibs to each other, but now I’ve lost patience with you. Just stop. Now.” There’s 9/11, too, of course, which took place in prohibitionist New York, but I’m not so sure about that one because divine retribution (traditionally) takes place through “natural forces” rather than man-induced ones. But it’s another possibility. When I start thinking along those lines it makes me very, very glad that I don’t live in Canada! It increasingly seems, these days, that where bans become too harsh, too unfair, too restrictive, some kind of disaster follows.
    And with bans extending worldwide at a rate of knots, don’t let’s forget that nasty great caldera bubbling away underneath, ironically, that “spiritual home of the anti-smoking movement,” the USA. You know, the one which, if it blows (which it is due to do) is likely to wipe out pretty much all of modern civilisation as we know it. That might just be God’s (or whoever’s) last word on the matter if man doesn’t pull his horns in on this.
    There. Told you it was a nut-job, didn’t I? One of my madder theories on life ….

  4. Anonymous says:

    Illegal
    “Why don’t the cunts just make tobacco illegal?”
    Because it’s illegal to make tobacco illegal! Can’t stop a legitimate company trading you know, but we can stop all it’s customers from buying the product.

    • Anonymous says:

      Re: Illegal
      Is that true? Really, really true? Because if it is, then I’m fascinated by the concept. Is there some kind of higher “ruling” for legislators which prohibits them from making hitherto legal things illegal? Is that why they’ve never made other drugs, such as cannabis, “legal” (the official term they use is always “decriminalised” which is a bit different) – because once they’re in, they can’t get out? And if there is, who wrote it in the first place? And if it is an official obligation, isn’t there a legal angle which would say that if legislators effectively make it impossible for consumers to use a company’s products then it gets to the point whereby they are, effectively, stopping the trade of a legitimate company? Interesting – and it would certainly answer Frank’s question (and mine – I’ve asked myself the same thing many times).
      Or is it more of a moral obligation which politicians (amoral as they are) reluctantly agree to adhere to? Or a practical one (dismantling an entire industry would, after all, have enormous ramifications for an economy and have huge levels of fallout which would last for years)? I did once hear a politician on the radio say something along the lines of “we can’t bring in legislation which would deliberately put people out of business” but he didn’t elaborate as to whether this was an official obligation or just a moral/practical one.
      I’m assuming here that you’re talking about the UK – maybe all western democracies – rather than dictatorship-type regimes where they can do as they wish (like Bhutan).
      Tell me more …….

      • frank_davis says:

        Re: Illegal
        you’re talking about the UK – maybe all western democracies – rather than dictatorship-type regimes where they can do as they wish
        Are we in the UK still a democracy? It seems more like a dictatorship to me. The people didn’t want a complete smoking ban and didn’t vote for a complete smoking ban, but they had one imposed on them anyway. The antismokers never go the democratic route to get their way, because they know they’ll get stopped. That we have a smoking ban is an indicator that democracy has been subverted in this respect at least. But the smoking ban provides a precedent for introducing all sorts of other restrictions, using the same methods. And that’s dictatorship via the back door.
        Frank

      • Frank Davis says:

        Re: Illegal
        you’re talking about the UK – maybe all western democracies – rather than dictatorship-type regimes where they can do as they wish
        Are we in the UK still a democracy? It seems more like a dictatorship to me. The people didn’t want a complete smoking ban and didn’t vote for a complete smoking ban, but they had one imposed on them anyway. The antismokers never go the democratic route to get their way, because they know they’ll get stopped. That we have a smoking ban is an indicator that democracy has been subverted in this respect at least. But the smoking ban provides a precedent for introducing all sorts of other restrictions, using the same methods. And that’s dictatorship via the back door.
        Frank

      • Frank Davis says:

        Re: Illegal
        you’re talking about the UK – maybe all western democracies – rather than dictatorship-type regimes where they can do as they wish
        Are we in the UK still a democracy? It seems more like a dictatorship to me. The people didn’t want a complete smoking ban and didn’t vote for a complete smoking ban, but they had one imposed on them anyway. The antismokers never go the democratic route to get their way, because they know they’ll get stopped. That we have a smoking ban is an indicator that democracy has been subverted in this respect at least. But the smoking ban provides a precedent for introducing all sorts of other restrictions, using the same methods. And that’s dictatorship via the back door.
        Frank

    • Anonymous says:

      Re: Illegal
      Is that true? Really, really true? Because if it is, then I’m fascinated by the concept. Is there some kind of higher “ruling” for legislators which prohibits them from making hitherto legal things illegal? Is that why they’ve never made other drugs, such as cannabis, “legal” (the official term they use is always “decriminalised” which is a bit different) – because once they’re in, they can’t get out? And if there is, who wrote it in the first place? And if it is an official obligation, isn’t there a legal angle which would say that if legislators effectively make it impossible for consumers to use a company’s products then it gets to the point whereby they are, effectively, stopping the trade of a legitimate company? Interesting – and it would certainly answer Frank’s question (and mine – I’ve asked myself the same thing many times).
      Or is it more of a moral obligation which politicians (amoral as they are) reluctantly agree to adhere to? Or a practical one (dismantling an entire industry would, after all, have enormous ramifications for an economy and have huge levels of fallout which would last for years)? I did once hear a politician on the radio say something along the lines of “we can’t bring in legislation which would deliberately put people out of business” but he didn’t elaborate as to whether this was an official obligation or just a moral/practical one.
      I’m assuming here that you’re talking about the UK – maybe all western democracies – rather than dictatorship-type regimes where they can do as they wish (like Bhutan).
      Tell me more …….

    • Anonymous says:

      Re: Illegal
      Is that true? Really, really true? Because if it is, then I’m fascinated by the concept. Is there some kind of higher “ruling” for legislators which prohibits them from making hitherto legal things illegal? Is that why they’ve never made other drugs, such as cannabis, “legal” (the official term they use is always “decriminalised” which is a bit different) – because once they’re in, they can’t get out? And if there is, who wrote it in the first place? And if it is an official obligation, isn’t there a legal angle which would say that if legislators effectively make it impossible for consumers to use a company’s products then it gets to the point whereby they are, effectively, stopping the trade of a legitimate company? Interesting – and it would certainly answer Frank’s question (and mine – I’ve asked myself the same thing many times).
      Or is it more of a moral obligation which politicians (amoral as they are) reluctantly agree to adhere to? Or a practical one (dismantling an entire industry would, after all, have enormous ramifications for an economy and have huge levels of fallout which would last for years)? I did once hear a politician on the radio say something along the lines of “we can’t bring in legislation which would deliberately put people out of business” but he didn’t elaborate as to whether this was an official obligation or just a moral/practical one.
      I’m assuming here that you’re talking about the UK – maybe all western democracies – rather than dictatorship-type regimes where they can do as they wish (like Bhutan).
      Tell me more …….

  5. Anonymous says:

    Illegal
    “Why don’t the cunts just make tobacco illegal?”
    Because it’s illegal to make tobacco illegal! Can’t stop a legitimate company trading you know, but we can stop all it’s customers from buying the product.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Illegal
    “Why don’t the cunts just make tobacco illegal?”
    Because it’s illegal to make tobacco illegal! Can’t stop a legitimate company trading you know, but we can stop all it’s customers from buying the product.

  7. Anonymous says:

    XX (Anonymous)
    2011-02-24 02:30 am (UTC) Track This
    Now here’s one of my oddest musings for you, Frank, and it’s a bit of a nut-job one,… I’ve often wondered exactly what it is that organisations like the WHO have so much against smoking. …their total and utter obsession with it over and above all else which they have to deal with) is that there is something really, really, really good about smoking,…XX
    I have asked the same question about canabis for YEARS.
    Take out the obvious places, Holland, Portugal, Calfornia, and there is NO country in the world that has not attempted to ban the shit out of it. Not even perscriptions are allowed. Yet, even in Britain, and here in Germany, you camn get ANY other drug known to man, on script, IF YOU CAN PROVE A NEED. L.S.D (cancer and psyco problems), Heroin, every DENTIST has morphine etc. Canabis is the only odd one out.
    I can only draw the same conclussion over hash, as you have with tobacco.

    • frank_davis says:

      The War on Tobacco is an extension of the War on Drugs that has been waged for 100 years (or more) It’s less than 100 years ago that opium and cannabis and the like were made illegal. As ever, doctors have been at the forefront of the campaign. Humans have been using these drugs for millennia, and now they’ve decided that they shouldn’t.
      But I think that humans need to get out of their heads from time to time. Reality is very often a bit too hard to bear, and drugs that make it bearable can provide a bit of relief.
      That said, tobacco isn’t particularly psychotropic. Its effects are very subtle. Other drugs very often render people ‘drugged’ and incapable of work, but not tobacco.
      Drugs provide a holiday from reality, which for some people is something that has become unendurable. The drug warriors don’t want people to take holidays. And real holidays (or vacations) are under attack too. People are being told that flying off somewhere increases their carbon footprint, and they shouldn’t go.
      Frank

      • nisakiman says:

        In the case of cannabis, it would seem it was not doctors but industrialists, aided and abetted by soon-to-be-out-of-a-job law enforcers that created the imaginary panic based on a tissue of lies (followed by criminalisation), not unlike the one we see now with tobacco. There’s a wiki answers blurb about it. Make of it what you will, but I’ve read very similar reports on it elsewhere.

      • nisakiman says:

        In the case of cannabis, it would seem it was not doctors but industrialists, aided and abetted by soon-to-be-out-of-a-job law enforcers that created the imaginary panic based on a tissue of lies (followed by criminalisation), not unlike the one we see now with tobacco. There’s a wiki answers blurb about it. Make of it what you will, but I’ve read very similar reports on it elsewhere.

      • nisakiman says:

        In the case of cannabis, it would seem it was not doctors but industrialists, aided and abetted by soon-to-be-out-of-a-job law enforcers that created the imaginary panic based on a tissue of lies (followed by criminalisation), not unlike the one we see now with tobacco. There’s a wiki answers blurb about it. Make of it what you will, but I’ve read very similar reports on it elsewhere.

    • Frank Davis says:

      The War on Tobacco is an extension of the War on Drugs that has been waged for 100 years (or more) It’s less than 100 years ago that opium and cannabis and the like were made illegal. As ever, doctors have been at the forefront of the campaign. Humans have been using these drugs for millennia, and now they’ve decided that they shouldn’t.
      But I think that humans need to get out of their heads from time to time. Reality is very often a bit too hard to bear, and drugs that make it bearable can provide a bit of relief.
      That said, tobacco isn’t particularly psychotropic. Its effects are very subtle. Other drugs very often render people ‘drugged’ and incapable of work, but not tobacco.
      Drugs provide a holiday from reality, which for some people is something that has become unendurable. The drug warriors don’t want people to take holidays. And real holidays (or vacations) are under attack too. People are being told that flying off somewhere increases their carbon footprint, and they shouldn’t go.
      Frank

    • Frank Davis says:

      The War on Tobacco is an extension of the War on Drugs that has been waged for 100 years (or more) It’s less than 100 years ago that opium and cannabis and the like were made illegal. As ever, doctors have been at the forefront of the campaign. Humans have been using these drugs for millennia, and now they’ve decided that they shouldn’t.
      But I think that humans need to get out of their heads from time to time. Reality is very often a bit too hard to bear, and drugs that make it bearable can provide a bit of relief.
      That said, tobacco isn’t particularly psychotropic. Its effects are very subtle. Other drugs very often render people ‘drugged’ and incapable of work, but not tobacco.
      Drugs provide a holiday from reality, which for some people is something that has become unendurable. The drug warriors don’t want people to take holidays. And real holidays (or vacations) are under attack too. People are being told that flying off somewhere increases their carbon footprint, and they shouldn’t go.
      Frank

    • Anonymous says:

      Ragnar,
      Good point. I must confess that as a non-cannabis user (it just makes me go off to sleep which makes it a bit pointless as an experience and a bit of a waste of good dope for me to use it! Shame!) the same hadn’t occurred to me about dope. But you’re right. All that to-ing and fro-ing about whether it should be a class A or class B, the fact that some countries (like the UK) continue to pump huge amounts of money into policing and prosecuting people for something which in other countries is now decriminalised with no ill effects, and the massive exaggeration which clearly emanates from the anti-dope lobby indicates to me that there is a similar degree of fear amongst the powers-that-be towards it as there is towards tobacco, which in turn indicates that there is something very good about it which they are trying to suppress.
      A friend of mine much more experienced in the world of illegal substances than me once said to me that the only reason why some drugs are illegal and others aren’t is that the ones which are illegal are the ones which diminish people’s productivity – productivity in terms of the rat-race-type daily drudge, rather than more ethereal and hard-to-quantify qualities which many of them enhance, like creativity and imaginative thinking. And I think that, to a degree, he had a point. Some, like cocaine, diminish that productivity by impairing straight-thinking and good judgement (just take a look at the notoriously high cocaine-using banking and financial risk-takers to see an example of that); others, like heroin, diminish productivity because they make people bombed-out and incapable; and others, like cannabis, tend to make people ask the question “why am I doing x or y or z, every day, and what does it really achieve?” and – more importantly – to see that the true answer to that question, more often than not, is “not much, really.” Which, of course, isn’t the way the powers-that-be want people to be thinking at all!
      The reasons why alcohol and tobacco have been allowed to become/remain legal is that alcohol is (usually) only used in a person’s leisure time, when they wouldn’t be being “productive” in any case; and tobacco doesn’t have an “intoxicating” effect which is likely to impair judgement or affect their personality like other drugs do, so their net productivity is unaffected or even, as has been pointed out in previous posts on here, increases it through mental alertness and better concentration. Of course, the prohibitionists are, as usual, now trying to pretend that there is an effect on productivity from these two legal substances (the “no stone unturned” philosophy of anti-anything groups everywhere!), but the fact is that if in reality productivity was affected by either of them, they would have been made illegal a long, long time ago – or never allowed to be included in the whole legitimate business/economic world in the first place.
      And ultimately, this explains why the authorities continue to take as heavy-handed and fanatical an approach to cannabis as they do to other drugs which in reality are far, far more harmful. We’re not people – we’re economic-productivity-units, remember!!

      • nisakiman says:

        You may well be on the right track there. My own theory is slightly different, but along the same lines, and stems from an observation I made when I was living in Melbourne in the 1970s.
        When I first arrived there in ’71, there was an abundance of excellent domestically produced marijuana. It was cheap, it was good and it was ubiquitous. This, if you remember, was sort of at the tail-end of the hippy years, when we were all pretty radical and all fired up to change the world. There was a quite strong grassroots (pun not intended) movement to discomfit the establishment and to make changes. Papers and magazines were produced and distributed on street corners, demo marches were organised and the people were vocal. “Power to the people!” we cried!(Well, we were young. It’s that old “I used to be a socialist, but then I got mugged by reality” thing.)
        In around ’72, the police mounted a massive, sustained purge on the marijuana growers, which was, from their point of view, very successful. The dope supply dried up and there was very little imported stuff to be had. At about the same time, there was a sudden, massive influx of heroin. It was everywhere on the streets, and it was cheap. Naturally, a lot of the dopers, who wouldn’t have given you tuppence for heroin when the grass was around started doing junk.
        Now, a junkie is a very different animal to a doper. He doesn’t do politics or revolution because he’s too busy looking for his next fix. So he’s not a thorn in the establishment’s side. The powers-that-be can forget about him and just leave the cops to mop up piecemeal. Problem solved. No more angry hippies.
        Maybe I’m being cynical, but the whole chain of events just seemed a bit too well choreographed, a bit too slick to be coincidental.
        I’ll take off my tinfoil hat now. :¬))

        • Anonymous says:

          Wow! I didn’t expect to get any comments running along even similar lines to my wierdy theories! I expected to hear the sounds of you all clutching your sides and chortling heartily whilst muttering: “What a fruitcake!” between giggly breaths. Certainly some interesting extra aspects to the whole thing here, which will be duly incorporated into my thinking in preparation for my forthcoming masterpiece – “Rants and Rubbish about Life, the Universe and Everything from a Grumpy Old Bag!!” Due for publication in, well, about 100 years’ time, I’d guess!

        • Anonymous says:

          Wow! I didn’t expect to get any comments running along even similar lines to my wierdy theories! I expected to hear the sounds of you all clutching your sides and chortling heartily whilst muttering: “What a fruitcake!” between giggly breaths. Certainly some interesting extra aspects to the whole thing here, which will be duly incorporated into my thinking in preparation for my forthcoming masterpiece – “Rants and Rubbish about Life, the Universe and Everything from a Grumpy Old Bag!!” Due for publication in, well, about 100 years’ time, I’d guess!

        • Anonymous says:

          Wow! I didn’t expect to get any comments running along even similar lines to my wierdy theories! I expected to hear the sounds of you all clutching your sides and chortling heartily whilst muttering: “What a fruitcake!” between giggly breaths. Certainly some interesting extra aspects to the whole thing here, which will be duly incorporated into my thinking in preparation for my forthcoming masterpiece – “Rants and Rubbish about Life, the Universe and Everything from a Grumpy Old Bag!!” Due for publication in, well, about 100 years’ time, I’d guess!

      • nisakiman says:

        You may well be on the right track there. My own theory is slightly different, but along the same lines, and stems from an observation I made when I was living in Melbourne in the 1970s.
        When I first arrived there in ’71, there was an abundance of excellent domestically produced marijuana. It was cheap, it was good and it was ubiquitous. This, if you remember, was sort of at the tail-end of the hippy years, when we were all pretty radical and all fired up to change the world. There was a quite strong grassroots (pun not intended) movement to discomfit the establishment and to make changes. Papers and magazines were produced and distributed on street corners, demo marches were organised and the people were vocal. “Power to the people!” we cried!(Well, we were young. It’s that old “I used to be a socialist, but then I got mugged by reality” thing.)
        In around ’72, the police mounted a massive, sustained purge on the marijuana growers, which was, from their point of view, very successful. The dope supply dried up and there was very little imported stuff to be had. At about the same time, there was a sudden, massive influx of heroin. It was everywhere on the streets, and it was cheap. Naturally, a lot of the dopers, who wouldn’t have given you tuppence for heroin when the grass was around started doing junk.
        Now, a junkie is a very different animal to a doper. He doesn’t do politics or revolution because he’s too busy looking for his next fix. So he’s not a thorn in the establishment’s side. The powers-that-be can forget about him and just leave the cops to mop up piecemeal. Problem solved. No more angry hippies.
        Maybe I’m being cynical, but the whole chain of events just seemed a bit too well choreographed, a bit too slick to be coincidental.
        I’ll take off my tinfoil hat now. :¬))

      • nisakiman says:

        You may well be on the right track there. My own theory is slightly different, but along the same lines, and stems from an observation I made when I was living in Melbourne in the 1970s.
        When I first arrived there in ’71, there was an abundance of excellent domestically produced marijuana. It was cheap, it was good and it was ubiquitous. This, if you remember, was sort of at the tail-end of the hippy years, when we were all pretty radical and all fired up to change the world. There was a quite strong grassroots (pun not intended) movement to discomfit the establishment and to make changes. Papers and magazines were produced and distributed on street corners, demo marches were organised and the people were vocal. “Power to the people!” we cried!(Well, we were young. It’s that old “I used to be a socialist, but then I got mugged by reality” thing.)
        In around ’72, the police mounted a massive, sustained purge on the marijuana growers, which was, from their point of view, very successful. The dope supply dried up and there was very little imported stuff to be had. At about the same time, there was a sudden, massive influx of heroin. It was everywhere on the streets, and it was cheap. Naturally, a lot of the dopers, who wouldn’t have given you tuppence for heroin when the grass was around started doing junk.
        Now, a junkie is a very different animal to a doper. He doesn’t do politics or revolution because he’s too busy looking for his next fix. So he’s not a thorn in the establishment’s side. The powers-that-be can forget about him and just leave the cops to mop up piecemeal. Problem solved. No more angry hippies.
        Maybe I’m being cynical, but the whole chain of events just seemed a bit too well choreographed, a bit too slick to be coincidental.
        I’ll take off my tinfoil hat now. :¬))

    • Anonymous says:

      Ragnar,
      Good point. I must confess that as a non-cannabis user (it just makes me go off to sleep which makes it a bit pointless as an experience and a bit of a waste of good dope for me to use it! Shame!) the same hadn’t occurred to me about dope. But you’re right. All that to-ing and fro-ing about whether it should be a class A or class B, the fact that some countries (like the UK) continue to pump huge amounts of money into policing and prosecuting people for something which in other countries is now decriminalised with no ill effects, and the massive exaggeration which clearly emanates from the anti-dope lobby indicates to me that there is a similar degree of fear amongst the powers-that-be towards it as there is towards tobacco, which in turn indicates that there is something very good about it which they are trying to suppress.
      A friend of mine much more experienced in the world of illegal substances than me once said to me that the only reason why some drugs are illegal and others aren’t is that the ones which are illegal are the ones which diminish people’s productivity – productivity in terms of the rat-race-type daily drudge, rather than more ethereal and hard-to-quantify qualities which many of them enhance, like creativity and imaginative thinking. And I think that, to a degree, he had a point. Some, like cocaine, diminish that productivity by impairing straight-thinking and good judgement (just take a look at the notoriously high cocaine-using banking and financial risk-takers to see an example of that); others, like heroin, diminish productivity because they make people bombed-out and incapable; and others, like cannabis, tend to make people ask the question “why am I doing x or y or z, every day, and what does it really achieve?” and – more importantly – to see that the true answer to that question, more often than not, is “not much, really.” Which, of course, isn’t the way the powers-that-be want people to be thinking at all!
      The reasons why alcohol and tobacco have been allowed to become/remain legal is that alcohol is (usually) only used in a person’s leisure time, when they wouldn’t be being “productive” in any case; and tobacco doesn’t have an “intoxicating” effect which is likely to impair judgement or affect their personality like other drugs do, so their net productivity is unaffected or even, as has been pointed out in previous posts on here, increases it through mental alertness and better concentration. Of course, the prohibitionists are, as usual, now trying to pretend that there is an effect on productivity from these two legal substances (the “no stone unturned” philosophy of anti-anything groups everywhere!), but the fact is that if in reality productivity was affected by either of them, they would have been made illegal a long, long time ago – or never allowed to be included in the whole legitimate business/economic world in the first place.
      And ultimately, this explains why the authorities continue to take as heavy-handed and fanatical an approach to cannabis as they do to other drugs which in reality are far, far more harmful. We’re not people – we’re economic-productivity-units, remember!!

    • Anonymous says:

      Ragnar,
      Good point. I must confess that as a non-cannabis user (it just makes me go off to sleep which makes it a bit pointless as an experience and a bit of a waste of good dope for me to use it! Shame!) the same hadn’t occurred to me about dope. But you’re right. All that to-ing and fro-ing about whether it should be a class A or class B, the fact that some countries (like the UK) continue to pump huge amounts of money into policing and prosecuting people for something which in other countries is now decriminalised with no ill effects, and the massive exaggeration which clearly emanates from the anti-dope lobby indicates to me that there is a similar degree of fear amongst the powers-that-be towards it as there is towards tobacco, which in turn indicates that there is something very good about it which they are trying to suppress.
      A friend of mine much more experienced in the world of illegal substances than me once said to me that the only reason why some drugs are illegal and others aren’t is that the ones which are illegal are the ones which diminish people’s productivity – productivity in terms of the rat-race-type daily drudge, rather than more ethereal and hard-to-quantify qualities which many of them enhance, like creativity and imaginative thinking. And I think that, to a degree, he had a point. Some, like cocaine, diminish that productivity by impairing straight-thinking and good judgement (just take a look at the notoriously high cocaine-using banking and financial risk-takers to see an example of that); others, like heroin, diminish productivity because they make people bombed-out and incapable; and others, like cannabis, tend to make people ask the question “why am I doing x or y or z, every day, and what does it really achieve?” and – more importantly – to see that the true answer to that question, more often than not, is “not much, really.” Which, of course, isn’t the way the powers-that-be want people to be thinking at all!
      The reasons why alcohol and tobacco have been allowed to become/remain legal is that alcohol is (usually) only used in a person’s leisure time, when they wouldn’t be being “productive” in any case; and tobacco doesn’t have an “intoxicating” effect which is likely to impair judgement or affect their personality like other drugs do, so their net productivity is unaffected or even, as has been pointed out in previous posts on here, increases it through mental alertness and better concentration. Of course, the prohibitionists are, as usual, now trying to pretend that there is an effect on productivity from these two legal substances (the “no stone unturned” philosophy of anti-anything groups everywhere!), but the fact is that if in reality productivity was affected by either of them, they would have been made illegal a long, long time ago – or never allowed to be included in the whole legitimate business/economic world in the first place.
      And ultimately, this explains why the authorities continue to take as heavy-handed and fanatical an approach to cannabis as they do to other drugs which in reality are far, far more harmful. We’re not people – we’re economic-productivity-units, remember!!

  8. Anonymous says:

    XX (Anonymous)
    2011-02-24 02:30 am (UTC) Track This
    Now here’s one of my oddest musings for you, Frank, and it’s a bit of a nut-job one,… I’ve often wondered exactly what it is that organisations like the WHO have so much against smoking. …their total and utter obsession with it over and above all else which they have to deal with) is that there is something really, really, really good about smoking,…XX
    I have asked the same question about canabis for YEARS.
    Take out the obvious places, Holland, Portugal, Calfornia, and there is NO country in the world that has not attempted to ban the shit out of it. Not even perscriptions are allowed. Yet, even in Britain, and here in Germany, you camn get ANY other drug known to man, on script, IF YOU CAN PROVE A NEED. L.S.D (cancer and psyco problems), Heroin, every DENTIST has morphine etc. Canabis is the only odd one out.
    I can only draw the same conclussion over hash, as you have with tobacco.

  9. Anonymous says:

    XX (Anonymous)
    2011-02-24 02:30 am (UTC) Track This
    Now here’s one of my oddest musings for you, Frank, and it’s a bit of a nut-job one,… I’ve often wondered exactly what it is that organisations like the WHO have so much against smoking. …their total and utter obsession with it over and above all else which they have to deal with) is that there is something really, really, really good about smoking,…XX
    I have asked the same question about canabis for YEARS.
    Take out the obvious places, Holland, Portugal, Calfornia, and there is NO country in the world that has not attempted to ban the shit out of it. Not even perscriptions are allowed. Yet, even in Britain, and here in Germany, you camn get ANY other drug known to man, on script, IF YOU CAN PROVE A NEED. L.S.D (cancer and psyco problems), Heroin, every DENTIST has morphine etc. Canabis is the only odd one out.
    I can only draw the same conclussion over hash, as you have with tobacco.

  10. Anonymous says:

    See, it’s SHS that has to be tackled. Without the acceptance of this concept, all else falls.
    It’s SHS, just SHS! That’s where the effort should be directed. No need for anything else.

  11. Anonymous says:

    See, it’s SHS that has to be tackled. Without the acceptance of this concept, all else falls.
    It’s SHS, just SHS! That’s where the effort should be directed. No need for anything else.

  12. Anonymous says:

    See, it’s SHS that has to be tackled. Without the acceptance of this concept, all else falls.
    It’s SHS, just SHS! That’s where the effort should be directed. No need for anything else.

  13. Anonymous says:

    The Phantom Menace
    Medicine and the Public: The 1962 Report of the Royal College of Physicians and the New Public Health
    “The idea of outlining specific courses of action was anathema to a society that associated “propaganda” with wartime central direction, and with earlier Nazi propaganda.”
    “The civil servant Enid Russell Smith, always an incisive analyst of events, commented in 1962 that government could draw in future on two things: parents’ concern for their children,”
    “So far, she commented, the state had not sought to protect individuals from doing harm to their own health if they were not harming the health of others;”
    The new line might be that the costs fell on the state, and so government should stop people from damaging their health—but, she commented presciently, once government took on this role, it would not stop at smoking”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894742/
    Children
    Harm to others
    Cost to the NHS
    “Godber recollected that he had said in 1962 to Keith Joseph, another of his Conservative ministers, that “we really have to do something about abolishing smoking” (having won the approval of the Health Minister Enoch Powell).
    Joseph looked quite shocked and said: “You really can’t expect to abolish smoking.”
    Godber replied: “No, but I want to see it reduced to an activity of consenting adults in private.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/sir-george-godber-governments-chief-medical-officer-who-helped-to-establish-the-fledgling-national-health-service-1607201.html
    Gilmore: ‘One could end up looking evangelical’
    “It is a little-known fact, but the Royal College of Physicians, where Professor Ian Gilmore is currently president, founded the group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).
    “It was in 1962 that our work started on a ban – it was 45 years before we got it,” he says.”
    http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=14&storycode=60253
    Rose

  14. Anonymous says:

    The Phantom Menace
    Medicine and the Public: The 1962 Report of the Royal College of Physicians and the New Public Health
    “The idea of outlining specific courses of action was anathema to a society that associated “propaganda” with wartime central direction, and with earlier Nazi propaganda.”
    “The civil servant Enid Russell Smith, always an incisive analyst of events, commented in 1962 that government could draw in future on two things: parents’ concern for their children,”
    “So far, she commented, the state had not sought to protect individuals from doing harm to their own health if they were not harming the health of others;”
    The new line might be that the costs fell on the state, and so government should stop people from damaging their health—but, she commented presciently, once government took on this role, it would not stop at smoking”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894742/
    Children
    Harm to others
    Cost to the NHS
    “Godber recollected that he had said in 1962 to Keith Joseph, another of his Conservative ministers, that “we really have to do something about abolishing smoking” (having won the approval of the Health Minister Enoch Powell).
    Joseph looked quite shocked and said: “You really can’t expect to abolish smoking.”
    Godber replied: “No, but I want to see it reduced to an activity of consenting adults in private.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/sir-george-godber-governments-chief-medical-officer-who-helped-to-establish-the-fledgling-national-health-service-1607201.html
    Gilmore: ‘One could end up looking evangelical’
    “It is a little-known fact, but the Royal College of Physicians, where Professor Ian Gilmore is currently president, founded the group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).
    “It was in 1962 that our work started on a ban – it was 45 years before we got it,” he says.”
    http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=14&storycode=60253
    Rose

  15. Anonymous says:

    The Phantom Menace
    Medicine and the Public: The 1962 Report of the Royal College of Physicians and the New Public Health
    “The idea of outlining specific courses of action was anathema to a society that associated “propaganda” with wartime central direction, and with earlier Nazi propaganda.”
    “The civil servant Enid Russell Smith, always an incisive analyst of events, commented in 1962 that government could draw in future on two things: parents’ concern for their children,”
    “So far, she commented, the state had not sought to protect individuals from doing harm to their own health if they were not harming the health of others;”
    The new line might be that the costs fell on the state, and so government should stop people from damaging their health—but, she commented presciently, once government took on this role, it would not stop at smoking”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894742/
    Children
    Harm to others
    Cost to the NHS
    “Godber recollected that he had said in 1962 to Keith Joseph, another of his Conservative ministers, that “we really have to do something about abolishing smoking” (having won the approval of the Health Minister Enoch Powell).
    Joseph looked quite shocked and said: “You really can’t expect to abolish smoking.”
    Godber replied: “No, but I want to see it reduced to an activity of consenting adults in private.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/sir-george-godber-governments-chief-medical-officer-who-helped-to-establish-the-fledgling-national-health-service-1607201.html
    Gilmore: ‘One could end up looking evangelical’
    “It is a little-known fact, but the Royal College of Physicians, where Professor Ian Gilmore is currently president, founded the group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).
    “It was in 1962 that our work started on a ban – it was 45 years before we got it,” he says.”
    http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=14&storycode=60253
    Rose

  16. junican says:

    Would that that were true Anon! Unfortunately, the zealots have now moved on. The original reason for the ban is no longer of any significance. It would not matter if it were proved conclusively that SHS is not only harmless but beneficial, it does not matter – think of the stink free pubs! Aren’t they wonderful? Even MPs think the same way.
    If (or better, when) the ban is amended (and then gradually ignored), it will probably come from some quite unexpected direction. There are all sorts of possibilities:
    A big pubco going bust? In a way, it is a pity that the Smoking Community is so fragmented. If we were sufficiently in touch with each other, we could target the weakest of the pubcos and boycott it.
    A tobacco buying strike? Same sort of problems apply.
    A court case? That is probably the most likely, but may not be directly about smoking. More likely that some other matter concerning ‘private property: use of’ which outlaws the pressure put on pub owners. Possibly via the Court of Human Rights even.
    In the meantime, there is not a lot that we can do other than keep pointing out that SHS harm is nonsense (for a start, has anyone ever become ‘addicted’ to tobacco via SHS?); that the Smoking Community is being victimised; and so on.

    • Anonymous says:

      Without the basis of SHS, no bans, 3rd hand smoke, 4th hand smoke, etc. could occur. I doubt even our self interested legislature would vote for a ‘smell’. The first action should be (have been) to limit the damage to stop it mushrooming. Once achieved, and a vote against a display ban would indicate this, then we can attempt to roll back, but in the interim, all efforts to tackle SHS should continue. ASH et al did not get their way by being worried about boredom.
      I agree that any amendment to the ban is the first stage of collapse, which is why antis, DoH in partic. are so paranoid over it. I also agree it will happen probably by simply being ignored along with several other things as times start to bite.

    • Anonymous says:

      Without the basis of SHS, no bans, 3rd hand smoke, 4th hand smoke, etc. could occur. I doubt even our self interested legislature would vote for a ‘smell’. The first action should be (have been) to limit the damage to stop it mushrooming. Once achieved, and a vote against a display ban would indicate this, then we can attempt to roll back, but in the interim, all efforts to tackle SHS should continue. ASH et al did not get their way by being worried about boredom.
      I agree that any amendment to the ban is the first stage of collapse, which is why antis, DoH in partic. are so paranoid over it. I also agree it will happen probably by simply being ignored along with several other things as times start to bite.

    • Anonymous says:

      Without the basis of SHS, no bans, 3rd hand smoke, 4th hand smoke, etc. could occur. I doubt even our self interested legislature would vote for a ‘smell’. The first action should be (have been) to limit the damage to stop it mushrooming. Once achieved, and a vote against a display ban would indicate this, then we can attempt to roll back, but in the interim, all efforts to tackle SHS should continue. ASH et al did not get their way by being worried about boredom.
      I agree that any amendment to the ban is the first stage of collapse, which is why antis, DoH in partic. are so paranoid over it. I also agree it will happen probably by simply being ignored along with several other things as times start to bite.

  17. junican says:

    Would that that were true Anon! Unfortunately, the zealots have now moved on. The original reason for the ban is no longer of any significance. It would not matter if it were proved conclusively that SHS is not only harmless but beneficial, it does not matter – think of the stink free pubs! Aren’t they wonderful? Even MPs think the same way.
    If (or better, when) the ban is amended (and then gradually ignored), it will probably come from some quite unexpected direction. There are all sorts of possibilities:
    A big pubco going bust? In a way, it is a pity that the Smoking Community is so fragmented. If we were sufficiently in touch with each other, we could target the weakest of the pubcos and boycott it.
    A tobacco buying strike? Same sort of problems apply.
    A court case? That is probably the most likely, but may not be directly about smoking. More likely that some other matter concerning ‘private property: use of’ which outlaws the pressure put on pub owners. Possibly via the Court of Human Rights even.
    In the meantime, there is not a lot that we can do other than keep pointing out that SHS harm is nonsense (for a start, has anyone ever become ‘addicted’ to tobacco via SHS?); that the Smoking Community is being victimised; and so on.

  18. junican says:

    Would that that were true Anon! Unfortunately, the zealots have now moved on. The original reason for the ban is no longer of any significance. It would not matter if it were proved conclusively that SHS is not only harmless but beneficial, it does not matter – think of the stink free pubs! Aren’t they wonderful? Even MPs think the same way.
    If (or better, when) the ban is amended (and then gradually ignored), it will probably come from some quite unexpected direction. There are all sorts of possibilities:
    A big pubco going bust? In a way, it is a pity that the Smoking Community is so fragmented. If we were sufficiently in touch with each other, we could target the weakest of the pubcos and boycott it.
    A tobacco buying strike? Same sort of problems apply.
    A court case? That is probably the most likely, but may not be directly about smoking. More likely that some other matter concerning ‘private property: use of’ which outlaws the pressure put on pub owners. Possibly via the Court of Human Rights even.
    In the meantime, there is not a lot that we can do other than keep pointing out that SHS harm is nonsense (for a start, has anyone ever become ‘addicted’ to tobacco via SHS?); that the Smoking Community is being victimised; and so on.

  19. iessalb says:

    Honduras
    So sorry about the dysfunctional link I left on a previous comment regarding the incredible murder rate in Honduras. Dying from smoking would seem to be the least of their worries there.
    I rather like old Livejournal but sometimes getting a link to work is like pulling teeth.
    Here is the correct link:
    http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-murder-rates.html

  20. iessalb says:

    Honduras
    So sorry about the dysfunctional link I left on a previous comment regarding the incredible murder rate in Honduras. Dying from smoking would seem to be the least of their worries there.
    I rather like old Livejournal but sometimes getting a link to work is like pulling teeth.
    Here is the correct link:
    http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-murder-rates.html

  21. iessalb says:

    Honduras
    So sorry about the dysfunctional link I left on a previous comment regarding the incredible murder rate in Honduras. Dying from smoking would seem to be the least of their worries there.
    I rather like old Livejournal but sometimes getting a link to work is like pulling teeth.
    Here is the correct link:
    http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-murder-rates.html

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.