Embracing Inevitability

Dexter Gordon by Herman Leonard:
NOLA-Herman_Leonard-Dexter_Gordon

From the other side of the pond, an update on New Orleans‘ proposed smoking ban, H/T Magnetic:

After listening to all of Wednesday night’s speakers, the full City Council will take up the issue at it’s next meeting on Jan. 22. If passed, businesses will have 90 days to comply.

The proposal to ban smoking has roused fierce controversy:

The sweeping smoking ban that City Council members LaToya Cantrell and Susan Guidry have proposed for most of New Orleans has sparked a level of debate and public outcry on both sides rarely seen in city politics these days.

Something I noticed:

The passion of the debate boiled down to which was the greater right: The right of nonsmokers to have a drink or listen to live music unencumbered by a cloud of cigarette-induced haze or the right of establishments to not alienate a smoking clientele critical to their bottom line.

“I’m going to ask us all, as a community, to embrace inevitability that has already been embraced in Chicago, in Los Angeles, in New York and in London and in Paris,” said songwriter Paul Sanchez. “We can look to the future or we can cling to the past a bit longer and see where that leads us.”

But for bar patron Elizabeth Stella, her right to smoke was part of what makes New Orleans one of the more permissive cities in the country.

“Let me remind you that this is New Orleans. It’s not New York. it’s not Chicago. It’s not Seattle. It’s a party town,” she said. “This town has always been known as a freedom town and I am going to do my part to keep it that way by speaking up at every opportunity I have.”

So the non-smokers have got rights. And the establishments have got rights. What happened to the smokers’ rights?

But what’s all this about “embracing inevitability”? It’s one of the tricks of the antismokers to claim that the future is going to be unstoppably smoke-free, and  there’s nothing anyone can do about it, so the only thing to do is “embrace the future” and stop “clinging to the past.” It applies in other spheres: for example that the EU is the future for Europeans, and that is the direction in which the tide of history is flowing, whether you like it or not.

I’m with Elizabeth Stella. There’s nothing inevitable about it: free peoples choose what they want.

And Paul Sanchez’ music is really boring anyway. I couldn’t get 30 seconds into this clip of him singing.

Update: Via Taking Liberties, NOLA online petition.

On this side of the pond, the Blocked Dwarf tells me that:

the forces of evil – or the HMRC as they are affectionately known – are gathering to stop the supply of whole leaf tobacco to private persons. They have issued a ‘consultation’ document and are inviting responses until the end of January.

Our friends over at N2D have prepared a copypasta response so every home shredder who enjoys being able to purchase whole leaf tobacco can respond- ANONYMOUSLY.

It is vital that HMRC get as many ‘anti’ responses as possible otherwise their proposals will just sail through on a sea of recommendations from the usual suspects.

I’ll have to see whether I’ve got any pasta for the copypasta response.

Leggy’s written a post about this. And Junican has too, apparently, although I’m not sure where. Leggy reckons it means you won’t be able to legally grow your own tobacco.

At this rate, pretty soon you won’t be able to grow carrots in your own garden.

The consultation document mentions the requirements of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). It probably doesn’t mention that one of the requirements of the convention is that the tobacco industry should be excluded from consultations. And that will include all smokers, who have been designated as “industry front groups.” So any criticism of the proposals will be ignored.

But if you can complain anonymously, why not?

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

41 Responses to Embracing Inevitability

  1. Smoking Lamp says:

    You are right, nothing is inevitable but the Antismokers have certainly cast their desired outcome that way. As all who regularly read this blog know, this is a contrived movement that seeks to bring everyone along on their bandwagon. The debate in New Orleans is significantly chilled by their propaganda and bully tactics. If a pro-choice comment is posted on an article, they attack the poster and claim that he/she is an out-of-town shill for “Big Tobacco.” The irony is that the Tobacco Control proponents of the ban are from out-of-town, use public funds, and are using manipulated data to support their ban. When done in NOLA they will move on to a new town.

    I’m not sure the ban is inevitable, but if the bars and smokers don’t make their case known strongly it will pass and the next steal be to try and repeal or amend the ban. Repealing or mending bans is rare as we have seen in New York, Honolulu, Chicago, and the UK. The majority would opt for a repeal but they aren’t heard because their views are censored. In the aftermath of these bans there were strong pro-choice movements (some of which still exist, with the strongest in the UK), but they were unable to gain traction.

    The challenge now is to turn the momentum around. Each day a new ban passes or is proposed. The exceptions to past ban are being closed, outdoor bans on patios, streets, and beaches are the rage, and apartments are next. They are seeking total prohibition. The question is how to counter the trend. I saw a comment on another site today where the commenter said the long war was over, meaning the Antismokers won. They may have done, but victory is fleeting. The challenge is to un do the inevitable.

  2. Lepercolonist says:

    “I no longer burn at night, my eyes no longer burn and my nose no longer bleeds,” said Treeva Copeland, a blackjack dealer from Denver, Colo.

    So SHS causes nose bleeding ? Bullshit. This out-of-town blackjack dealer sounds like a paid shill. Many blackjack dealers in New Orleans will soon be out of work if this ban passes.

  3. waltc says:

    A law against growing carrots in your yard isn’t as far-fetched as you think. In a 1930’s (?) case the U S Supreme Court decided that a farmer could not grow his own wheat on his own land that he grew only for the use of his own family and his own livestock. The case was Wickard v Filburn. The decision was ironically based on the logic-stretching premise that this interfered with interstate commerce, supposedly because if he didn’t grow it, he’d have to buy it from another producer, perhaps in another state. In the case of banning interstate or interEU commerce in tobacco leaves, your government is attacking it the other way around and were they to also ban growing it (you can’t buy it elsewhere AND you can’t grow it ) either they’d have perfectly accomplished prohibition-by-other-means, or at the least assured their monopoly on extortionately- taxed tobacco. Constituting for them a win-win.

    • carol2000 says:

      That’s a misrepresentation of Wickard v Filburn. First of all, he was part of a government program, and secondly, the law exempted small farmers. Please do not deceive us.

      • waltc says:

        Read Robert Levy!s book The Dirty Dozen. Is he deceiving you too? And why are you always so dependably nasty?

        • carol2000 says:

          You just accuse me of being nasty for pointing out that there’s more to the story than some people pretend in their political rhetoric.

      • Frank Davis says:

        I have the same question as Walt. Why are you so aggressive, Carol? You didn’t have to accuse Walt of ‘deceiving us’. You could have just said he was wrong. Or mistaken.

        I’ve been hoping that you would become a bit more house-trained as time went on. And to some extent you have. But if you keep laying into people like you’re in a street fight with them, I’m going to have to do something about it.

        • carol2000 says:

          MY CRIME IS SPEAKING WHILE FEMALE, isn’t it? That’s why you’re perfectly happy with a man whom other posters have said they’d ban for his atrocious posting habits, who gave the anti-smokers a pretext to ban the whole lot of us at a crucial moment before a smoking ban.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/speaking-while-female.html

        • carol2000 says:

          And why don’t you just tell Walt to MAN UP instead of acting as if ordinary give and take about ideas is a personal attack on him? I said “Please don’t deceive us,” because when people act upon false information, they just waste their time or make fools of themselves, so people should try to get the story straight and not oversimplify, for the good of the group.

        • Rose says:

          MY CRIME IS SPEAKING WHILE FEMALE, isn’t it?

          Now I’ve heard it all.

        • carol2000 says:

          You don’t think it’s real, Rose? Did you go to all-girl schools or something? Or am I supposedly picking a fight just by asking? I saw it all the time, and nobody questioned it or noted it.

        • Rose says:

          Don’t even attempt to dignify that last remark, Carol.

        • carol2000 says:

          Which last remark? And I don’t see why saying “Please don’t deceive us” is “laying into people like you’re in a street fight.” I think that’s paranoid.

        • Frank Davis says:

          “Please don’t deceive us” is a highly aggressive way of putting something. It carries the implication that someone (in this case Walt) is lying about something, knowingly and deliberately. For all I know, what Walt said may have been wrong/mistaken/misinformed, but one thing I’m damn sure is that he wasn’t trying to deceive anybody.

          That’s why I say that you (very often) come on like you’re in a street fight when you disagree with people. There are ways of disagreeing with people agreeably. All too often you choose the most disagreeable ways of disagreeing. And I think it was the “girls’ school” jibe that Rose was referring too. That was another totally unnecessary pop at someone.

          I’ve just put Stewart Cowan on moderation. And I’m getting pretty near doing the same to you. Because we don’t need this kind of stuff. The only thing I will say for you is that you’re mostly far less aggressive now than when you first showed up.

          I’m all for people disagreeing with each other, and disagreeing with me, in forceful terms. But there’s a limit.

        • carol2000 says:

          I think the problem is that you’ve decided to misinterpret everything I say as an attack, and you’re determined to find fault with ANYTHING I say, no matter how innocuous it was intended to be. Don’t bother putting me on moderation. If you’re out to get me, then I’m leaving and not coming back.

        • Frank Davis says:

          I’m not out to get you. But I’m not the only one ‘misinterpreting’ either.

        • Rose says:

          It wasn’t the girls school remark that bothered me, I went to a mixed grammer.
          It was Carol playing the gender card as a defence against thoroughly deserved criticism that I found despicable.

          “MY CRIME IS SPEAKING WHILE FEMALE, isn’t it? ”

          Well I’m female too so it doesn’t work on me.

          And it’s not just a few aggressive remarks, this rudeness to other posters has been going on for months. It seems so pointless, unless you really are trying to subdue people into silence, because that’s certainly the impression I get.

        • beobrigitte says:

          MY CRIME IS SPEAKING WHILE FEMALE, isn’t it?
          Carol, to be frank; I had you down as someone quite capable to speak up and stand her ground, so why playing the (really annoying) gender card?
          The bottom of the line is, if see a gender difference you have put yourself in the vulnerable spot. I have always seen myself EQUAL and will not settle for any less than that. My current and former bosses can confirm this.

          That’s why you’re perfectly happy with a man whom other posters have said they’d ban for his atrocious posting habits, who gave the anti-smokers a pretext to ban the whole lot of us at a crucial moment before a smoking ban.
          I really do not know whom you mean – and it does not matter, anyway. I regret that Frank has put Stewart on moderation; Unless I am wrong, I would have thought that Stewart and Walt are perfectly capable to thrash out their differences, but it’s not my decision to make.

          If all refers back to one offending post for Stewart, a post that ended with: “or was I?”
          I have to say that at the time I thought this was a brilliant way of saying: ‘I hate snitches’.
          At no time did I think that anyone admitted murder.
          Carol (and Stewart!), remember, we smokers STAND ACCUSED OF MURDER even though the bodies attached to this died of old age related diseases – and/or micro-organism caused ones.

          Anyway, Carol, you must admit that you are not the most polite poster. Of course people get annoyed! I do myself, I admit.

          However, at the end of the day if we squabble amongst ourselves we get nowhere. So, please don’t tell people ‘to-do-something’ – we all are in our own ways as individuals. The fact that we smokers still EXIST and display pride is good enough! Personal differences can (and will be!) settled later, when this anti-smoker nonsense has been yet again confined to history.

  4. carol2000 says:

    “embrace inevitability” – hand me the barf bag. That’s just a reworking of the PCs’ smug phrase that anybody who opposes them is “on the wrong side of history.” I hate those filthy peoples’ guts.

  5. Let’s get one thing straight: smoking doesn’t mean it’s party time. In my two days’ back here, I’ve seen it promoted as an aid to writing, to working more effectively, to relaxation, to wider implications in mental health respite and most importantly of all, as a right of every adult to partake of it in comfortable surroundings.

    I can understand why New Orleans would try to gain a special advantage like this, but it’s a sign of desperation in desperate times.

    My view about taxing tobacco leaf is so that the same immense duty can be levied on e-juice as on tobacco products. I’m sure it’s not worth their while chasing the few people who shred and roll their own.

    As for carrots, if they can jail a man for collecting rain from his roof (as Frank reported a couple of month ago) why not use the same laws to ban watering vegetation (even if it is rainwater)?

    I think we’ve pretty much reached the stage where anything is now possible to demoralise us, dehumanise us, criminalise us and keep us in permanent fear of arrest.

  6. carol2000 says:

    Off topic. From time to time people come up with cockamamie arguments for the right to smoke. You’re bound to lose if you go about it that way, and the anti-smokers don’t even have to work hard to win. Cutting through the blah blah blah to the bottom line:

    “In most instances, courts require that a discriminatory law be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government goal. This requirement is very easy for the government to meet, since a discriminatory law will be upheld so long as it is not totally irrational or arbitrary.”

    “The court upheld the city and state smoking bans since they were rationally related to the legitimate government goal of protecting the public health.”

    “Courts are quick to find that smoke-free legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government goal, since they have long held that protecting the public’s health is one of the most essential functions of government.”

    And so on, again and again. And nobody attacks the real problem, namely that THE GOVERNMENT’S HEALTH CLAIMS ARE BASED ON DELIBERATE FRAUD. This makes them even worse than merely “irrational or arbitrary.” They are the product of malice, an intent to harm smokers’ liberties, with “public health” as a mere pretext. People do not need to be members of a “specially protected group” to expect and demand that the government not fabricate a fraudulent case against them. The government has no more right to fabricate evidence against smokers to take our liberties away, than it has to fake evidence to throw people in prison. Thus, the government has engaged in mass violation of its citizens’ rights for decades.

    Here is how the anti-smokers shoot down the stupid arguments that give the government a pass on its crimes against us, smarmily titled, “There is No Constitutional Right to Smoke: 2008.”
    http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-syn-constitution-2008_0.pdf
    It’s from a slimy law school in Minnesota that specializes in promoting health fascism. It has a couple of scumbags from Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, of the Minnesota tobacco lawsuit fame, also an MPH from Harvard University School of Public Health.
    http://publichealthlawcenter.org/

    • carol2000 says:

      Another of their offerings is “Thirdhand Smoke: A Select Bibliography of Recent Studies.”
      http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-fs-thirdhand-smoke-bibliography-2013_0.pdf

      • margo says:

        ‘And nobody attacks the real problem …DELIBERATE FRAUD.’
        You are right, Carol, and we all know it, but precisely who do you think is in a position to do this, and how?

        • Frank Davis says:

          precisely who do you think is in a position to do this, and how?

          Exactly.

        • carol2000 says:

          HOW ABOUT YOU? I take it you’ve just been ignoring everything I write about it? And what the hell do you expect to happen when all people do is grovel at the anti-smokers’ feet, whimpering “we’re not worthy to doubt,” and letting them get away with it?

        • Barry Homan says:

          I tend to support carol a bit. I visit this blog (and others) every day, but all I do is read, and sometimes write. A short paragraph, which gets lost in the other posts. That’s all I do.

          And what if this NOLA ban passes, people? Then what, just more and more reading?

          What do we do next? I bet this post goes lost as well.

        • carol2000 says:

          This is something that the hospitality industry should have filed a lawsuit about long ago, because they have more standing to do so, due to financial injury. But they refuse to even try, just as they’ve refused to attack the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud in city council hearings or anywhere else. All we can do is let attorneys know that the evidence for such a case has been compiled and is on my website. Hopefully, one might be interested.

        • Barry it doesn’t go unnoticed nor anyone elses. Every ones opinion counts as even tose who don’t even read anything but simply see whats happened have an opinion. That opinion is how much more BS nanny govmnt will we have before its over with. Its the reason ukip kickedass its the reason people voted the republicans in. Its not just smoking its the all of it people hate and that’s the downfall of the Nazis they don’t stop at one thing they go for everybody just like last time and its always why they fail,they make enemies of everyone even in their own ranks. Evenetually these Nazi groups cross paths against even each other and they fight then……….its more a matter of watch it all implode than fight anymore, They went to far long ago and the voters noticed even the leftists noticed and enuf of us our pissed that change will come and the ultimate collapse of the whole damned charade.

  7. magnetic01 says:

    Confidence trick

    It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we “knew” we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side. But it was only five minutes before the vote that the political adviser to the health secretary phoned us to let us know Patricia
    Hewitt was supporting our position, and we only found out after the vote that the prime minister and Gordon Brown had followed her through the lobby.

    The struggle for smoke-free legislation went from nowhere to victory in a short time. It routed powerful opponents and exposed many of them as incompetent or insubstantial.
    It shifted public opinion from indifference to overwhelming support. Some ideas reach a point at which their time has come. But some will also often need a vigorous campaign before politicians notice the obvious.

    • Deborah Arnott is the director of Action on Smoking and Health. Ian Willmore is
    public affairs manager of Ash.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

    The entire article is quite interesting.

    • carol2000 says:

      That’s ASH’s self-serving story. As if it only started in 2003, and wasn’t founded on decades of unopposed anti-tobacco propaganda based on scientific fraud. That’s why the militant collusion of the mass media is crucial. Because of them, the public only heard from Official Anti-Smoker-Approved Fake Opponents who never questioned the fraud, who obediently spoke only of the things the anti-smokers wanted them to and never missed an opportunity to fail to shoot them down. They were incompetent and insubstantial because that’s how the anti-smokers wanted them. They rigged the game so the anti-smokers would win.

  8. Frank Davis says:

    Totally off topic, I get some weird bits of spam. This one seemed to be a glimpse into another world:

    one. Collect the troops. You require assistance, be it from a friend, a group like Overeaters Anonymous as well as an online neighborhood. Investigate suggests people who check out to diet plan alone are probably to fall off the wagon. Which is why some strategies have a formal assistance part Bodyweight Watchers connects dieters through weekly meetings, even while Jenny Craig members are assigned counselors for tips and encouragement. If you are not comfortable speaking about your weight encounter to encounter, log using the web. By signing up for your complimentary system PeerTrainer, as an example, dieters can interact and track each others’ weight reduction progress, pose inquiries and swap diet plan and training suggestions. Hold yourself accountable. A couple chips right here plus a few cookie nibbles there may seem to be harmless, but mindless munching adds up. Record anything you eat and drink in a foods diary. Most of us don’t comprehend precisely simply how much we eat, so building conscious notes will place each meal, snack or splurge into perspective. Some study suggests that dieters who keep foods diaries for five months lose nearly twice as a good deal weight as their non journaling peers. Journaling can reveal the problematic cues, triggers and habits that might be sabotaging your weight reduction efforts. You might recognize tendencies to overeat on deadline hefty days, as an example, or uncover that your morning frozen coffee packs an additional 400 calories each day.

  9. The Blocked Dwarf says:

    @ FD, thanks for posting about this. Junican wrote about this several times towards the end of last year https://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/more-about-tobacco-taxes/

    I have emailed all those in the UK who bought leaf shredders off me last year and so far, since yesterday afternoon, about 10 of them have replied to say that they hadn’t even heard of it (the consultation) and that they would be sending in their objections.

    It’s not surprising that a lot of home shredders haven’t heard of this. AFAIK tl4u.me is the only UK leaf selling site making it’s customers aware that there is a real threat to their ability to buy leaf in future! http://www.tobaccoleaf4u.com/news/

    • party and smoking in any unkown location of the clients choise for 24 hours only before Johnny law or the Nazis know what happened,the only evidence left is thirdhand smoke residue and cig butts about the ground…………….

    • carol2000 says:

      It looks like a bouncy house. How would you keep your drink from spilling?

  10. carol2000 says:

    Re NOLA, I posted a protest on my front page on smokershistory.com, right under Frank’s cartoon.

  11. beobrigitte says:

    “I’m going to ask us all, as a community, to embrace inevitability that has already been embraced in Chicago, in Los Angeles, in New York and in London and in Paris,” said songwriter Paul Sanchez. “We can look to the future or we can cling to the past a bit longer and see where that leads us.”

    How about we stick with the tried and tested? A Jazz place without smoke? No thanks!
    And, no, we do not want the artificial “smoke” spread in the little place, it don’t smell right.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s