Ball And Chain

What are smoking bans supposed to achieve?

I think they’re supposed to ‘help’ people quit smoking. Actually, I don’t think it’s about ‘helping’ people quit smoking: it’s about making them quit smoking. They make people quit smoking, by disallowing smoking in more and more places.

You get on a train, and you’re not allowed to smoke on the train, and so you’re made to quit smoking for the duration of the train journey. And then maybe there’s No Smoking in the train stations too. So you can’t smoke when you’re travelling. And the more places that smoking is banned, the longer you’re being made to quit smoking.

And when you’re being made to quit smoking, you’re being made to control yourself, restrict yourself, stop yourself, say No to yourself.

So I think that the idea may be that smoking bans train people to stop smoking, train people to say No to themselves (and say No to everybody else too), and after a while, when people have learned to say No to themselves, it becomes second nature, and they say No to themselves all the time, and completely quit smoking.

I think that’s how it’s supposed to work. And behind it is the idea that smoking is something that nobody really wants to do. Because antismokers have never understood why anyone smokes, or anyone wants to smoke, and it’s just a bad habit that people pick up, and they need to be helped rid themselves of this strange addiction. It’s always an ‘addiction’, of course.

But isn’t that like tone-deaf people trying to make people stop listening to music? The tone-deaf don’t like music. For them it’s just a noise, an unpleasant noise. They don’t like listening to the racket that comes out of radios and juke boxes, and they can’t understand why anybody else should like it either. They can’t really enjoy the awful din, can they? No, they’re just addicted to it, and they play it over and over again. So they ban music, first on trains, and then in stations, and then in public places. And maybe then in private cars and parks and beaches, in order to create a noise-free, music-free environment. And in these places radios and juke boxes and ipods, etc, are all banned. People are taught to deny themselves music, made to feel ashamed of liking music, and forced to Switch It Off. And the intention is that if people are deprived of the music they’re addicted to, they’ll eventually quit listening to it at all. And we’ll have a wonderful, music-free world.

Would that work? I kinda suspect that music would just get driven underground, and people would meet up in caves to play music, or to make music with bottles and sticks and whistles. Because most people like music, and they’ll go a long way to hear some music – just like they’ll go a long way to smoke a cigarette, because they like smoking cigarettes too.

So smoking bans just stop people doing what they want to do, in exactly the same way as music bans (or talking bans, or reading bans, or any other bans) would stop people doing other things they want to do.

Or rather, they don’t actually stop people doing what they want to do: they just make it harder to do it. So if you’re inside some place where smoking is banned, and you have to step outside to smoke, then an additional cost is imposed on every cigarette smoked (over and above the tax that has been slapped on the cigarettes). If it takes two minutes to go outside and come back in again, then someone who has a 20-a-day habit will have to spend 40 minutes just walking outside, and then walking back in – something they don’t really want to do. And if you’re in one of those hospitals in whose grounds smoking is banned, then the round trip to smoke a cigarette may take 10 or 15 minutes, and with a 20-a-day habit, that’s 200 – 300 minutes (5 hours) per day spent trudging to and fro.

Instead of a cigarette taking 10 minutes to smoke, it takes 30 or 40 minutes. It’s just like having a ball and chain.

So smoking bans hamper smokers, and slow them down. Everything takes longer. And because everything takes longer than it used to, some things no longer get done at all. So dishes don’t get washed, or floors don’t get swept. Because the time that gets subtracted from people’s lives, by having to trudge downstairs and out to the gates, is time that can no longer be devoted to other activities. So smoking bans impoverish smokers, and so impoverish society as a whole, because it’s not as if non-smokers benefit from the bans, with their lives being made correspondingly easier as it is made harder for smokers.

As long as they’re not working to get people to quit smoking, there’s no upside to smoking bans. They just impose an inhibiting drag force on everyday life. And the more intensive and ubiquitous the bans, the greater the drag force.

Which is probably why they usually get repealed. Because they’re more a hindrance than a help.

About Frank Davis

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

50 Responses to Ball And Chain

  1. Some other Tom says:

    I often think of the irony that the same government that is so very concerned about dangers of smoking, smoke, vapers, images of people smoking, has absolutely no issue with sending people off to war to be destroyed by bullets, IEDs, chemical and biological agents, or come home maimed and psychologically damaged… It’s not about health at all. It is social engineering, fear mongering, arbitrary bullshit, and a war on sovereign individuality.

    • waltc says:

      Also ironic that in the last war that actually had a discernible purpose, WW2, everyone smoked.

      On the topic, by one means or another they have succeeded in getting people to quit. Shs was invented to recruit nons into the badgering game, and to serve as a rationale, but I agree that the point of the game was to make us quit, not to ” protect the innocent.” As Bloomberg so nicely put it, his goal was to make smoking as “expensive and inconvenient” as possible. And as the city council c** t who proposed the park ban here put it, ” We don’t want you to smoke, get it?” They’re getting bolder about admitting their real intent even as they monger third hand smoke. BTW, as early as 1975 the Brit Med Assn was dreaming of public bans simply as a means of social engineering, not yet having concocted shs.

  2. Lepercolonist says:

    Another excellent article, Frank. Loved your tone-deaf analogy. Pleasurable habits are often construed as addictive. My ‘addictions’ include coffee and the newspaper in the morning, reading a good book, following my favorite sports team, betting on horses, listening to great music, smoking cigarettes, etc. Am I addicted to all these activities ?

    Some people have a gambling problem with casino video slots. They are ‘addicted’. What are they ingesting or inhaling ? Nicotine ? Psychological addiction, yes. Physical addiction, no.

    If I ever quit smoking ( not going to happen), it would be cold turkey. I don’t need Big Pharma’s help with my ‘habit’.

  3. petesquiz says:

    Another interesting, thought-provoking piece that touches on something that has mystified me for years – what DO smokers get from a cigarette? I’m a non-smoker and one who doesn’t understand. I did try smoking when I was much younger and I got zero effect. I once smoked the best part of a packet of 20 (that had been left on our pub table by a previous occupant) and they gave me no pleasure at all.

    So, whilst there are reams and reams of literature about how smoking is bad for you, there are so few articulate smokers who seem able to express the reason why they do smoke that it becomes all too easy to dismiss it as ‘just a habit’.

    In a war the first casualty is the truth (can’t remember who said that!), but in this ‘war’ the antis seem to have cornered the market in lies, deception and scientific fraud whilst the smokers (in the main) seem to be content that ‘the truth will out’ eventually. That won’t work. I don’t know what will, but I do know that the antis will turn to other topics and restrict our freedoms until we have to do what ‘nanny’ says! (They’ve already started on one of my pleasures, alcohol, but they haven’t yet come up with an analogous argument like SHS to really get the ball rolling!)

    • margo says:

      petesquiz, I started smoking at about age 11, nicking my mother’s fags and smoking them alone out of my bedroom window. I liked it immediately, but at first it was only an occasional treat. Before that, I’d been a compulsive, incurable thumb-sucker and occasional binger of ice-lollies and sweets. I was an unhappy child and am now (in my 70s) still an over-sensitive person prone to worry and depression. There’s no cure for this. (I’ve tried all the standard cures and they haven’t worked for me). I didn’t smoke regularly until I was 16 or so, going from 10 to 20 a day and moving to roll-ups when the tax got too high. I smoke about 15/20 of those a day and that number remains static.
      Smoking soothes and takes me to a calmer, dreamier place in my head, helps creative writing, helps me think, stops me panicking, enables me to bear boredom, misery, discomfort of all sorts. Nothing else does this for me, and smoking is my only ‘habit’/’vice’/’addiction’ (whatever anyone wants to call it). I can take or leave alcohol, chocolate or anything else and I don’t like any other drugs. I’m not a ‘risk-taker’ at all.
      I gave up once years ago, for 6 months, and had to change my life to do it (no sitting after meals, no coffees and chats with friends, no writing, no thinking – ate sweets and ruined several teeth, went for long walks, cleaned the house a lot, didn’t put on weight. The cravings stopped about 3 months in but I felt as if my life had been robbed of interest. A few bad things happened, and I went out and bought some cigarettes and became my old self again.
      I think I am a classic case of Freud’s ‘oral personality’. Maybe there are other smokers who are, too, but they don’t all seem to be. There are probably lots of reasons why people smoke and enjoy it. It’s a good topic for research.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Alcohol vapors are carcinogen…………..Don’t let em fool you!

        Reprint from:
        LINK to original article Sometimes these links change or dissapear, so I have reprinted the article below.

        Fumes, Fun, Sunshine and Smoke
        Michael J. McFadden

        Antismokers like to say, ‘There is no known safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.’ They ignore the fact that the same is true for the Class A Carcinogens alcohol and sunshine, both also having “no known safe levels”.

        Sunshine? Is it really that bad? Well, the UN claims 60,000 people die annually from its cancerous effects. Even one quick peek out your window may kill you… if we use the Surgeon General’s smoke exposure standards.

        Antismokers might laugh and say ‘Well, there’s no avoiding sunlight, but you CAN avoid smoke by having bans.’ They forget smoking bans are passed primarily to ‘protect the workers’ and there are many workers forced to serve self-centered Sunners desiring lunches on restaurant patios. Why should those workers be ‘the only ones forced to work in a carcinogenic environment?’ Should patio dining be outlawed? After all, it’s no more necessary to the act of eating than smoking is to the act of drinking.

        Speaking of drinking… Antismokers like to say ‘You’re not forcing others to drink!’, but you certainly are forcing a carcinogen on them. The actual Class A components of a cigarette’s smoke mass only .0005 grams. A standard martini puts out roughly one full gram of alcohol vapor per hour: as much Class A Carcinogen as 2,000 cigarettes!

        See for yourself: pour a good jigger (48 grams) of grain alcohol into a martini glass. Two days later it will be gone. Where did it go? Well, unless your kittycat is a closet tippler, all that nice juicy carcinogen bubbled straight into the air inhaled by you and your family: almost 100,000 cigarettes’ worth.

        Applying the same ‘zero-tolerance’ rules to alcohol as extremists demand for smoke would force us to ban alcohol from restaurants ‘where people are forced to work.’ Alcoholics could be told ‘just step outside for a moment’ between courses to grab a few quick gulps of wine.

        It is not just sunshine and martinis though: think about the deadly popcorn fumes! Recent research indicates that workers exposed to that delicious buttery aroma can lose up to 80% of their lung capacity to bronchiolitis obliterans, a condition that literally obliterates the bronchioles — the lungs’ tiniest airways.

        If ‘first hand exposure’ is that deadly, what about the ‘secondhand exposure’ you and your children get at the movies or while munching microwave popcorn on the couch? Picture hundreds of TV ads showing babies in the womb being force-fed butter flavored popcorn while their tiny computer-animated lungs slowly wither and die. Picture parents being denied custody of their children or losing their jobs because they are ‘popcorn-eaters’.

        The only thing unique about the ‘deadliness’ of secondary tobacco smoke is that a powerful lobby has focused our attention on it and magnified our fears of it. Having a patio lunch may actually be more dangerous than being inside with the smokers. Working in a poorly ventilated non-smoking alcohol-friendly restaurant may be deadlier than working in a well-ventilated smoking casino!

        The hysteria surrounding secondary smoke is deliberately created to pressure smokers to quit, no more, no less. It’s a hysteria fed by media outlets posing as good corporate citizens while making extra bucks from scary headlines. And it’s a hysteria that has ruined the lives and livelihoods of many innocent people.

        Reasonable restrictions on smoking are fine. Voluntary business choices to ban smoking are also fine. But government-mandated universal smoking bans and the social disruption attending them are most definitely not fine. They are not American, and they hurt our lives and our society far more than they help it.


        Sunlight Cancers:

        Alcohol Fumes:

      • petesquiz says:

        margo, that’s very interesting, thanks for explaining it for me!

        And it leads me to a question that I don’t know if anyone has considered, but I’ll pose it anyway – Is there a link between the phenomenal rise in the use of antidepressants over the past 20+ years and the fall off in smoking prevalence over the same period?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Pete that’s one Ive never delved into nor has anything ever been tracked that I know of.

          Miss Rose would likely know. But one thing is for sure smoking is self medicating for many reasons. Theres just to many to even list but the most important one is relaxation and a convient way to pass time and boredom also a great relaxer while working and it increases attention span and concentration. I worked in Radar and guided Missle systems for several years doing component level repair. We all smoked and it focused us on following schematics while troubleshooting problems sometimes we were on problems called a campout………… might take weeks to get it resolved. But one things for sure there was always a ciggy being smoked when it was figured out in the end!

        • margo says:

          Yes, petesquiz, I think there might well be a connection between the anti-smoking badgering/fall-off of smoking and the rise in depression.
          Also, I forgot to include Harley’s point, that smoking definitely aids concentration. When people give up, one of the first ‘withdrawal symptoms’ is a fuzziness in the head and an inability to concentrate on anything. Smoking sharpens the thinking, that’s for sure.

        • jaxthefirst says:

          Don’t know of any facts and figures on this, and I doubt that any researchers would even dare to suggest looking into the connection between the fall-off in the number of smokers and the corresponding rise in the number of people suffering from depression (any more than any researchers have a hope in hell of getting funding to investigate the almost-exactly corresponding rise in the number of overweight people with the decline in the number of people smoking), but I do recall hearing on the radio, just three months into our own smoking ban – almost to the day – that doctors had been “baffled” by a sudden “inexplicable” 30% increase in the number of people presenting at their surgeries requiring anti-depressants over the previous – you guessed it – three months. Two uncanny coincidences, I think readers will agree – both in terms of the timing (imposition of the ban) and numbers (a percentage not terribly far removed from the “official” number of people smoking).

          Needless to say, like all the other seemingly-unexplainable, “sudden” negative events which just happen to have coincided with the imposition of smoking bans (pub closures (UK), sub-prime mortgage crash (US), economic downturn (worldwide), drop in work productivity (Denmark) etc etc), the strangely coincidental timing wasn’t even whispered about. Now, I wonder why that might be … ?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Jax when all this bullshit ends and it will there wont be a plug nickel left for any real research into anything. The whole scientific community will be paying the price of lost public support and belief for decades to come.

        • smokingscot says:

          @ Pete

          That’s one I haven’t looked into, however there is a remarkable correlation between the decrease in smoking and the increase in obesity.

          In my usual waffling style, I sort of meandered my way round that one a couple of years back.

          Apologies for the very poor quality graphics.

        • prog says:

          Varenicline is a major cause of depression….and worse.

      • beobrigitte says:

        I started smoking at about age 11, nicking my mother’s fags and smoking them alone out of my bedroom window. I liked it immediately, but at first it was only an occasional treat.
        Margo, this does ring a bell. I started smoking at the age of 12, nicking my dad’s cigarettes, met up with other kids who – much to my envy – had FILTER cigarettes. (My dad smoked either “Rothaendle” or “Reval”, which means without filter.)

        Otherwise there are stiking differences. Whilst, like you, I did have a “sweet tooth”, I do not tend to overly worry about things, never have. I was a lively child (I am glad to have been born BEFORE nasty things like “Ritalin” etc. were invented) and full of energy, always in the streets or in the fields.
        The reason for trying out smoking was that it was something we had to hide from our parents as – naturally – cigarettes were FORBIDDEN at our age then. Getting cigarettes (other than nicking them!) was hard as pocket money was something that was closely monitored. We all sooner or later were caught nicking cigarettes – we individually faced the various punishments and some of us – on the way back to outside – nicked another cigarette.
        Once I was 16 smoking became unimportant. I still smoked but only when I could be bothered and wasn’t too busy with other stuff.

        What are smoking bans supposed to achieve?
        Forbidden fruit is the sweetest. Always has been.

        • margo says:

          Yes Rose, forbidden fruit is sweeter, and for me that element was there too. But I discovered the great comfort of smoking – I never really had a sweet tooth, just a strong need to suck!!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The people that brought us TOBACCO FREE KIDS they are after all of us!

      Johnson and Johnson Big Pharma

      Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Financier of Temperance

      by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

      The temperance-oriented Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) “seeks to drive adult beverage consumption underground, away from mainstream culture and public places.” 1 It attempts to stigmatize alcohol, de-legitimize drinking, marginalize drinkers, and create a de facto quasi-prohibition of the legal product.

      The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation spent over a quarter of a billion (that’s billion, not million) dollars ($265,000,000.00) in just four years alone further developing and funding a nation-wide network of anti-alcohol organizations, centers, activist leaders, and opinion writers to promote its long-term goal.

      An in-depth report, Behind the Neo-Prohibition Campaign: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, demonstrates that “nearly every study disparaging adult beverages in the mass media, every legislative push to limit alcohol marketing or increase taxes, and every supposedly ‘grassroots’ anti-alcohol organization” is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 2 The foundation supports numerous temperance-oriented activists and groups including:
      • The Rand Corporation, whose studies in support of roadblocks and limiting access to alcohol are funded by RWJF.
      • The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), now calling itself the National Center on Addictions and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, whose many flawed studies have been widely refuted. CASA has received more than $35 million from RWJF since 1991.
      • The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY), which exists for one purpose: to accuse alcohol ads of “targeting’ underage drinkers” and “create public outrage” against them. RWJF established CAMY with a $5 million grant.
      • The Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (HEC), which argues for “changing people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions regarding alcohol use,” It also supports “reducing alcohol availability” and “reducing alcohol promotion and marketing.” HEC — an agency of the federal government — receives “supplemental” funding from RWJF.
      • Ralph Hingson, formerly Vice President for Public Policy at Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who published a deeply flawed report claiming that alcohol causes 1,400 deaths among college students each year. These findings were repudiated by the federal government’s General Accountability Office or GAO. Hingson received a $300,000 fellowship from RWJF.
      •Jim Gogek, an editorial writer for the San Diego Union-Tribune, who wrote an op-ed in The New York Times accusing the governors of Maryland, New York and New Jersey of being bought and paid for by the alcohol industry because they oppose even higher ‘sin’ taxes. Gogek is paid $25,000 a year by RWJF.
      • Richard Yoast, who wrote a report called “The Alcohol Industry: Partner or Foe?” that argues there are two kinds of people: those who abuse alcohol, and those who abstain. The former shouldn’t have access to it, the argument goes, and the latter won’t care if you take it away. Yoast heads the American Medical Association’s Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse. RWJF has given nearly $6 million to Yoast’s office. 3
      • Henry Wechsler, who has received about $6,500,000 to date from RWJF to fund his College Alcohol Study project, in which he insists on using the misleading term “binge” to describe behavior that needn’t even be intoxicated. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation gave Wechsler about one million dollars just to publicize his inflated “binge” data and anti-alcohol recommendations. That obviously buys a lot of news coverage. For more, visit Henry Wechsler.

      Other major parts of the Foundation’s temperance-oriented network include The Alcohol Policies Project, run by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the Marin Institute, the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, the Trauma Foundation, Join Together Online, Leadership to Keep Children Alcohol Free, 4 ImpacTeen, Fighting Back, A Matter of Degree, 5 and Henry Wechsler’s College Alcohol Study project (often called the Harvard College Study).

      A “teen” protest against alcohol advertising held in Washington at the Beer Institute was well-covered in news reports. However, virtually none of the reports revealed that the protest was actually organized by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 6

      Similarly, the following is a list of what appear to be grassroots organizations dedicated to reducing or preventing underage alcohol use:
      •Pennsylvanians Against Underage Drinking
      •Texans Standing Tall – A Statewide Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking
      •Louisiana Alliance to Prevent Underage Drinking
      •Oregon Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking
      •Missouri’s Youth/Adult Alliance Against Underage Drinking
      •National Capital Coalition to Prevent Underage Drinking
      •Minnesota Join Together Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking
      •Georgia Alcohol Policy Partnership
      •Puerto Rico Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking
      •Indiana Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking
      •Partners to Reduce Underage Drinking in North Carolina
      •Connecticut Coalition to Stop Underage Drinking

      In reality, all of these groups are part of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s nation-wide program to influence alcohol policy at both the state and federal levels.

      These state organizations (many would call them “front groups”) are useful in opposing alcohol at the state and local level. For example, the Georgia Alcohol Policy Partnership appeared on the scene as soon as Six Flags Over Georgia sought permission for restricted beer sale only at certain times in its theatre and nowhere else within the entire park Its proposal resulted from consumer demand and an attempt to stay competitive with other theme parks. Walt Disney World, Busch Gardens and Universal Studies have all served beer for years throughout their parks without problems.

      In spite of this, the Georgia Alcohol Policy Partnership opposed even such limited sales of alcohol, claiming that it would lead to underage drinking and various safety hazards. 7 This position appears to be motivated by a temperance agenda rather than an objective assessment of the facts. Of course, it does promote the goals of the funder, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

      The enormous Robert Wood Johnson Foundation not only spends very aggressively from its multi-billion dollar war chest to promote its agenda, but is also willing to engage in activities that appear unethical, if not actually illegal. 8 Apparently, the ends are seen as justifying the means to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

      To learn more, see Behind the Neo-Prohibition Campaign: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

      • smokervoter says:

        As the great Freddie Blassie would say: “They say these geeks (neo-Prohibitionists) come a dime-a-dozen, I’m looking for the guy (RWJF) who’s supplying the dimes”

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Pete hanging around here is dangerous,Knowledge without Bullshit is constant

      • petesquiz says:

        I know! But a little danger is good for you…..just don’t tell ‘nanny’ I said that!

        • Rose says:

          They’ve already started on one of my pleasures, alcohol, but they haven’t yet come up with an analogous argument like SHS to really get the ball rolling!

          Oh yes they have.

          Public ‘must be protected from passive drinking’


          “PEOPLE should be protected from “passive drinking” in the same way they are protected from second-hand smoke, Britain’s top doctor said today.

          Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer for England, called for society to recognise the consequences of one person’s drinking on another’s well-being – a phenomenon he labelled passive drinking.

          He also warned that Gordon Brown, who has effectively ruled out Sir Liam’s proposal that minimum prices be imposed on alcohol, would have to return to the idea “sooner or later”.

          He said the Prime Minister needed a plan “with real backbone” – as did David Cameron, who also opposes minimum alcohol prices.

          Outlining his annual report on the state of the nation’s health, Sir Liam said it should no longer be socially acceptable to be drunk. He said: “England has a drink problem and the whole of society bears the burden. The passive effects of heavy drinking on innocent parties are easily underestimated and frequently ignored.

          “The concept of passive drinking and the devastating collateral effect that alcohol can have on others must be addressed on a national scale. Cheap alcohol is killing us as never before. The quality of life of families and in cities and towns up and down the country is being eroded by the effects of excessive drinking.”

          Sir Liam, who first called for a smoking ban in his annual report in 2002, said alcohol affects families, the health service and the economy. He said: “The consequences of drinking go far beyond the individual drinker’s health and well-being. Alcohol can cause harm to the unborn foetus, acts of drunken violence, vandalism, sexual assault and child abuse.”

          Not only that but apart from ending up in A&E on a regular basis, you are costing the NHS for your alcohol-related diseases.

          Alcohol ‘as destructive as smoking’

          “Alcohol is as destructive to health worldwide as smoking and high blood pressure, it was claimed today.
          Three international experts said alcohol consumption was causally related to more than 60 different medical conditions including breast cancer and heart disease”

          And if you dare to remonstrate with them, however sound your reasoning, your arguments will just be dismissed as the “drug” speaking.

          Clever isn’t it?

    • Jonathan Bagley says:

      Petesquiz. Like Margo, the cigarette I tried, I really liked the feeling it gave me. Like Margo, I’ve also been prone to worry and depression since my teenage years, so perhaps that’s why we both liked the effect immediately. Maybe the stubborn 20% are using it as medicine, as the 90% of schizophrenics who smoke are. It’s a shame the first 100 you smoke are the best and the first is the best of all, but many of the thousands following are enjoyable. I guess most of my friends tried it at least once, but, like you, many just didn’t see the point. A bit like me with cannabis.

  4. A distant drum says:

    As a non driving smoker I like a natter with non smoking drivers
    They worry about smoking INSIDE yet unconcerned about their fumes OUTSIDE, to which I splutter
    should I stop breathing on a polluted high street or congested city centre
    A silly argument ,but it shuts them up
    Anyway the time for chatter about smoking bans is well past it’s sell by date
    Time now for something more irritable to our dear anti smoking pests

    • beobrigitte says:

      Time now for something more irritable to our dear anti smoking pests

      Anti-smokers stated:
      “There will be a few moaning smokers but they will soon settle down and accept the ban”

      The FACT that we are still here and just don’t go away, “accepting” the ban might not bother them much. That’s fine.
      There is plenty of anti-smoker irritation we can cause – let them churn out more utter nonsense, first, though.

  5. “What are smoking bans supposed to achieve?”

    I’ve pondered upon this often. Why are they so important, I have considered even more.

    They remind us who’s in charge, so eventually, nobody questions the PTB. I’ve just read Leg-iron’s piece about how taken aback he was when his colleague asked him what date the boss said he was allowed to leave after handing in his notice. He reminded him that he gave her the date he was leaving.

    The colleague seems to think the company, as well as the government, owns him.

    Perhaps he believes she has his soul in a jar somewhere?

    I think a lot of these bans and ‘nudges’ are to pwn us. It’s why the cake shops owned by Christian families have lately come under attack for refusing to decorate cakes for ‘gay weddings’. Even in Colorado, where it’s not even legal, but the shop owner was ordered to make them in future and he would be checked on regularly and sent to what amounts to a re-education camp to appreciate diversity. (He doesn’t intend on complying.)

    It’s about stamping their world view on all of us. The future has arrived! We have a boot stamping on a human face – forever.The boot is stamping on us harder and longer like a cigarette end that refuses to go out. Like the hospital bans; they take sadistic pleasure out of banning smoking in hospital buildings, but that isn’t enough. After stamping on the smoker’s face this way, they stuck the boot in firmer and shuffled it from left to right a few times by banning it in the grounds as well.

    It seems like petty, vindictive spite by what many people consider to be puritans, but there’s good psychological reasoning behind it, hence the UN (interim global government) invented their FCTC to make changes legally binding all over the world.

    That’s how important it is to stamp on our faces.

    Alex ‘CIA’ Jones does say a lot of true things among the fearmongering, disinfo, concealment of the real elite and engendering a feeling of hopelessness or that Jones, Ventura, Icke, et al alone will save us if we just send them money and email the White House.

    And one of those true things was that some of what the elites do often have several purposes.

    The smoking ban hinders people from meeting and talking = very dangerous for governments.

    Time spent travelling to and from smoking areas is time you don’t have to fight the ‘authorities’. I’m sure it’s why certain changes in prescription drugs were made, for example a GP now can’t prescribe for long-term benzodiazepine use (you need a shrink or other ‘qualified’ person) and the powerful pain killers have been banned because they were linked with a few suicides. The more people you can keep in fear and pain the more inclined they are to put up with any amount of further boot stamping.

    There’s my own? theory that because the finances of the NHS are in crisis, the government is trying to save money by putting off smokers from seeking treatment, but that’s a mere sideshow.

    The eugenics-side to produce a ‘master race’ – a fitter, leaner proletariat – is another matter. It seems most smokers who blog talk about never going to a doctor unless totally necessary. I have in effect been told I am persona non grata to the ‘health’ racketeers by the ‘medical director’ of the local NHS Health Board in email correspondence between him and my MSP (copies of which I managed to obtain – simply by asking). Nothing to do with smoking, even. Incompetence, ignorance and spite.

    When Agenda 21 gets fully underway, they’ll want those who remain alive to be low maintenance. It’s why you can ‘legally’ murder an unborn baby suspected of having a disability right up to the moment before birth. That’s in the UK, not just China.

    With a docile population – not kept alert through nicotine, proper education and entertainment, challenges as children (everyone must be winners now), but kept dumbed down through sodium fluoride in the water, food additives, state ‘education’ and television – they’ll accept anything.

    Look at what they accept and believe today and I’m just starting to discover that most of what passes for laws and taxes are themselves unlawful. I will be bowing out of this society soon, possibly along with one or more others, to live off-grid and being as self-sufficient as possible. It’ll be the only way to get that boot off your face and eventually get enough to eat, like when the taxes go on the limited supply of meat allowed to be produced – from the genetically engineered, GMO-fed, halal slaughtered animals that had been pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormones then the cuts irradiated to last longer and sprayed with viruses to kill listeria and E. coli, etc.

    I suppose if you can live through all this you deserve to be part of the global ‘master race’ as the UN turns Earth into the USS Enterprise, ‘staffed’ only by compliant, useful, healthy people with Hollywood ‘perfection’…

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Ohio University Considers MANDATORY Re-Education Classes For Smokers

      • It’s like a different planet to the one we were born on.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Harley, there is a cure for:
        The ban will outlaw every use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes on any part of the 1,850-acre public university campus, reports The Athens News, the local newspaper.

        Smokers won’t be able to take refuge in any designated smoking areas, either. The ban is utter and total.

        When the number of students drops (I take it, alcohol will be banned, too!) the University Officials might find themselves reconsidering.
        Smoking was an important tool when I went to university; my cigarette consum increased drastically when I had 3 weeks left (I spent far too much time to push the practical work further) to write my dissertation. I did it – thanks to TC (Tobacco and Coffee, that it)

      • carol2000 says:

        So turn their “re-education classes” into smokers’ rights rallies. Bring friends and big mouths that won’t shut up.

    • Yvonne says:

      Apartheid was defeated by non-compliance. The boycotts of one kind or another may have had the feel good factor but it was non-compliance that made the difference. It saddens me to see that South Africa is rushing into complying with WHO diktats to introduce ‘plain’ packaging.
      Another blogger tries to remind his readership the value of the word ‘no’. Good heavens, this is one of the first things a vocal two-year-old learns, yet so soon forgotten once drummed (or is that dumbed) out of them when they go to school.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Yvonne apartheid while I didn’t agree with was better than Nelson Mandella and his communists taking it over and that’s exactly what has happened and that’s why today S.A. has open arms to anything the world controllers throw out there as without the world controllers the Black control in S.A. would be gone within a year overthrown by the whites who live there no doubt.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Simple point to the Nanny Nazi is if they can get away with this,then they can get away with that and then get away with this to that and on and on………………

    We saw it begin with seatbelt laws back in the 1980s the test bed experiment on the public perception. They sold it with protecting new born babies first until it finally became a ROADBLOCK STOP in nearly every state in America……………….

    They’ve come a long way baby to get to outright prohibition of smoking by incrementalism…………

    But it seems like the Nanny Nazis are getting older and are fast tracking their ultimate aims of the New world socialist order aka Ukraine now.

    Did the killing of Duke Ferdinan start WW1 or was it simply a building up of World NannyState Ideologies that finally collided into all out war!

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    One just has to ask,did the ROY CASTLE group pay the place to put in the ban to get a new headline going……………

    Crosby restaurant becomes first to ban smoking in beer garden

    A Merseyside restaurant is the first in the UK to be recognised by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation after opening a smoke free outdoor dining area.

    The charity has given its first Fresh Air award to Barbacoa in Crosby, which is thought to be the first restaurant in the UK to extend the smoking ban to its outside space.

    The owners decided to make the move after feedback from its customers following a survey using social media.

    Barbacoa owner Gordon Tartt said:

    “Customers were complaining that the outside of the restaurant was becoming an al fresco smoking lounge so we’ve created a place where people can eat and drink in a smoke free environment.

    “During the fine weather people want to go outside but many were turned off by the huddle of smokers.

    “It’s already proving extremely popular and we’re delighted to receive the very first Fresh Air award.”

    Melody Holt, Tobacco Control Manager, Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation said:

    “This is the first smoke free beer garden that we’re aware of and we would encourage other establishments to follow their lead.

    “We believe it’s really important that when people step outside for fresh air, that’s what they should get rather than clouds of smoke.

    “The dangers of passive smoking are well-known and we welcome any move that reduces the risk to people’s health.”

    An area outside the front of the restaurant has been designated for smokers.

    • Jonathan Bagley says:

      HR, I think the Crosby restaurant is a kind of family Sunday lunch restaurant which would do better from excluding smokers. I’ve no problem with this. It’s up to the business owner. What is wrong is that no nearby restaurant can welcome these excluded smokers indoors, although there is nothing to stop any restaurant putting up a sign in the garden saying, “Do not complain about the smoke. Take yourself off to the Barbacoa.”

    • beobrigitte says:

      Harley, thanks for posting this!!! The Barbacoa in Crosby will definitely NOT be considered to be the venue of a celebration meal for approx. 30 people.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Miss Rose you might enjoy this one just out;

    As usual when they toss out junk………

    Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.


    Ex-smokers who quit the habit over 10 years ago have a similar lung function to those who have never smoked, new data shows.

    Statistics from Scottish Health Surveys recorded between 2008 and 2011 were used to look at the impact of smoking on lung function, and the amount and speed of air that can be inhaled and exhaled.

    It found that current smokers are “considerably worse” than those who have never smoked, while the amount smoked is an important factor, with lung function decreasing as lifetime cigarette consumption increases.

    The data also showed that those who stopped smoking more than ten years previously had similar lung function to those who have never smoked, while more recent ex-smokers had similar results to current smokers.

    Scotland continues to have high smoking rates, particularly in deprived communities.

    Poor lung function was higher among those in the lowest-income households and those living in the most deprived areas.

    Although smoking prevalence in Scotland is now 23%, 40% of adults in the 10% most deprived areas of Scotland smoke in comparison with 11% in the 10% least deprived areas, according to NHS Scotland.

    Read more:

  9. Bill says:

    What are smoking bans supposed to achieve?

    Power trips for deluded saddoes who cannot get their kicks any other way?
    Another profit making opportunity for big pharma?
    Without division there are no delusions.
    A further example that ‘Big Authority’ is good and the lie that Big Authority ‘looks out for your children even if you don’t?

  10. jaxthefirst says:

    It also occurs to me, Frank, that there may be yet another unforeseen consequence of these ever-expanding ban-areas. As you say, smokers are forced to “temporarily quit” for a fairly lengthy periods of time in all number of situations – air travel, train travel, workplaces, social venues. In some of those it’s possible to snatch a swift cigarette, which helps one to get by, but not always e.g. plane journeys. Now, from the antis’ point of view that must be a universally good thing, but in reality, the unpleasantness of the experience gives many smokers a pretty nasty taster for what “really” giving up is likely to be like, and it isn’t, to be honest, a great encouragement to any smoker who might have even considered the possibility of giving up in the future.

    In the antis’ rose-tinted little world, at the end of a 10-hour flight a smoker – having gone without smoking through check-in, for the length of the flight, and baggage reclaim, plus (sometimes) the onward journey too – smokers would be skipping happily out of the airport breathing deep lungfuls of fresh air and exclaiming to all around them: “Wow! I feel so GOOD! Going without cigarettes is so easy! And I feel so much healthier as a result!” The reality (as many on here know), is almost the complete polar opposite.

    Experiencing such unpleasantness on journeys/trips/events of varying duration is likely to act as a major deterrent to any smoker considering giving up. Because if it’s that agonising over a period of just a few hours, just imagine what it’s like over a period of weeks … months … years with no prospect of any respite. Kind of illustrates why ex-smokers are such a miserable, grumpy bunch, doesn’t it? And who wants to end up like them?

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Id kinda rather see smokers going off on the shitz and killing the enforcers in flight mode!

      Itd certainly create a public upset over the bans making people just finally say fuck you!

    • waltc says:

      Actually, jax,what I’ve given up is flying. The need to get to the smoker-free airport hours in advance (in a smoker-free cab), be put thru the crap of being shoeless and prodded with empty pockets.. to sit on a plane that may or may not take off or land on time for a ride that’s scheduled to take 5-7 hrs to begin wkth (the only places I fly to) and to know that I can’t, under pain of arrest or a bankruptsy, have the same cigarette I freely smoked in all those places 20 yrs ago, is enough to make me want to smoke every f’ing second instead of the 3 or 4 I might usually smoke under the same conditions. I accept too that it’s psychological and part of an innate rebellion against irrational Authority. I know that on a train I can get out on some interim platform of a 3 1/2 hr ride or even hit the bathroom for a quick hit, but I’ve never done it, likely because I know I can.

      As for why I smoke, when I was in my early teens there was a very bad situation at home and I would get so furious (at what was going on) and frustrated (that I couldn’t just hit the road) that it manifested itself by my throat closing up so tightly that it hurt. One way to loosen it momentarily was to go outside and smash dishes but you can run out of those pretty fast and then at 15 I discovered that a cigarette had the same but longer-lasting effect–loosened my throat, let me take a deep breath and reestablish my sense of irony. Once you find your Whatever Does It, you repeat it whenever it needs to be Done, pretty much the way if an aspirin cures your headache, you take one as needed which doesn’t mean you’re addicted to aspirin. Cigarettes relieve both tension and physical pain. at least for me. It was only later that I noticed how they aid focus, concentration and inspiration for long periods of time and are, or seem to be,. an integral part of enjoyable–what shall I call them?– social occasions. A “social occasion” in which I can’t smoke is neither relaxing nor enjoyable.

      • waltc says:

        Oh, I once did quit for about 3 months maybe 30 ? yrs ago. During most of those months I had boundless unwanted physical energy that I could only get rid of through boundless unwanted physical activity (I could– would have to– walk or even jog 5 miles, but when I got to some concocted destination and sat on on a bench, I immediately wanted a smoke–what else do you do on a bench?) and I’d have to get up and go again. At home, I couldn’t sit still and do my work of writing–and I had a contract with a deadline– or do any of the things I enjoy doing. I did not crave food; it wasn’t what I wanted. After a while, the hard edge came off the quitting– I could sit still, read, have dinner with friends etc, but I still couldn’t work so, I started smoking again.

        • margo says:

          Very similar to my experience, waltc, and I haven’t travelled long distance since the bans came in on planes and all public transport. I don’t really have holidays except (very occasionally) a few days camping quite nearby.

    • beobrigitte says:

      at the end of a 10-hour flight a smoker – having gone without smoking through check-in, for the length of the flight, and baggage reclaim, plus (sometimes) the onward journey too – smokers would be skipping happily out of the airport breathing deep lungfuls of fresh air and exclaiming to all around them: “Wow! I feel so GOOD! Going without cigarettes is so easy! And I feel so much healthier as a result!”

      Actually, I did not break out in cold sweat or started shaking or whatever on a long haul flight that (with getting into the country through all sorts of checks) took more than 15 hours. Every now and then (after the meals or with coffee/beer) I did miss my smokes.
      However, I did not feel the urge to be happily skipping out the airport and I did not feel any healthier than I usually do, either.

      On return of such flights I do come down with a cold which makes me wonder if nowadays there is little attention paid to the air conditioning/cleaning system.

  11. lleweton says:

    ‘Ball and chain’ – your headline Frank. Yes, a ball and chain on creativity and independent thought.

    • margo says:

      ‘a ball and chain on creativity and independent thought’ – result for the anti-smoking brigade. I noticed quite young that smokers tended to be the rebellious, reprobate types who didn’t bow down to ‘authority’. The uptight adults (some of the parents and most of the teachers) didn’t like them. I don’t think they necessarily smoked in order to rebel, I think it’s more subtle and complicated than that.

      • lleweton says:

        I agree, Margo. I sensed this from the time that smoking was banned upstairs on London buses, and before. And at one time, journalists were among the more unconventional, even Bohemian people – those I knew, and I was one, most likely to question convention and to seek the facts behind handouts. No more, it seems. But I’m looking back more than 20 years.

No need to log in

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

You are commenting using your 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.