Antismoking and Antisemitism

I knew that David Cameron regarded himself as the “heir to Blair”, but this is news to me:

Through much of his nine-year period as leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, David Cameron has copied Tony Blair’s political strategies and emulated the Blairite system of foreign policy alliances.

This is deliberate. At a private dinner party during his leadership campaign, Mr Cameron reportedly said that he considered himself the “heir to Blair”. It is said that Mr Cameron and George Osborne both refer to Mr Blair as “the Master”, asking each other “what would the Master have done?” when in difficult situations. The Unfinished Revolution: How New Labour Changed British Politics Forever, written by Tony Blair’s late political strategist Philip Gould, is regarded within the Cameron circle with the same awe and veneration as a Bible.

It is not widely known that Mr Cameron often seeks advice from the former prime minister. For instance, Mr Blair (so his allies tell me) played an important role in talking David Cameron into the calamitous Libyan intervention four years ago, overriding the advice both of then foreign secretary William Hague and General David Richards, chief of the defence staff. Mr Blair also urged intervention in Syria, though last year’s House of Commons vote made that impossible.

What did they so admire about Blair? But what does it matter what they admired, if the result is that “conservative” Cameron is a clone of “labour” Blair. Is it any wonder that all these people seem to be the same?

And I often compare antismoking to antisemitism. And antisemitism is on the rise:

Comparisons to the 1930’s could be seen as crass – if it were not for the fact that Jewish people living in Europe are making the comparisons themselves. As a wave of anti-Semitism swept across Europe this summer, manifesting itself in smashed up synagogues and attacks on Jews, with the recent flight of Jews from France, Belgium and to a lesser extend eastern Europe, the Jewish diaspora in Europe have once again began to wonder whether they can really call the country in which they live ‘home’.

“These are the worst times since the Nazi era,” Dieter Graumann, president of Germany’s Central Council of Jews, told the Guardian in August. “On the streets, you hear things like ‘the Jews should be gassed’, ‘the Jews should be burned’ – we haven’t had that in Germany for decades. Anyone saying those slogans isn’t criticising Israeli politics, it’s just pure hatred against Jews: nothing else. And it’s not just a German phenomenon. It’s an outbreak of hatred against Jews so intense that it’s very clear indeed.”

A poll conducted by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in November found that one in every eleven Germans was willing to admit that they subscribe to fascistic beliefs, including hatred of Jews. And in February, a study conducted by America’s Anti-Defamation League, which surveyed 332,000 Europeans using an index of 11 questions designed to assess adherence to anti-Jewish stereotypes, found that 24 percent of all Europeans held some level of anti-Jewish attitude. The figure was highest in France, where it rose to 37 percent, followed by 27 percent in Germany.

Is it entirely accidental that antismoking and antisemitism are on the rise at the same time? Perhaps they’re different faces of the same thing?

I’ve never understood antisemitism (or antismoking, for that matter). It always strikes me as being deeply irrational to be anti any entire social group. But since antisemites seem to regard Jews as being inferior people (for no reason that I can see), and antismokers regard smokers as inferior people (because “addicts”, devoid of self-control, etc, etc), maybe that’s the shared trait: looking down on other people. And this also extends to drinkers and fat people. And any number of other people as well: e.g. blacks, gays, women.

Perhaps antis (of all kinds) are people who somehow need to feel superior to other people, and go about it by putting other people down. And maybe this is something that regularly happens in times of economic recession/depression (like now), when a lot of people’s sense of self-esteem falls (for example, when they lose their jobs).

The same sort of thing might drive school bullying. I used to hate school. Schools are often grim places where all the kids are suffering and being put upon (i.e. put down), and perhaps the response is to put other kids down. The school bully who puts other kids down raises his own self-esteem at their expense. He (or she) deflects some of the shared misfortune onto others.

Same might apply with nations and nationalism. The worse your country is doing, the more you deride other countries. There never used to be any football hooliganism in Britain when the England team used to regularly win (which they did up until about 1966). But now that the England football team regularly loses, we have drunken English football hooligans beating up foreigners.

And a lot of antismokers strike me as being damaged people with low self-esteem. And putting smokers down may be a way of boosting their own uncertain self-esteem. Certainly my archetypal antismoker, Dr W, was a deeply psychologically damaged individual (damaged by what, I do not know). And the Stanton Glantzes of the world don’t seem very much better. Perhaps they’re all people who didn’t get invited to the party, and have nursed a grievance ever since.

And it strikes me as a profoundly empty kind of life that devotes itself to diminishing and ‘denormalising’ other people. What a waste of a life! Why couldn’t they do something constructive, like make music, or produce art or literature or science? But perhaps they weren’t able. And instead they became vandals.


About Frank Davis

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

36 Responses to Antismoking and Antisemitism

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    The hate builds nationalism trumpets the call of a new age and freedom loving people get caught in the middle yet again. While a totalitarian EU builds this hate caused by its own actions.

    This builds the foundations of another great European war to come.

  2. Some other Tom says:

    “…and instead they became vandals.”

    So perfectly true. In my mind that sums it up perfectly; they defile and destroy with vigor and at whim, using any and all means

  3. The Blocked Dwarf says:

    I have long held the suspicion that Hitler was so anti-smoking because most of Big Tobacco in Germany was Jewish owned and it comes as no surprise that the same ‘scientists’ who came with their obscene ‘racial’ science also discovered Passivrauchen.

  4. jaxthefirst says:

    “Perhaps antis (of all kinds) are people who somehow need to feel superior to other people, and go about it by putting other people down.”

    Yes, indeedy. I actually think that this need to feel superior to someone – anyone – else is far, far more widespread than just the vocal and/or active antis. The more that I’ve seen erstwhile (apparently) sensible and rational and reasonable people seemingly embracing anti-smokism with a level of enthusiasm which has distinct echoes of a sense of relief (“At last! Someone we are permitted – nay encouraged – to look down our noses at and be prejudiced against!”) the more I’ve come to believe that many, many more people than just the more loud-mouthed of the bullies in the anti field have this self-same, deep-seated need to feel somehow “better” than at least one other group of people.

    I sometimes think that this is the key to the zealots’ success – it isn’t that they’ve actually convinced anyone of either the health risks of smoking or the health risks of ETS – it’s that they’ve keyed into a rather unpleasant facet of human nature which is much more common than is ever admitted and have simply nurtured it. It’s one of the reasons why people who claim to believe all the hysteria about smoking are so inflexible about it and refuse to discuss it rationally. It isn’t that they don’t see the flaws in their arguments because, let’s be honest, a five-year-old could give you a pretty good line of logical reasoning as to why, just as the number of people smoking has been steadily declining, the number of people developing cancer has been steadily increasing, but it’s because this “need to be better” is so important to them. After all, if someone admits – however reluctantly and however privately – that smoking and ETS aren’t really anywhere near as dangerous as has been made out, then their whole reason for feeling superior falls flat. People who believe all this “the science is settled” and “it’s been proved that …” would do well to ponder on that fact. How do they know the “science is settled” when they haven’t read it? How do they know “it’s been proved” when all they’ve read are a few scanty newspaper stories? Most importantly why do they need to believe all this? Why is it so important to them that it’s all true that they won’t debate even the dodgiest of the studies?

    It seems that those of us who have no such need – most often smokers – are actually in the minority in this respect. Perhaps that’s why we tend to be better company than non-smokers. We just relate to people as, well, other people – no better and no worse than us. To us it’s incomprehensible (and, to be honest, a bit pointless), to have another group to feel “better” than. Which, most ironically of all, renders us – the persecuted – morally at least, far superior to them, even though we have no desire for any such thing!

    • Barry Homan says:

      It’s also because smoking is a very effective social mechanism. It just works. It’s a prop to hold, between your fingers, a way to have your say, then to take a break and let others talk, while you inhale and exhale. (What if women didn’t have that glass of wine at a party, what if they had no glass rim to peer over and discreetly check out the gents?) Look at what has been substituted for cigarettes in modern times: the cell phone. As I observed a while back, the increase in smoking bans seems to have kept exact pace with the increased use of cell-phones. A coincidence? Not likely, to my mind. But people are now separating themselves from each other, it’s this onerism, and it stinks. People have become trapped inside their bubbles.

    • lleweton says:

      ‘…..they’ve keyed into a rather unpleasant facet of human nature which is much more common than is ever admitted and have simply nurtured it.’ I agree. Looking down on people is a way of feeling immortal. The Gospels warn us against looking down on people.

  5. Smoking Lamp says:

    As Caeser opined “Divide et impera” (Divide and conquer/rule). Witch hunts are a powerful tool for controlling the masses. Both antisemitism and antismoking movements involve demonizing a class of people and turning them into the ‘other.’ This is the classic tactic of the ‘witch hunt.’ Essentially both are deliberately orchestrated political violence. They are fueled by propaganda (“Fere lib enter homines id quod volunt credunt” (“men generally believe what they want [wish] to,” Caeser, De Bello Gallico, Book III, Ch. 18) and sustained by fear and hate.

    It is clear the Antismokers are guided by knowledge of past political movements. They constructed a threat (as Hitler and the Nazis demonized the Jews) to explain why the economy was not working. By casting blame they then could manipulate and extract resources and power from the complicit mass and the victims alike. In totalitarian (Fascist and Communist alike) many members of the mass became more brutal in oppression than the manipulators (Gestapo, Stasi, KGB, etc.). Just look at how the capos terrorized follow prisoners in the concentration camps. Reading the hate speech and rants propagated by rabid antismokers has striking similarities to the way collaborator during the Nazi/Facist era persecuted Jews and other minorities (Roma, Intellectuals, Gays, Christians). The Islamic State does so today.

    The banality of the oppression is striking. It grows as people jump on the band wagon. They do so because they want to be in the ‘in crowd.’ To avoid being marginalized themselves they strive to become anything other then the dreaded ‘other.’ Sadly, the masses don’t even recognize the true nature of their actions (or the deny and suppress recognition of them). Of course start small and then expand the restrictions on the targeted group, that will keep the mass from knowing they are being used. And when faced by opposition loudly state your case, invoke propaganda, and cast doubt on the opposition.

  6. I see some other Tom picked out the same point I had just copied into my buffer to respond to: “And instead they became vandals.”

    And not just quick grafitti-tag vandals, but the type who smash the windows and vandalize things in ways that ultimately injure and kill people while destroying the civil societies around them.

    Excellent analysis Frank, as always. I always try to show the face of hate that’s out there (as per my Wall Of Hate from TobakkoNacht at ) and how it lays an acceptable foundation/pattern/blueprint of building hate toward other “undesirable” subgroups out there.

    “We’re not saying ‘No Christians allowed!’, we’re just saying no Christmas trees because they might fall over and kill The Children, and no holy-water fonts because innocent children might try to drink from them and catch diseases from perverted priests, and no candles because they emit air pollution and start fires, and no priests in cassocks because they might really be terrorists hiding bombs under those gowns, and no wearing Crucifixes because the ends might be sharpened and dipped in Polonium 210 and then used for surreptitiously stabbing people. But you’re perfectly free to be Christian in the privacy of your own bedroom provided you turn the lights out and keep your praying volume under 5 decibels. It’s NOT a ban!”


  7. Pingback: A smoky round-up | underdogs bite upwards

  8. Smoking Lamp says:

    The Times-Picayune ( has an article reporting the economic impact of the proposed comprehensive smoking ban at “State police expect New Orleans to lose millions if smoking ban is passed,”

    The analysis was conducted by the Louisiana State Police and presented to the state’s Gaming Control Board. The projected economic loss toe New Orleans is estimated at $86.4 Million in gaming revenue and $17.4 Million in fees over the first two years. This $113.8 Million shortfall does not include the impact of the ban on bars.

    The report also has nice data on the economic impact of smoking bans in other states and settings:
    — Delaware gaming revenue down 12% in year after ban;
    — Atlantic City gaming revenue down 24% in two-years post ban;
    — Colorado gaming revenue down 8% ;
    — Louisiana restaurant revenue is down 24% since a ban took affect in 2007, and revenue in bars in hotels is down 10% since 2007.

    Of course the Antismokers have claimed there are no economic downturns due to smoking bans and they often claim business goes up. Obviously they don’t actually frequent bars that often. They are also claiming that the economic impact does not matter due to the positive health impacts, despite being able to actually demonstrate any with actual studies as opposed to propaganda. For example, the proponents of the ban say the cost estimate by the state police do not account for the medical costs. While that is true it is also totally irrelevant as those costs already exist and are not new costs, the smoking rate has been dropping for at least 30 years but medical costs (as well as diseases among non-smokers) have been rising.

    • Back in 2005 Dave Kuneman and I did a very well constructed study examining the economic effects of bans in the long term in varyingly matched groups of states with and without bans. Among other things we concluded that if the trends held true and our figures were correct, that during the first fifteen years of its ban activities the single state of California would take a hit of roughly ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS to its overall economy due to the ban.

      Anyone familiar with the economic crises in California over the past five to ten years can attest to that.

      See our study hosted over at the Smokers Club site at:

      Also: an addition to your list of gaming losses: Illinois dropped 22% in the year after its ban while all three of its adjacent non-banned casino states posted increases.

      – MJM

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        Thanks, Great study and I agree the critics did not read it before trying to marginalize it.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          At NOLA I lasted about 5 posts against their BS with other individuals before banned. I got back in again though and then my puter started getting hacked and jammed again by somebody…………screen being flipped and fluttered and then post page missing then finally after going thru a third party link got back in with no more problems. Unless they removed my researched casino losses comments.

        • mikef317 says:

          Michael McFadden posted a reference to his study at 2:55 AM. You responded 12 minutes later, at 3:07 AM.

          Were you previously aware of this, or did it take you just 10 minutes to conclude that the study is “great,” and that “critics did not read it before trying to marginalize it”?

          I read this study years ago when it Michael and his co-author were trying to get it published, and I know the problems they had. It’s a “good” study. I agree with the conclusions. I spent at least an hour reading and re-reading the text, and pondering the numbers (but I didn’t try to verify the data based on my own research).

          Tobacco Control typically points to a single study and proclaims it unquestionable truth. This is a grave intellectual error. Beware that you don’t make the same error in the opposite direction.

  9. Smoking Lamp says:

    In addition to the newly proposed statewide smoking ban in Kentucky they are now proposing one for Texas. See: “Texas Once Again to Consider a Statewide Smoking Ban,” New York Times (no comment field) at / The article originates at The Texas Tribune,

    This will be the fifth consecutive legislative session that a statewide smoking ban is put forward. Currently 100 cities in Texas restrict smoking on their own.

    The Antismokers operational tempo is high. Strategically they are clearly going for global tobacco and vaping prohibition by denormalizing smoking and demonizing smokers. Operationally they are trying to wage multiple, simultaneous actions to overwhelm and split opposition. Tactically they are seeking to eliminate bar and casino exemptions, enact outdoor bans, enact vehicle smoking bans.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Yep but southern states have told em hit the road for a decade or more. In fact Id believe as far as southern states go Tenn will likely be the first to repeal it.

  10. Barry Homan says:

    It’s like I’ve said, so many times before. Anti-smokers look like people who don’t get invited to the party.

  11. Woods42 says:

    If you deliberately destroy fairness and respect in society by bringing about a system of values that encourages an attitude of moral superiority and sneering at particular groups, like smokers, you must expect that such arrogant behaviour will become the norm, be seen to be acceptable, and will be applied by other people to other minority groups which they don’t like.

    • Rose says:

      It would seem that is already happening.

      I can’t help wondering if banishing smokers to the outside of hospitals led eventually to the neglect of other patients such as in Mid Staffordshire. After all, it requires an entirely different mindset to go from the tradition of caring for your patients to punishing them and politically favoured groups may not necessarily escape the attentions of those required to carry it out.

      When you give carte blanche to bully one section of the population it’s bound to spread, to others. After all respect and good manners were developed to stop us killing each other and keep the bullies muzzled.

      Instructions on how to hurt, humiliate and alienate your friends and family from the University of Sydney in 2009

      Experts: Embarrass a smoker today

      “Every smoker huddling outside workplace exits this winter to grab a few puffs is cared about by someone.
      It’s those people who care that can have the most impact in persuading smokers to kick the habit, health experts said. ”

      How to do it?
      Be direct.

      “The more you do to embarrass people, the better,” said Dr. Susan Blatt, who was involved in the Utica COMMIT antismoking program in the late 1980s and early 1990s.”

      If as a member of a formerly polite and tolerant society, you have difficulties being deliberately rude, they have provided instruction.

      Ways to embarrass a smoker to quit

      “If all your humble requests, health alarms and statutory warnings have failed to make someone dear to you kick the butt, we have a solution!
      According to a recent study conducted by the University of Sydney Department of Psychology, embarrassing a smoker by talking of the smell that lingers with smokers after a ciggie break can prove to be a better way to push them towards quitting rather than discussing about tobacco-related diseases.

      Explains psychiatrist Dr. Sameer Parekh, “Quitting smoking is a problem that needs a three-way treatment. First educate the smoker on the biological, psychological and social benefits/harms of quitting/not quitting the habit. Embarrassing them constitutes one of the psychological measures.”

      Taking the cues from the study, we give you some fun ways to embarrass someone dear to you to kick the butt out of embarrassment:”

      I wonder how many families and friendships broke down irretrievably after following that advice.

      • Frank Davis says:

        After all, it requires an entirely different mindset to go from the tradition of caring for your patients to punishing them

        It’s why I think that there’s going to have to be a purge of the medical profession some day (and the sooner the better).

        As far as I can see, the antismoking “healthist” zealots are in many cases not actually practising doctors who actually care for patients, but bureaucrats of one sort or other. My Dr W, for example, was a district health officer in charge of public health in a region of North London. He had no patients whatsoever.

        The same goes for the likes of Richard Doll and George Godber. Despite having qualified as doctors, they never (or hardly ever) actually practised medicine. Same also for Gro Harlem Brundtland, the WHO secretary general who moved the WHO decisively towards its current antismoking/healthist orientation..

        It seems possible (and perhaps even likely) that once a doctor ceases to deal with real people, and starts dealing solely with numbers – percentages, prevalences, death rates, etc,- they start seeing people as abstractions, or as numbers. And that’s where the rot first sets in.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Funny thing I never once remember anybody telling me to put out a smoke at the front gate as an armed guard. Not even this general once much less our own base captain.

          Then that seatbelt thingy they tried to invoke I never was much up on enforcing laws I didn’t agree with. Dad Called them BULLSHIT LAWS…………..he was right

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Petitioners fight to repeal new tobacco ordinances

    The ordinances passed 6-1 at Monday’s council meeting and went into effect immediately.

    “They represent a bad policy of prohibition rather than education for treating real problems of substance abuse,” said Spencer Pearson, Columbia resident and supporter of the petitions.

    Pearson said the ordinances will hurt businesses and city revenue more than they will prevent youth from smoking.

    Ashley McWilliams, who works at the Break Time convenience store on Ash Street and Providence Road, said the majority of tobacco sales are to people younger than 21.

    “Kids couldn’t wait until they were 18. Now they got to wait until they’re 21,” McWilliams said.

    Keep Columbia Free is collaborating with local tobacco accessory stores and convenience stores to spread the word about the petitions and collect signatures.

    Petitioners plan to stand outside grocery stores, bars and other establishments to collect signatures.

    The petitions need 3,209 signatures by Jan. 5 for a referendum to occur. If enough signatures are obtained, the petitions will go to the city clerk for review, City Counselor Nancy Thompson said. If the clerk finds the petitions sufficient, the council will decide if it will repeal the ordinances or send them to the ballot for the public to vote, Thompson said.

    “The hardest part about this is getting a group mobilized in such a short amount of time,” Pearson said.

    Supporters of the petitions have created a Facebook page for more information.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Those frigging HP updates were locking my puter up left and right now I got em shut down.

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    A post-mortem for wellness programs: What went wrong?

    Commentary: The obituary for traditional wellness programs has been widely published (see National Public Radio, Health Affairs, and Kaiser Health News) though perhaps not universally acknowledged. Perhaps an autopsy is in order. What indeed went wrong?

    Here are some suspects for the kill shot:

    1. Assuming there was a straight line between behaviors and costs. The idea was that if the group had fewer couch-potato people, it would have lower costs for heart disease. In truth, a working-age population has relatively low costs for heart disease to begin with. Even in smokers, it takes many years for a cancer to develop.

    2. Hoping that screening tests would lower long-term costs. Finding a small tumor or treating pre-hypertension was supposed to make medical costs lower. The reality is, early treatment is more treatment, and can also be over-treatment. All that treatment is costly – more costly than treating the illnesses that were being avoided.

    3. Banking on “avoided” costs or projected trends. Estimating costs that would have been paid or cost increases that would have happened does not put cash in an employer’s pocket. Employers have still paid more every year than they did the previous year.

    4. Taking credit for trends that are bigger than the employer’s group. Health costs have slowed down in recent years, likely because of the overall economic slowdown. It’s unlikely that an employer’s lower rate increases are from their health risk assessment, no matter how well designed it is.

    5. Focusing on after-hours, lifestyle choices instead of the work environment. Considering that a person spends much more time with his boss than with his doctor, it makes sense that having a bully for a boss is a bigger health hazard than being a sofa spud. Indeed, studies show that people’s blood pressure goes down when they get a fair and respectful boss, even if they don’t get off the couch after work.

    6. Changing superficial things in the work environment. Putting more fresh fruit in the cafeteria or eliminating junk food from the vending machines does do something, but not much. For example, a person who has control over her workday will have less hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol) than her time-clock-punching subordinate even if they both eat the same junk food. Actual health, in other words, is affected only indirectly by the food we eat. It is more shaped by a person’s whole life experience.

    7. Using extrinsic incentives to motivate behavior change. Paying people to stop smoking, lose weight, or go to the gym works as long as the incentive keeps flowing, and goes up every year. Few employers would want to keep up the game at higher and higher cost every year. Besides, behavioral economists have long known that external rewards do not create lasting behavior change.

    Employers who are ready to start the post-wellness era will look at how employees are treated in the workplace. Are they treated respectfully? Are they rewarded and acknowledged for their efforts? Are they informed about the company’s future plans? Improving these aspects will improve everyone’s health, and no programs, vendors, or assessments required.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      LOOKS LIKE CVS wellness centers are a BUST!

    • Frank Davis says:

      “the post-wellness era”

      That’s an idea to toy with!

    • smokervoter says:

      “The problem with wellness programs and the carrot and stick approach to controlling healthcare costs is that they don’t work. Employees resent the intrusion into their lives. Having their urine or blood collected and analyzed crosses the line between holding down a job and quasi-slavery. Pepsi executives should have known this going in. Now they’re going to have to learn the hard way, hopefully with a 20% drop off in sales.

      Surveying, monitoring and nagging employees to adopt healthier lifestyles does not come without cost, in fact it’s quite expensive. So costly that it frequently outweighs simply treating the symptoms. In addition, all of this big brother like monitoring tends to lower morale as grownups reject being treated like errant minors.”

      I wrote this into a piece at my dearly departed (well, frozen) website as the direct result of an article I’d just read detailing this finding. It more or less backed this Employee Benefits News author’s contention. That is, with a bit of my own editorialization thrown into the mix for good measure.

      I warn you at the outset over at my website that I’m not big on links and thus didn’t include one to the aforementioned article. “We’re not crazy about links either, they’re kind of irritating. We want to you read what we’ve got to say here and not spend your time off on some tangent as you click on a link and disappear into cyberspace.”

      I do remember that it was about the Safeway corporation and I’m guessing it was around the time of the Pepsi announcement of charging their smoking employees extra. It was a very informative article as I recall.

      I’d look it up myself but I’m not in the mood to get into a wild internet goose chase right now. I don’t want to disappear into cyberspace. I’d rather kick back here at Frank’s place.

      Maybe tomorrow. (Yeah, sure)

  15. Rose says:

    Denormalisation in a nutshell from 2010.

    “Look, there’s a chap over there smoking. Let’s go over and torment him. We’ve already banned him from smoking indoors, forced him to stand outside the pub in the freezing sleet, charged him over six quid a pack and festooned each pack with images of rotting lungs, disgusting teeth and stunted babies. We’ve told private members’ clubs they can’t make their own rules about whether members are allowed to smoke, and we’ve made employers think twice about hiring a smoker (even if he doesn’t indulge at work) as if the act of lighting a gasper was in some way criminal.

    But we’re not finished are we? People are still smoking in the street, outside the office, in the hotel car park. Look at that chap, smoking in the pub garden. Let’s make up a new rule and say, you can’t smoke in that garden, it’s a health risk. Yes, I’m aware that smoke rises and keeps going up until it’s dispersed into the atmosphere, but it’s possible that some pub employee could be passing overhead in, say, a hot air balloon at 9,000 feet, could inhale a trace element of nicotine and suffer in the future from a slight cough, and because of this high risk factor, we’ve told the pub owner to ban smoking in the open air, among the innocent, tobacco-free trees …

    Pardon the sarcasm but, sometimes, the anti-smoking lobby sound like sadistic children, dreaming up ever-more elaborate ways to torment people engaged in a perfectly legal activity.”

    Far too long to post in full, but he concludes that –

    “They won’t actually ban the activity, since it makes the Government such a fortune in duty; but as with torturers, they’ll enjoy doing everything but the final bit.”

  16. garyk30 says:

    From yesterday
    Carol posted:
    “scientific fraud of blaming smoking for diseases caused by infection,”

    Seems to me that the antis will just say something like this.
    “Everyone is exposed to the viruses that cause infection; since smokers get these diseases more often, it is smoking that causes the difference.”

    Thus they will claim that smoking ’causes’ those diseases.

  17. Pingback: One Size Fits All | Frank Davis

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.