Global Social Disintegration

Lots of thought-provoking comments today. Nika set me thinking:

I recently 100% reverse-ostracized all of my friends and family (including my only daughter and grandson) when the last one went Smoke Nazi….

This was the most intelligent and sane thing I have ever done. The rush and relief that I feel from finally coming loudly out of the closet have been incredible.

I completely understand this. I myself haven’t done anything quite so radical. For the most part the social disintegration I’ve experienced has been as result of the pub smoking ban removing the one place where I could happily meet with my former (mostly non-smoking) friends, many of whom had banned smoking in their homes. For the most part, I simply no longer saw them again.

In some cases it was different. Shortly after the UK ban came into effect, one friend turned out to have been working in Tobacco Control for most of the time I’d known her, and I realised we’d never be able to get on together again, It was a bit like finding out that one of your friends was an SS obersturmbannführer or something. I sent her a long email that ended, “Let me know when you’ve stopped persecuting smokers.” More recently, I rebuffed another old friend by writing, “As a smoker, I’m not welcome in your house. And as an antismoker, you’re not welcome in mine.” But it had taken me about 10 years to reach that point.

Margo wrote:

I have very few friends these days, because I can’t be friends with anyone who fusses when I light a cigarette.

I’m not sure that I have any friends at all now. My former circle of friends seem to have all become casualties of the smoking ban. And that includes quite a few of those apathetic smokers who like to pretend that nothing has happened.

Certainly I wouldn’t want to meet any antismokers: It’s that awful stench of sanctimoniousness.

But add it all up, what’s happening to Nika and Margo and me, and plenty of other commenters here, and you see a picture of global social disintegration. All over the world, people who used to get along perfectly well with each other are parting company. Hundreds of millions of people are losing hundreds of millions of friends. Society is being torn apart.

I also find, like Nika, my attitude steadily hardening. There are things that happened 10 years ago, which if they happened now, would get a very strong response from me (I’m thinking of a dinner party I’d been invited to, where the hostess announced that she was banning smoking… once we’d all arrived and sat down.) Walt wrote yesterday that if anyone asks you to step outside to smoke, you should step outside and hail a cab. Quite so.

Where does it all end? That brings me on to John Watson’s comment:

A withdrawal from society that leads to a smoking counter-society?

I think that’s where it’s going. I think smokers will tend to congregate together, much like black people or jews. What else ever happens when discrimination takes place? Smokers are being thrown together, by their shared experiences. And I’m sure that, like mine, their attitudes are gradually hardening.

I’d add that along with the social disintegration, in my experience there comes a wider alienation from almost everything. From the wider antismoking culture, from politicians, from doctors (and dentists), “experts” of all types, the mass media, and much more. I lived through the social upheaval of the 1960s, but this is much deeper. If nothing else, the 60s wasn’t something that was planned. What’s happening to smokers all over the world is something that has been planned.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

34 Responses to Global Social Disintegration

  1. cherie79 says:

    I am fortunate that my two closest friends, never smokers, couldn’t care less about smoking. Both were married to smokers who died, neither from a smoking related disease. Like me they are inclined to dismiss all scares as we have seen it all before. I could never be friends with active anti smokers, they would never be my kind of people if they believe all the nonsense. I prefer people with a modicum of common sense.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smoking ban and the continuation of “draconian laws”

    by Timothy Harris | May 20th, 2015

    http://www.realchangenews.org/2015/05/20/smoking-ban-and-continuation-draconian-laws

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Looks like some of the leftist leaning groups are finally coming out against the nanny state for a change.

    • Nika says:

      Go to the realchangenews.org link and read the comment at bottom with OSHA findings. The elephant in the room is of truly mythical proportions!

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    Council made the right decision on smoking ban

    As a non-smoker, I applaud the decision of the Council to reject the proposed smoking ban.

    One councilman lamented the fact that Lafayette was conservative and suggested that was not a good characteristic. I disagree; I want to conserve the principles of our Constitution. As long as tobacco is legal, smokers should have a place where they can go and socialize.

    Various levels of government have suppressed many avenues where smokers can congregate; enough is enough. The front page of the May 20th edition of The Daily Advertiser reports, with considerable bias, the decision of the Council. Allow me to rebut:

    • I would be equally against any ordinance that requires a business to allow smoking so any bad or club who chooses to may go smoke free

    • There are many places, such as restaurants, that employ bartenders so if smoke bothers you, go to a restaurant or a non-smoking bar

    • If you are a musician or other entertainer that is bothered by smoke, accept performance dates only in non-smoking venues; don’t expect venues to change their rules to fit your desires

    http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/opinion/2015/05/20/council-made-right-decision-smoking-ban/27664643/

  4. harleyrider1978 says:
    • harleyrider1978 says:

      There comes a time, there comes a time in the history of nations when fear and complacency allow power to accumulate and liberty and privacy to suffer. That time is now and I will not let the Patriot Act, the most unpatriotic of acts go unchallenged.”

  5. Reinhold says:

    I’m not sure that I have any friends at all now.

    Yes you have. :-)

    Me, I’ve got new ones. Better ones. Teammates in our (lost) battle against the Bavarian total smoking ban. Brothers and sisters in arms. Understanding, cultivated people. Artists, scientists, craftsmen. And of course we’re anything but fixed on smoking matters when we meet. I love my new friends. Most of all, they are much more reliable.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Reinhold One man once said the freedom of a country is easily discernable by its freedom to smoke openly………….I cant remember his name but it may have been Hemmingway

      • mikef317 says:

        Hemmingway died in 1961, when the anti-smoking jihad was in its infancy.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Hemingway was there when the first smoking bans were going on in America………

          Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

          1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

          1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

          1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

          1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

          1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

          1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.

        • mikef317 says:

          Quote: “Hemingway was there when the first smoking bans were going on in America…”

          Nonsense.

          Hemingway was born in 1899.

          The first four of your six dated items range from 1901 to 1907. For the 1907 item (about job discrimination), Hemingway would have been 8 years old. I doubt that he was either smoking or looking for a job.

          The 1917 item (when H would have been old enough to smoke) is about the repeal of anti-smoking laws (which were laxly enforced, if at all).

          The reference to Hitler’s 1937 smoking laws is also nonsense. Nobody fought Hitler because he was opposed to tobacco.

          I’m not even sure that Hemingway smoked (and don’t care if he did or didn’t). The index of Kenneth Lynn’s biography has no items for smoking or tobacco. I did a very brief perusal of H pictures on the internet and didn’t see any where he was smoking.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/049749_CDC_United_States_corporation_Big_Pharma.html

    CDC exposed as for-profit corporation colluding with Big Pharma to corrupt government

    • mikef317 says:

      Could we stop taking conspiracy theories seriously? If you look at the comments on your link, there is one by Douglas Goldstein. (Currently it’s the second item.)

      End of my comment. Below is Mr. Goldstein’s text in full:

      Dunn & Bradstreet does credit reviews so that lenders can look up your organization and get a picture of whether or not you’re financially sound. Any organization can sign up for their credit review service — corporations, non-profits, government agencies, charities, anything. Having a Dunn & Bradstreet credit review file does NOT mean you are a for-profit corporation.

      You can look up who has an account with D&B here. There’s nothing secret about this, there’s no “exposing” involved: https://www.dandb.com You’ll find organizations with Dunn & Bradstreet accounts including: The Red Cross, The Department of Transportation, The Archdiocese of New York…. basically if you’ve ever heard of it, it’s in there. IT DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Ever heard of rent seeking legislation. That’s where you pay for studies or whatever and throw money at the ones doing it for you in government to produce the results you want. Those are then used to throw out as proof to push more anti-smoking BS laws and increase governments abuse of power in that pursuit. When you look all threw the SG reports you find NRT drugs completely protected and encouraged at every turn……..

        Gues what the average state bought in NRT drugs when they passed a statewide ban.

        300 MILLION dollars in useless nrt drugs with a 98% failure.

        Pharma also DIRECTLY funded the 9 states economics study on smoking bans and economic losses. Friedeman even gave out the findings before he even announced the study starting.

        CDC foundation with a charter from congress has become the mouth piece for cdc on everything anti-tobacco. They are also the ones who take in all the grants bribes and any other graft and direct it to the next crony in line……….

  7. Rose says:

    Yesterday’s press release from the University of Colorado on smoker’s voting habits imported to a British newspaper, but with the first line proclaiming that the study is from a Cancer Centre to be published in a journal alled Nicotine & Tobacco Research and therefore another anti-tobacco study,carefully tucked away at the bottom of the article.

    Smokers don’t vote: 11,626-person study shows marginalization of tobacco users
    19 May 2015
    University of Colorado Denver

    “A University of Colorado Cancer Center study published in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research shows a new dimension to the marginalization of smokers: people who smoke are less likely to vote than their non-smoking peers.”
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-05/uocd-sdv051915.php

    Is winning the smokers’ vote the key to election victory?
    May 20, 2015

    “UKIP’s Nigel Farage may be fond of a cigarette and a pint but it won’t necessarily win him any votes.

    His fellow smokers are 60 per cent less likely to vote in elections than non-smokers, a study claims.”

    “Karen Albright of the University of Colorado, which conducted the study, said smokers view leaders as “oppressors” because of tobacco taxes and smoking bans.

    She said: “On one hand, the result is intuitive. We know from previous research that smokers are an increasingly marginalised population, involved in fewer organisations and activities and with less interpersonal trust than non-smokers.”
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/578723/smokers-Ukip-Nigel-Farage-election

    But that’s Colorado, UKIP don’t stand there.

    I think the real purpose of this study is to reassure politicians that as smokers are supposedly less likely to vote, they don’t need to consider smokers views when implementing further Tobacco Control legislation.

    • Frank Davis says:

      We know from previous research that smokers are an increasingly marginalised population,

      But we’re going to carry on marginalising them…

      It’s like Deborah Arnott’s “Smokers will be exiled to the outdoors”, to which she may as well have added, “…and we don’t give a damn if they are.”

      • Rose says:

        One of our own British antismokers Professor John Britton, Professor of Epidemiology, Director of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies from the University of Nottingham and his co-authors including Deborah Arnott, in a comment on the Lancet, felt entirely differently.

        Tony Blair’s 10 Years Of Tobacco Control – 29 June 2007

        “The short-term political costs may seem substantial, but the potential health gains are huge.”
        http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/75557.php

        And though as we know, correlation doesn’t mean causation, Labour haven’t won an election since.

      • Rose says:

        Oops, forgot the link to the Lancet.

        Tony Blair’s 10 years of tobacco control
        John Britton, , Ann McNeill, Deborah Arnott
        Published Online: 29 June 2007

        “On July 1, 2007, 4 days after Tony Blair stands down as the UK Prime Minister, legislation prohibiting smoking in public places and workplaces in England will come into force, completing the implementation of smoke-free policies throughout the UK. This simple policy will have a major impact on public health. The main aim is to prevent harm to health arising from involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or in public places.

        But the greater benefit is that smoke-free legislation also reduces the overall prevalence of smoking.”
        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2960985-4/abstract

        Smokers will be exiled to the outdoors”, to which she may as well have added, “…and we don’t give a damn if they are

        I’d rephrase that, “Smokers will have to stand outside like naughty children until they learn to obey.”

        • Edgar says:

          “I’d rephrase that, “Smokers will have to stand outside like naughty children until they learn to obey.”” A lot of people see things this way – the ‘nanny’ state, supported by finger-wagging, busybody, fake charities. Perhaps, it is that way, and, perhaps, it is something more sinister. What is missing from this explanation is the rationale for this behaviour. Many people have claimed ‘It’s not about health, … never was.’ Then, what is it about? A problem might be more easily solved if it is properly understood. To me, there seems to be a clear division between two types of human being: one type has a psychological need to know of a faction that can be persecuted without interference from the law (even better, with the approval of the law); the other type does not have that need. The concept could be called ‘legitimised prejudice’. It provides a licence to hate an identified group (it probably doesn’t matter which group as long as there is someone you’re allowed to hate). Well, that’s my shot at an underlying explanation to this apparent nannyism.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Rose the weak link is the so called study and I use that term very derogatorily only was worried about smokervoters. The big issue isn’t just smoking voters its the nannystate pissed off voters………that’s where the study is so junk science,it misses the entire picture of the whole mess its not just smoking its everything and everyone they have made enemies of.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Is winning the smokers’ vote the key to election victory?
      May 20, 2015

      “UKIP’s Nigel Farage may be fond of a cigarette and a pint but it won’t necessarily win him any votes.

      His fellow smokers are 60 per cent less likely to vote in elections than non-smokers, a study claims.”

      That’s got to be a first! ANYBODY who has an interest of changing something really bad, e.g. the smoking ban, will vote.
      Like most other smokers I know I will always vote for the party which will accommodate my wishes. These day I base my vote on what a party has in mind about putting ashtrays up for me INSIDE. A NICE smoking room will make me spend cash again.
      It is that simple.

      I think the real purpose of this study is to reassure politicians that as smokers are supposedly less likely to vote, they don’t need to consider smokers views when implementing further Tobacco Control legislation.

      In other words, Ukips 4 million votes scared tobacco control – the tories are (used to be?) a party which had primarily economic growth (cashcashcash!!!) in mind. By exiling the smokers to the outdoors and not giving a damn about it, smokers just won’t go out, spending cash anymore.

      My bet is that tobacco control will dream up much nonsense in the next 4 years. And we smokers will be “60% less likely” to vote?
      They’ll find out…..

      • smokingscot says:

        @ BeoB

        Agreed.

        The Scottish Assembly elections are scheduled for 5 May 2016. A good many seats are contested under a system of proportional representation. UKIP got somewhere in the region of 10.5% of the vote up here at the EU elections and I’ve got a sneaky feeling that’s fairly stable.

        (They managed to get 2.3% of the Scottish vote at the General election, which is astonishing given the fact everyone was aware the SNP would win just about everywhere).

        Anyway the threshold under our List MSP rules is 6%. If UKIP can quit with the navel gazing and the power plays, I believe they can get more than just a handful into Holyrood.

        I know that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in England, however if the message this newspaper article is trying get across is that they have no need to worry about us poor downtrodden smokers’ with backbones of jelly beans, who seem to be almost silent partners of tobacco control, then I do sincerely hope the twat who wrote it doesn’t make the mistake of voicing that opinion in Govan or Leith or even Eyemouth.

        If UKIP can hold on to that 10 plus percent, then we’re talking anything up to 9 MSP’s.

  8. John Watson says:

    “Where does it all end? That brings me on to John Watson’s comment:

    A withdrawal from society that leads to a smoking counter-society?

    I think that’s where it’s going. I think smokers will tend to congregate together, much like black people or jews. What else ever happens when discrimination takes place? Smokers are being thrown together, by their shared experiences. And I’m sure that, like mine, their attitudes are gradually hardening”

    I think Frank that it is very much the case, the Black people and the Jews. suffered terribly through discrimination, far worse than the discrimination we smokers endure although there are similarities. like the Black people and Jews we are reviled, lied about beaten (though nowhere near the extent of the former) If allowed to do so ASH would push for the ghettoization of smokers just as the Black people and Jews were ghettoized. Our American friends are only too aware of the problems that came post civil war, problems that despite legislation still linger on today with the Black community. So too do Europeans who learned the true extent of mans inhumanity after the Holocaust, (perhaps with the exception of the UK who missed the experience by an hairs breadth). In both cases it was outside influences that put an end to the worst excesses of slavery and National Socialism.

    For us the smokers there are few outside influences to help us, there are those who may well sympathise and do little more, a few that are willing to actively do something like UKIP with their four million voters (not all of whom necessarily support smokers) so we are pretty much on our own just as the Black people and Jews were pre civil war/ holocaust until more people see what is really happening.

    That does not mean we have lost, not by any means, I would offer the following thought to Reinhold, that as long as there are smokers in Bavaria the anti-smokers have not won, as long as there are smokers anywhere the anti-smokers have not won.

    There is a sea change coming, events in Ky and La prove this, the anti-smokers are no longer getting free passes to legislation wherever they may be, the smoking bans originated in Ca, (I do not say America, it would be a gross injustice to blame all of America for a few lunatics in California) and I think the end will come from free thinking towns and states in America, when the end comes, as it will we the smoking community will be a wary group, distrusting of all who supported this ‘war’ on smokers, the division like that of North and South in the US will go on for very many years, I think that smokers will end up forming their own communities, looking out for their own interests, their own lifestyle just as for the most part the Black People and Jews have done, making it that much harder for the anti-smokers to gain leverage among them.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      That was just the thing me and Sheila were discussing last nite,buying a small deserted town somewhere and making it a total smokers township like set up………..

      Theres plenty of deserted towns across America on the backroads that can be bought for likely just taxes owed on them. An independent zone where we are the law.

      • Rose says:

        Yes, Harley, but then those pesky, freedom-loving non-smokers who don’t believe a word of it will come and join us just like they always did and TC will have to come in again and protect them from us against their will.

        When separate rooms were enforced the non smokers all piled into the smoking room with their friends, it got so crowded people were sitting on each others laps.

        So when that didn’t work to cut us out from the herd and make us give up smoking they wanted to bring in a smoking ban on pubs that served food. So naturally lots of pubs decided to stop providing food.

        So then they called for a total ban.

        New Call For Total Pub Smoking Ban
        2005

        “Ministers are being urged to introduce a comprehensive ban on smoking in pubs after new research showed many publicans would stop serving food so they could get around a planned smoke-free law.

        A survey of 1,250 bar managers showed that many, particularly in poorer areas of the country, would stop offering food because that meant smoking could continue.”

        “In a separate report, the TUC urged the Government to seize the “historic opportunity” to ban smoking in all workplaces, including pubs and clubs, by next April.

        Anything other than a ban would threaten the lives of hundreds of workers every year, the union organisation warned.

        Cancer Research Chief Executive Professor Alex Markham said banning smoking in buildings such as pubs would protect the health of workers and help smokers quit.”

        “The TUC said in a submission to the Government that proposals to allow smoking in pubs not serving prepared food, or in pubs with designated smoking areas, would cause a “confusing mess”, harming staff and customers.”
        http://news.sky.com/story/370573/new-call-for-total-pub-smoking-ban

    • Reinhold says:

      I would offer the following thought to Reinhold, that as long as there are smokers in Bavaria the anti-smokers have not won

      Thank you, John – that’s why I said we lost the battle. Not the war.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Robert E Lee won more battles in the civilwar yet lost the war but why.

        He ran out of everything in the end ammo,food,meds etc etc………

        While it might appear TC has an endless supply of junk science to toss about and buy,the one thing they cant get away from is the junk science moniker stuck to all their claims.

        Plus the peoples pissed off attitude with the nannystate.

        Nothing can survive in a world that hates what you’ve done to them…………

        The Nazis fall is coming soon.

  9. prog says:

    And I don’t think we can expect any relief from the Government, Cameron already stating that prevention will be part of the ongoing struggle to ease the burden on the NHS. There’s been some talk of readdressing some of the 2010 pre-coalition manifesto pledges by a largely unfettered Tory gov (bonfire of the quangos comes to mind), though I suspect it’ll be business as usual for the likes of ASH et al. On the other hand, a lot of ‘expert’ commentators were predicting a hung parliament, which would clearly have suited the healthists (in the absence of an overall left majority), yet the voting public opted otherwise, possibly suggesting that it is sick and bloody tired of being lectured about NHS woes, many of which are self inflicted.

    I saw a quote the other day – if the NHS is the envy of the world why are you always trying to fix it?

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Prog things have a way of turning around like overnite sometimes………..especially in politics.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Is the Government Buying Science or Support? A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases

    By David E. Wojick and Patrick J. Michaels

    April 30, 2015

    The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for doing research on the problem of bias in science, especially bias induced by Federal funding of research. In recent years the issue of bias in science has come under increasing scrutiny, including within

    http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=d2dc4c51d5-Cato-E-Update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-d2dc4c51d5-141708146&mc_cid=d2dc4c51d5&mc_eid=ea94999b5c

  11. beobrigitte says:

    Nika set me thinking:

    I recently 100% reverse-ostracized all of my friends and family (including my only daughter and grandson) when the last one went Smoke Nazi….

    This was the most intelligent and sane thing I have ever done. The rush and relief that I feel from finally coming loudly out of the closet have been incredible.

    Indeed, Nika did make me think, too. Until recently all of my friends had no problem with my smoking. Then I invited a group of them. One of them gave up cigarettes for e-cigarettes (which she is working on giving up, as well) and knows that I do smoke in my house.
    She whinged and moaned – and opened MY windows with the words: “If you don’t stick to them (e-cigarettes) I won’t be coming again!”
    She will find out, indeed, that she won’t be coming again.

    And like Nika I actually do feel a sense of relief!! I don’t need friends like that. I haven’t contacted her since and have no intention of contacting her again. My other friends will be invited as always. I enjoy smoking, so I do not ‘huddle in a dark corner’, I have ashtrays in my house and they are there to be used. No discussion.

    Over the years opposing the smoking ban I have made great friends in many different places! They all are very nice and interesting people, leading to meeting even more like-minded people!
    The smoking ban has added more great friends – losing the newly born anti-smoker (former)friend will not leave a gap.

  12. jaxthefirst says:

    Yes, Brigitte. I’ve often thought that the only good thing to come out of anti-smoking hysteria is that these days you can tell, without a shadow of a doubt, what kind of person you are really dealing with by ascertaining their attitude towards smoking. No matter how charming, or nice, or pleasant a person might be, with just a little probing on the subject of smoking (or the smoking ban, or something similar) their reaction will tell you within one or two short sentences what kind of a person they are really – deep down inside. It’s an absolutely failsafe way of seeing the true character behind the public persona and, in my experience, it’s pretty much 100% accurate.

  13. Pingback: Out Of Control | Frank Davis

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