Out Of Control

Yesterday, Edgar wrote:

“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.

This “two types of human being” notion has kept coming back to mind, if only because there do actually seem to be two types of human beings.

Only I had two rather different types than Edgar in mind: Controllers and Non-controllers. The world seems to be made up of people who want to bring everything under control, and those who are happy to let things just happen.

Outfits like “Tobacco Control” are quite open about their controlling ambitions. And one complaint that antismokers have about smokers is that they have “no self-control”. For such people, more or less everything is “out of control”, and badly needs to be brought “under control”. And it seems patently obvious to them that this needs to be done, and that “under control” is always better than “out of control”.

And they have a point, I think. Human life has progressed by bringing more and more stuff under human control. Like lakes, waterways, plants, animals, etc. It also extends to economics, trade, industry, science. Humans are very, very controlling. Even wars are all about taking control of other people. There’s nothing new about it.

That said, I’m not one of the Controllers. Throughout my life, I’ve never been someone who wanted to change or control anyone. I generally liked people the way they were. And liked places the way they were. I didn’t want to change everything. And on this blog, I’m not trying to change the way my readers think. I’m pretty laissez-faire (although there are limits).

These days I spend a lot of time on my computer simulation model of the solar system. I’ve been a bit puzzled at my interest in this, but recently I realised that what I liked about the solar system is that it’s completely out of control. I find it rather delightful that we’re all sitting on a damp, mossy rock spinning around a star in the little whirlpool of planets we call the Solar System, and there’s nothing we can do about it. And there never will be anything that we can do about it. We just have to live with it.

But I suspect that this is precisely the sort of vision that fills the Controllers with panic, and causes them to re-double their efforts to bring everything under control. And I think part of that panic may come from one of the most compelling images of modern times: the never-before-seen view of the planet Earth from outer space (this one from Apollo 17):


And this is the image of a little, fragile, blue droplet of water suspended alone in space. It’s probably the most iconic image of our time. It’s Gaia, the Great Mother goddess of Greek mythology. Isn’t she adorable? And isn’t she in such mortal peril in a universe filled with exploding stars, black holes, and (my favourite) huge wandering asteroids with thousands of companion rocks in tow? Isn’t this image enough to get you to join Friends of the Earth (as opposed to the Enemies of the Earth)? And can’t you see the  dire necessity of preserving that thin film of air that veils the planet, and the need for Climate Control? And don’t you think that this fragile little planet should have a UN World Government to carefully manage it? Yes, I thought you did.

The loneliness and fragility of this image is the loneliness and fragility of all terrestrial life, and it induces not only wonder, but also terror at circumstances that are beyond our control, and which need to be brought under control as soon as possible. And if our present times are characterised by the demand for top-down control of more or less everything, it is probably in no small part due the panic invoked by iconic images like this. So now, in our modern pandemonium, we see threats everywhere, and we have armies of controllers trying to control everything.

They’ll never succeed, of course. But that won’t stop them trying. The need to Take Control is a constant in human life, and never more so than now.

And the enemies of the Controllers are Non-controllers like me, who like to let things happen and see where they go, and don’t have grand plans for everything and everyone.

Which brings me back to Edgar’s nannyism. Little Gaia obviously needs a nanny to look after her, to shepherd her and make sure she is kept safe. And anyone who disagrees is an Enemy of the Earth, and most likely a rapist of Gaia. Such people need to be silenced, excluded, reduced to second class citizenship. They need to brought under control, along with everything else. And this is the origin of the “legitimized prejudice”.

I don’t see it as growing from any need to hate people, any need to hate an identified social group. I think it grows out of the need to Take Control, in a world that’s out of control.

All my current principal matters of concern are about attempts to Take Control in one way or other: smoking bans, global warming alarmism, and the EU are all attempts at top-down control by elitist planners.

The future will see all these attempts fail. The attempt to take control of what is beyond control will only produce even greater chaos and disorder.



About Frank Davis

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

43 Responses to Out Of Control

  1. Reinhold says:

    The future will see all these attempts fail.


    • Edgar says:

      The future will see all these attempts fail. You hope. But where is the evidence for that? Did the attempts at ‘civilising’ the Maori people, the Australian Aborigines, the ‘Indians’ of North and South America fail? The Nazi persecution of the Jews, did that fail? Are you sure the Nazis won’t rise again to finish the job? Anyone so complacent about the attempts by one faction to destroy another (and it is about hatred and destruction, not control) is someone who should take another look at human history.
      As for “Edgar’s nannyism”, I was trying to make the point that I think there is something much darker at work than control-freakery: if you don’t do as they say, they want you dead. That has nothing to do with Mary Poppins.

      • Edgar says:

        Apologies, Rheinhold, this was not meant as a response to your post but was directed at Frank.

      • Frank Davis says:

        I think it’s inevitable. Much as set out by Hayek in The Road To Serfdom. Top-down state planning of everything doesn’t work. I realise that this won’t stop them trying.

        And I do think it’s much about control than about hatred. They only hate people that they can’t control. If people do as they tell them, they’ll leave them alone. as “reformed characters”.

  2. Jude says:

    One thing I have learnt about controllers Frank, (which you give a good explanation), is that they will NEVER have enough power, money, things, to control, and they will NEVER just let people be.

    When the controllers made smoking so expensive in my country (Australia), and the restrictions on where you can smoke so draconian, I decided to take up vaping. Its vastly less expensive, and I enjoy it, (even more than smoking now). The controllers are now seeking to quash this little luxury as well, because they haven’t figured out a way to “control” it, and how to gain power over those that choose to engage in this activity.

    I’m one of the other type of humans, I don’t want to control others, I don’t want to control nature, I’m not interested in bending other people to my will, in fact as I get older, I don’t much want to be around others at all. I’m tired of the controllers, the haters, the bigots, the puritans, I don’t understand their motivations on a personal level, although I understand in an abstract sense. Controlling is such a joyless thing, such a waste of energy that could be used to actually enjoy the short lives we are allocated on this planet.

    I’ve often thought that this need to control, whether it takes the form of anti-smoking, (anti anything that others enjoy), religious zealotry, political zealotry, etc etc, is born from the fear of uncertainty, controllers NEED certainty like oxygen. Controllers, at their very core, are fearful, insecure beings. Me, I don’t need to have certainty, I don’t need to believe I’m going anywhere after I pop my clogs, I don’t need to know that others believe and do the same as me. I like surprises, and differences in people.

    This leaves me isolated, (voluntarily most of the time), from the world of the controllers. But that’s ok too :).

    • Frank Davis says:

      …controllers NEED certainty like oxygen. Controllers, at their very core, are fearful, insecure beings.

      Yes, I think that’s true. When things are out of control, people don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s the same with planning everything: that’s a way of knowing what’s going to happen, If you don’t know what’s going to happen, you start fretting. You get worried. You get spooked.

      And I agree about surprises and differences. The best things just happen. And I like people to be different. It’s the differences that distinguish them from each other, and make each one unique.

      I don’t make plans. I like to keep my agenda wide open. I have no idea what I might do today.

      • John Watson says:

        The military have known for millennia that no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy, that is because the enemy always does something unexpected. Something that politicians and anti smokers never learned or in the case of the ex-military foolishly ignore.

        Every measure they have put in place has effectively failed, banning smoking indoors in public places just pushed smoking outside and highlighted it, Closed thousands of pubs ,clubs et al so they now have to try to save what’s left. A very costly exercise.

        Higher taxation has failed, smokers just buy abroad or on the Black Market thus reducing their own revenue.

        Plain packaging will fail, counterfeiting the plain packs will be Childs play for Black Marketeers who’s share of the market will grow exponentionally further reducing revenue (as it is doing in Australia).

        The worst failure of all is that the black marketer does not discriminate over the age of their customers so they have failed to protect the children, Epic fail!

  3. Dirk says:

    Look here http://newsmonkey.be/article/1311. It is a Belgian article about the price of Marlboro in various countries. The funny parts are the videos !

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Philip Morris lawsuit could cost taxpayers £11bn

    TOBACCO giant Philip Morris is to launch the biggest corporate compensation case in history against the UK and Scottish Governments over the decision to impose plain packaging on cigarettes.

    Legal papers are expected to be presented today or early next week seeking between £9 billion and £11bn – a figure almost as high as the welfare cuts planned by the UK Government for this parliament. Other tobacco companies are expected to follow suit.

    Legal advice from former Advocate General of Scotland Lord Davidson of Glen Clova and retired judge Lord Hoffman says the policy breaches international law on image rights and the Human Rights Act.

    MPs voted in March to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products, replacing famous labels with images of the health consequences of smoking.

    The measure is due to be introduced in 2016. Powers over tobacco packaging are devolved to Holyrood but Scottish ministers have said they will follow Westminster’s lead on the issue.

    Both governments have accepted arguments by campaigners and medical experts that packaging helps market tobacco to new, young smokers.

    The tobacco industry has warned the move would set a precedent that could spread to other sectors such as alcohol.

    But campaigners at Ash Scotland pointed out that a legal challenge in Australia, which introduced plain packaging in 2012, had failed.

    The charity claimed the move by Philip Morris was a delaying tactic and an attempt to put other countries off trying to do the same.

    Papers seen by The Scotsman show that Lords Hoffman and Davidson consider that trademarks are protected under European law and forced removal of them is a “deprivation of property” and breach of Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Court of Human Rights, and Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, both of which apply in Scotland and England.

    They also believe the move agreed earlier this year breaches international trademark agreements made through the World Trade Organisation.

    In his summary, Lord Davidson said that the ruling against the tobacco companies in Australia would not apply in the UK and the case foundered because “the Australian constitution imposes a test of whether property is acquired on just terms” which would not apply in the UK.

    He noted that five out of the seven judges in Australia accepted that plain packaging was a “deprivation of property” and said that under EU law this meant “compensation would be payable” by UK taxpayers.

    The £11bn compensation is based on independent analysis drawn up by investment company Exane BNP Paribas, which was in turn based on an annual tobacco profit pool of £1.5bn.

    A source at Philip Morris, producers of Marlboro cigarettes, told The Scotsman: “Papers will be presented either on Friday or Tuesday at the latest. We believe we have a strong case.”

    Japan Tobacco International (JTI) also confirmed it is preparing to sue the UK and Scottish Governments.

    A spokesman said: “JTI strongly considers plain packaging is unlawful. JTI and others have repeatedly and consistently said plain packaging infringes important principles of UK and EU law, and other fundamental rights. JTI therefore expects to challenge the legislation.”

    Both the UK and Scottish Governments said they had been expecting a legal challenge.

    While smoking control is devolved to Scotland, ministers had pushed for a UK-wide approach which was then agreed, just before the election, by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition.

    Last night, a Department of Health spokesperson said: “We have not received any legal claim but we will not allow public health policy to be held to ransom by the tobacco industry.” Scotland’s public health minister Maureen Watt said: “A legal challenge would not be unexpected. However, we do not believe that legal threats from the tobacco industry should stop us from taking action to improve the health of our children, families and communities.”

    Sheila Duffy, chief executive of Ash Scotland, said: “The idea of a filthy rich company with an addictive and lethal product demanding compensation against a measure aimed at protecting children and saving people’s lives astonishes me.”


    • jaxthefirst says:

      “ … campaigners at Ash Scotland pointed out that a legal challenge in Australia, which introduced plain packaging in 2012, had failed.

      Now, if I remember correctly, the reason why the Aussie legal challenge failed was because the Aussie Government had, very cunningly, passed a law some while before their PP legislation permitting themselves to take control of the trademarks/logos (or some such wording) of any companies they chose if they felt it was in the interest of the Australian public. I don’t quite know how they masked this to make it acceptable to Aussie businesses, because I think it applies, in theory, to any business’s trademark, not just the tobacco companies (because that would have in and of itself resulted in a legal challenge by the tobacco companies which would have (a) slowed down the PP process and (b) highlighted what they were actually passing the legislation for), but they probably hid it behind insinuations about terrorist “businesses” or the porn industry or something, I’d guess. But by doing so they enabled themselves – as the new “owners” of the material – to do whatever they wished with it, including not using it at all and not allowing anyone else to do so. So, I’d imagine that the wording of the PP legislation Down Under is probably not so much along the lines of “tobacco companies can’t use their trademarks any more,” and more along the lines of “we are taking possession of the tobacco companies’ trademarks, and we aren’t giving permission for anyone – even the tobacco companies themselves – to use them.” Or it may be part and parcel of the whole item of PP legislation. So, of course, the legal challenge failed, because no company can legally insist that it must be allowed to use what has become, in effect, the property of another organisation, even if it used to be theirs. Jude may know more about this, as she’s from that neck of the woods.

      This puts the legal challenge in the UK on a slightly different footing because (to my knowledge) our Government haven’t granted themselves permission to arbitrarily take possession of any company’s trademark/s. I strongly suspect that ASH, living as they do in a happy-clappy world where tobacco companies never win anything simply because they’re naughty, wicked organisations, aren’t aware of this particular element of the Aussie case.

      • Jude says:

        This is pretty typical behaviour for the government in Australia, (of any stripe, they are pretty much all the same). They did the same with the laws around asylum seekers as well, which pretty much means they do as they please.

        The logos and trademarks “amendments” were probably snuck through tagged onto other legislation, which at the time that it was passed, would have taken a full time job to read through. This is another tactic of the government here. No ordinary person has the time to go through every piece of legislation, (even those whose job it is to do this struggle), so much gets through unnoticed until it is used in a court to prosecute someone, or relieve the government of responsibility or culpability.

        The judicial system here is pretty corrupt, particularly when it comes to the nanny state legislation, as can be seen by what has happened to Vince Van Heerdon. http://www.gofundme.com/Ecigs-Our-Right-to-Choose

        This was done to create a legal precedent so that e-cigs could be restricted or banned, not only in my state of WA but in every other state, where they are waiting to see the outcome of the appeal case, and if the appeal is lost, there will be a flurry of draconian bans passed very quickly.

        The same was done with the tobacco company challenge to propaganda packaging, where a court case, will be used as a legal precedent for future judgements. Please note that the way in which the legal system works in Australia, is pretty much the same as the UK, (its where our legal system came from after all), where judgements made in Australia can be used as precedents in cases in the UK, and visa versa.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Five more diseases come from smoking according to a new study

    Now, the New England Journal of Medicine has added kidney failure, intestinal blood vessel blockage, hypertensive heart disease, infections, respiratory diseases, breast cancer and prostate cancer to the list of diseases caused by smoking.

    This will account for 60-thousand more deaths a year, which is more than car accidents, influenza and murder.

    The study followed one-million men and women from 2000 through 2011. To curb cigarette smoking, experts are prompting doctors to be more aggressive with addressing smoking with their patients and suggest increased taxes on cigarettes.

    They are hoping to stop death by tobacco.

    Lead author of the study Brian Carter, Public Health Specialist with the American Cancer Society says smoking should be treated as a form of drug addiction just like alcohol or heroin


    Has comments

  6. waltc says:

    The image of that little blue-green jewel lost in the stars, reminds me only of how petty, stupid and ultimately irrelevant mankind is and how it wastes its precious sliver of time

    Kurt Weill/ Sinatra


  7. Zaphod says:

    I see three types.
    Those who want to control, those who want to be controlled, and us.
    I suspect the situation is similar in any social animal. That would make it an evolutionary strategy, giving stability for the whole group plus the ability to innovate.

    It’s the ones who want to be controlled, (probably the biggest group), who resent us.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Are there people who want to be controlled? Are there people who want to be told what to do? Perhaps there are.

      • Zaphod says:

        Yes! You hadn’t noticed?
        Frank, you need to realize this, or nothing will make sense.

        They grumble about the controllers, (because the act of grumbling releases some sort of reward neurotransmitter); but they crave being controlled, because it relieves them of thinking and making decisions, and they get somebody to blame.

        What pisses them off, is that some of us don’t follow the “rules”. They get more upset about that than even the controllers do. I suspect that the happy controlled people are more of a problem than the controllers are.

        I’m sure there will be many examples in history. Anybody?

        “What have the Romans ever done for us?”

        • Rose says:

          What have the Romans ever done for us?

          Destroyed all knowledge of our history at Anglesey, and wrote us a new one to justify the invasion of a friendly trading nation.

          The one I was taught at school.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Well, I realise that there are a lot of people who believe everything they’re told, particularly by “authority” figures of one sort or other. And such people are thereby effectively under the control of the authority figures.

          But if you ask such people whether they want to be controlled, they’d probably mostly say that they don’t. I’ve never come across anyone who says, “I want to be controlled. I want other people to do my thinking for me, and tell me what to do.”

          Furthermore, although I’m someone who does a lot of his own thinking, I can’t think about absolutely everything. There are some things that I never think about at all.. And in those matters, I’m almost always going to be accepting the prevailing wisdom as dispensed by authorities, and I am therefore under their control.

          For example, the things I think about a lot these days – smoking bans, global warming, the EU – are all things I never thought about at all 10 years ago, and my opinions about them would have been quite conventional. In fact, apart from the EU, they were unthinkable.

          And while I now think about all these things a lot, I realise that most people never think about them at all, just like I once did. Should I condemn them for that?

  8. Barry Homan says:

    I would like to say something on this point. I think the problem started when the “cool” people – the ones who were the social-haves – started getting tired and lazy, and wanted to stop being in charge for a while, stop running things, relax, and let some of those poor, socially-inept, unlikable sods take over running things for a while – dump the burden in their laps.

    This was the big mistake. It’s when these social-have-nots see their opportunity to step in, and take control over everything.. These are basically friendless people (think Frank Burns from the old series MASH), they have nothing to lose – they don’t worry about alienating people in the “cool” crowd, because that crowd never accepted them in the first place!

    I’m observed this pattern of events over time, in places where I’ve worked, and at organized events. An anti-smoker doesn’t worry about seeing all his smoking friends suffer, because let’s be honest – he has no friends among the smokers, they always rejected and marginalized him, so now it’s his turn to strike back. It’s simply the vindictive nature of the prohibitionist, I think it’s more than the “need to control”. The anti is a lonely, rejected, desperate, friendless fellow by nature, who only wants to gain recognition – attention – no matter which way.

    It reminds me of the famous quote: “The little man whose business isn’t worth minding takes great comfort in minding the business of others”

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      I think you likely find most prohibitionists are of the socialist minded order. At least that’s been my lifetime experience. I never really looked at have and have nots I simply looked at it that as long as we have freedom we all have equal opportunity to move ourselves ahead economically and socially.

      But hey theres always exceptions to everyones lives they may agree with an enemy on Im no different. Problem is when they start taking to many exceptions and everything becomes illegal or restricted. Then you pay the price for all of societies seductions over one or 2 exceptions to the rules of freedom,which should have no rules. Unbridled freedom and I don’t mean rioting.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Well, the first antismoker I ever encountered – Dr W – was indeed a most unlikable man. He was the only person I ever met who was incapable of smiling a genuine spontaneous smile. And I think that can only be because he kept himself under such tight self-control that he was incapable of spontaneity. He also had a flat, toneless voice. And of course he had no friends. But he worked away busily in the BMA, presumably in the company of similar misfits, to get smoking banned. And eventually he succeeded (although in his case he never lived to see it).

      Perhaps the lonely, desperate, rejected, friendless people want to make everybody else lonely, desperate, rejected, friendless. What else have they done to so many people?

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Vivek Oberoi, face of tobacco-free drive for cops, was booked for smoking

    By Vinay Dalvi |Posted 48 minutes ago

    Mumbai Police have launched the ‘Tobacco-Free Mumbai Police’ campaign to discourage consumption of tobacco among their ranks; however, its brand ambassador was booked for smoking a hookah in a public place in 2012 Mumbai Police embarked upon an admirable campaign yesterday to free their policemen from the clutches of the addiction of tobacco. The ‘Tobacco-Free Mumbai Police’ campaign kicked off yesterday, with actor Vivek Oberoi as its brand ambassadors. Ironically, Oberoi himself was booked in 2012 for smoking in a public place –

    See more at: http://www.mid-day.com/articles/vivek-oberoi-face-of-tobacco-free-drive-for-cops-was-booked-for-smoking/16233150#sthash.CVOGjVhh.dpuf

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      ROFLMAO their top cop busted smoking………….In their smoke free prohibiton

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Turns out they are claiming it was a staged act of a 1920s era RAID on a restaurant for open smoking in defiance to the law of Mumbai. The top cop turns out to be a plant setting up a staged bust on everyone in the restaurant. He is also the WHO fctc rep for Mumbai.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Week in Review — Whistler Bans Smoking!

    Third person skiing! J.P. Memorial edit! Canadians go kooky!

    Toke your business elsewhere: Whistler bans smoking
    I didn’t realize this was possible, but effective May 31, Whistler will ban smoking of marijuana, cigarettes, cigars, e-cigarettes, and fancy meats (the last has yet to be verified) anywhere on resort premise including the chairlift, parking lots and Earl’s sundeck. Stoners are outraged and are planning to take action…you know…eventually.

    Someone found winter
    Tim Swartz is tired of hearing how bad your winter was

    Burrrlapz in the backcountry
    If you’re not tuned into the Burrrlapz crew yet, consider this your polite slap in the face.


  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smokers who light up OUTSIDE pubs to face £200 fines

    THE ban on smoking in pubs led to smokers heading to doorways to satisfy their cravings. But now one northern Lincolnshire council is warning drinkers that they…


  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Tobacco plant may light the way to beating cancer, Australian scientists say

    Guardian Australia: Ornamental varieties of plant contain molecule that specifically targets cancer cells, say researchers


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The tobacco plant could be a powerful weapon in the fight against cancer, say Australian scientists.

      They have found a molecule in the flower of the plant that targets cancer cells and rips them open, according to an article in the journal eLife.

      “There is some irony,” the lead researcher, Dr Mark Hulett, said. “But this is a welcome discovery, whatever the origin.”

      A promising feature of the molecule is that it targets cancer cells and does little damage to healthy cells.

      “One of the biggest issues with current cancer therapies is that the treatment is indiscriminate,” said Hulett of the La Trobe institute for molecular science in Victoria.

      He is confident the research will result in new drugs to fight cancer and possibly in a new type of antibiotic to fight infections.

      The molecule is found in the colourful flower of ornamental tobacco plants, which are in the same family as the commercial variety.

      “It’s an unexpected way to fight disease,” said Dr Marc Kvansakul, whose team was responsible for explaining how the process works.

      “We have found gold in an unexpected place. The actual tobacco plant is not bad. Just what we do with it is bad.

      “We are very excited about this research. It has taken several years and it has been a very exciting ride.”

      The research adds to knowledge about molecules in all plants and animals that form the first line of defence against disease.

      “Until now nobody has known how the molecules actually do their job,” Hulett said.

      • Rose says:


        I’ll leave this one for you to enjoy, gun owning non smokers just got a fright.

        From Portland

        Another View: History of smoking policy offers lesson regarding guns

        “Just as with nonsmokers, noncarriers have rights, too.”

        Comment –
        “This article wrongly assumes that an armed populace is as much of a hazard as a smoking populace, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Furthermore, I have the right to not only keep arms, but also bear them in any way I see fit. This is straight out of the Constitution. Tobacco is not a constitutionally protected item, so trying to compare them to firearms isn’t realistic.”

        Well it made me giggle.

        • Joe L. says:

          The author of that article is beyond irrational and, dare I say, utterly stupid:

          We don’t yet have separate sections in planes … so as to know and distinguish who does or does not carry so we can choose health (or life).

          Just what good would that do? The TSA forbids passengers from carrying guns on a plane, Einstein. How/why are idiots like this allowed a voice in the media?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Rose you guys wouldn’t believe I was threatened with criminal trespass at Pilot truck stop to exchange an unopened carton of Marlboro shorts for the 100s as they gave my son the wrong ones last nite after h got off work at lowesabout 10pm. I went back today at 12 noon going to bingo and brought them in and the cashier said I have to get a manager to exchange tobacco products. I said why theres my receipt an the carton totally unmolested and they’ve exchanged them 4 times in the last year due to the same mistake.

          The manager walks out says sir we cannot take back tobacco products after they leave hour store. I said theve always taken them back when this happened befor and she yells ITS STATE LAW……….I said where the fuck did you come up with that one,there is no law such as that in Kentucky. She then said YOU LEAVE NOW I don have to put up with abuse I said mam you prove to me there is such a law and then we will see who is right. She goes str8 to the phone calles the law to have me arrested for criminal trespass I even had my gun on under my shirt. But the police said mam we don’t know of any law like that do you have a copy of it and she tells the cops well NO I DONT…………..Then I just said check out my other stuff I will come see anton the store manager I know who runs it and take care of then.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          The thing is never let something blow out of proportion even when you know your right. There wasn’t any need for an escalated happening to come down which easily could have happened because I wont be manhandled by anyone. But anyway I called the cops after the fact and they were still laughing about it as the city police commissioner is a personal friend and he is also a city councilor to boot…………That’s why we have no smoking ban here………..I keep in with he right folks locally. Among other friends………its just wild how she came off. I think honestly she was a heavy duty anti smoking Nazi……….likely lost her job at the health dept and had to take a minial pay job………Im go test that theory as she is like brand new at the store. Anyway the cops said they’ve had 3 other calls from her in the last 3 weeks over similar crazed antics………….lord why do I get stuck with crazy women! Not you guys shes just the gladys Cravits type always reporting anything she doesn’t like………….

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          YES Rose the smoking to the gun issue studies are usually done by bloombergs public health school at

          Bloomberg donated 1 billion dollars to john Hopkins and that’s where all the JUNK SCIENCE to support bloombergs nanny state policies comes from like last years anti-gun violence study Owebama used after the sandyhook shooting took place…….


          Goals of the Department

          Develop approaches for applying the findings of epidemiologic research in the formulation of public policy and to participate in formulating and evaluating the effects of such policy

          Center for Gun Policy and Research


          The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is engaged in original scholarly research, policy analysis, and agenda-setting public discourse. Our goal is to bring public health expertise and perspectives to the complex policy issues related to gun violence prevention.

          An important part of the Center’s mission is to serve as an objective and informative resource for the news media, thereby providing the public with accurate information about gun injuries, prevention strategies, and policies.

          As you can see he buys any junk science he needs created to fit the agenda with his own epidemiology research dept .

          Needless to say the studys are all as junky as the SHS ones………….

          But you cant carry a gun on board a jet any longer since the patriot act and even before unless you had it in baggage in the boot of the plane. But now the exray even travel luggae that’s put into the boot of the plane and you cant even have it tor down to fly.

          I remember in 1976 a 17 year old kid with nothing but 2 pair of blue jeans a larriet a 45 colt pistol and 30-30 Winchester traveling on amera pass on greyhound with my saddle and such doing rodeos and living like a hermit in barns at rodeos………..but nobody ever said a word about my loaded rifle and pistol put up hangin on the saddle under the bus or even my pistol I kept in my back pack as it was exposed tied into my cowboy gun holster and I use to do demonstration shoots or trick shootin at some shows if they wanted. Nothing fancy just nailing 5 cans on a fast draw fan fire………..Id usually hit all of them sometimes I missed but that was part of the road then. It fed me til I got in the US ARMY.

        • Rose says:

          I’m going to have to watch out for guns are almost as dangerous as smoking studies, Harley.
          Preposterous as it sounds, I’m beginning to think that they are capable of any kind of misdirection if it suits their purpose.

  13. margo says:

    That’s a very good theory, Frank, that the sight of our little blue planet floating precariously in the vast cosmos triggered our insecurity …. And ever since then we’ve developed this whole notion that we can and must be agents of our own fate – there are no ‘victims’, only ‘survivors’, every cancer must be ‘fought’ and ever story on TV must have a happy ending. Psychology has ditched Freud and taken up Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and the medics have stopped healing and become bullies. What a lot of twaddle.
    Thanks, jltrader, for Jeremy Irons yesterday! And David Hockney’s another who’ll speak out and give as good as gets. We’ve got good people on our side.

  14. Rose says:

    A new survey!

    Smokers more likely to think cancer is a death sentence
    May 22, 2015

    “Smokers are less likely to engage in cancer screening programs and are less engaged with health services overall, senior author Jane Wardle told Reuters Health in an email.

    “We wanted to investigate why, by exploring whether this could be partly due to excessively negative beliefs about cancer,” said Wardle, the director of the Health Behavior Research Center at University College London.”

    Or possibly because you’ve been threatening me with a horrible death since I was 18.

    • jaxthefirst says:

      “ … Or possibly because you’ve been threatening me with a horrible death since I was 18..

      Or maybe even because non-smokers are now so thoroughly brainwashed by anti-smoking hysteria that they genuinely believe that they can’t die all the time they are not smoking! Some, I suspect, have a nasty shock coming …

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Why would we the use and pushing of cancer screenings just all the sudden comes out of the blue with other tobacco control measures and denormalization techniques. Its a SCARE TACTIC. First and foremost I wouldn’t even suggest an LC lung screen until your about 73 or so as the actual real evidence shows the average age if you get it is 75-85 at 500/100,000 population. Anything else would and could expose your lungs to HIGH DOES RADIATION if the place doing it is anti smoking to begin with and hit you with mega rems and youd never know it and that could trigger a cancer to occur………..


      The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

      Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 15 mrem

      Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) – 300 mrem

      Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 300 mrem

      Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid

      Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

      Average Annual Total
      361 mrem/year

      Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

      Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!


      Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid

      Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

      18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        HPV or CMV is a more likely the cause if a cancer appears………….

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          But even then its in the upper age groups. I don’t know about you but if I make 80 IM HAPPY!

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

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