One Expulsion Leads To Another

Most UK smokers will probably remember 1 July 2007. I certainly do. That was the day we smokers were expelled from UK pubs, and – as ASH director Deborah Arnott had accurately predicted – were “exiled to the outdoors”.  I’ve been there ever since. Just today, since it was sunny, I visited a local pub, and as ever sat outside with a beer and a cigarette.

1 July 2007 was a day when the world turned upside down. And stayed upside down. Smokers had been welcome in pubs since time immemorial. And now, by an Act of Parliament, they were no longer. The world has never seemed quite right since.

I’m beginning to wonder if 24 June 2016 was an equally memorable day, for more or less the exact same reason. Because that was the day Britons woke up to find that a majority of them had just voted to leave the European Union.

For those who had voted to leave, the Brexit vote was a relief. “At last,” we thought, “We can escape this European prison!” We were delighted.

But for those who voted to remain, their experience that day was probably one of shock and dismay and disbelief. They are probably feeling something very like what we smokers experienced on 1 July 2007. For they also had just been expelled from a club in which they had come to believe that they were full members –  just like smokers and their pubs. They had become exiles. Their world had been turned upside down. They are probably filled with the same disbelief and rage as many smokers were on 1 July 2007.

The irony of it all is that, up until the European Parliament voted in November 2009 for a European smoking ban, complete with show trials for prominent offenders, I had been broadly in favour of the European Union. But with this new blow, my enthusiasm for Europe was instantly snuffed out. The EU had just told every single one of Europe’s 150 million or so smokers that they were no longer welcome. Why should any of those 150 million smokers want to remain in the EU?  I couldn’t see that there could be any future for a political entity that treated its own citizens with such contempt.

17,410,742 Britons voted to leave the EU. And I was one. I was also one of Britain’s 10 – 13 million smokers. Perhaps they were all smokers? But for the fact that the EU had voted to “exile them to the outdoors” all over Europe, I imagine that I – and a great many other smokers – would have voted to remain. And most likely Britons would have woken up on 24 June to find they had voted to remain inside the EU.

In this manner, the shock of expulsion from society that was experienced by smokers on 1 July 2007 is now being experienced by a great many more people – and most likely the kind of “progressives” who were quite happy to see smokers expelled from pubs.

One expulsion has led to another expulsion. It has gone full circle. If smokers hadn’t been expelled from society in 2007 (and again in 2009), they wouldn’t have voted to leave the EU in 2016. And everybody might still be content.

As it is, there are now a great many more people who have seen their world turned upside down, and who are not in the least bit content.

About the archivist

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

27 Responses to One Expulsion Leads To Another

  1. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Actually found 3 stories to fight on today!

    Amazing I haven’t found hardly a story in months

    • waltc says:

      Here’s one Harley aka Daniel found to fight on. Bravo. But look at the brainwashed bigots he was up against following this article about yet another smoking ban in public housing

      • Rose says:

        “Washowich said the authority views a smoking ban as a way to preserve its properties. The cost of repairs needed to fix damage done by smoking has been prohibitive.
        According to the federal government, a smoking ban would result in savings to public housing authorities of nearly $153 million, including $42.9 million in renovation costs.”

        That’s some seriously expensive paint.

        “Washowich did not have costs associated with smoking-related damage to local public housing units.”

        • And I’m betting Whats-its-witch didn’t have costs associated with cooking- or pet-related damage either.

        • Rose says:


          Pretty disgusting if they don’t want to clean up and redecorate between tenants anymore, it’s hardly hygenic.

        • Yep. Most of the landlords who are being honest about their repainting claims have simply been fooled by the Antis’ propaganda into automatically believing that apartments HAVE to be specially treated when they’ve had even a moderate amount of smoking over the course of a year or two. In their memories they blend apartments like that into the ones where a heavy smoking couple lived for twenty years straight without a paint job or carpet cleaning and rarely opened their windows. It’s like complaining that a kitchen had to be repainted because after twenty years of frying up a dozen strips of bacon every morning there was grease on the walls.

          – MJM

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        All in a days fun Walt lol

  2. Ana says:

    An example of how unreliable are the epidemiological questionnaires that so many anti-smoking ‘studies’ are based on.
    Actor Tony Curtis died in 2010 aged 85 (‘premature’ death, no doubt). His wife blamed his lung problems on smoking, although she says he quit circa 1980.
    But in this article dated 1969, Tony Curtis says he quit aged 33 (that would put it around 1958) and turned into an anti-smoker evangelist for American Cancer Society:,554892&hl=en

  3. Heya Frank! :) Re your main story: I agree 100%. While I doubt that ALL the smokers voted for Brexit, I’d be willing to bet that they were more Brexit oriented due to the ban, probably by at least a ratio of 3 to 2 … which would have made the difference in the vote. One of the harms of the bans that I talked about in Brains was the increase in distrust for medical and government authorities that the antismoking campaign, with its lies and its bans, would bring about. Here in the US we’re seeing some of this played out right now: Hillary made her name amongst American smokers when one of her first acts as first lady was to ban smoking in the White House — much to the discomfiture of Billy at the time I’m sure (though he still carried his cigars around as playthings with Monica et al).

    Re Tony Curtis: Ana, that is a GREAT catch! I’m going to pass it on to Audrey Silk of NYC CLASH to add as an addendum in her “Oldies But Goodies” file of famous elderly smokers!

    Harley, I’ve been a bit absent from the boards lately: puter is in a non-AC area and it’s been a bit too warm to hang over the keyboards in the daytime. But I’ll see ya ’round as the weather improves!


  4. pubcurmudgeon says:

    See this blogpost of mine on the day after the referendum – in which I reference you. It’s one of the more significant of many things whereby ordinary people have been pissed off and alienated.

    • Yep indeed. Even if smokers represent only 25% of the electorate, if just a quarter of them were ticked off enough about being thrown out of their workplaces and pubs into the rain and sleet that they moved toward distrusting Big Government (And the EU is one of the Biggest of Big Government representations around!) … that would be over 6% of the vote.

      – MJM

  5. Speaking of expulsions…. Remember when smokers and their annoying and dangerous habit were expelled from airplanes along with anything above a two ounce bottle of hand cream?

    Wellll…. check this out and see who’s door the hangman may knock on next:

    Won’t it be fun to listen to THOSE howls?

    – MJM

  6. garyk30 says:

    17,410,742 Britons voted to leave the EU.

    Zero voted for the smoking ban.

    The ban was done by the ‘Elites’.

    The ‘self Annointed elites’.

    Athletes or chess players become elite thru winning competitions and earning their honor.

    Political and social ‘elites’ do not win and certainly have deserved little honor.

    Most of them do not even deserve respect.

    • garyk30 says:

      Bans are very,very seldom enacted by a popular Referendum.

      Seems that it is easier to persuade politicians, than the general public, to mistreat citizens.

      • Gary, that’s not quite as true now as ten years ago unfortunately. :/ The Antis used to fight tooth and nail to keep smoking votes from the electorate but their multi-hundred-million media campaigns, pretty much totally unopposed on any large scale, have succeeded in their brainwashing in the same way that the populace of a country falls victim over the years when the government allows no opposing voices of any authority to be heard. If people just SOOOO consistently hear one side and one view repeated over and over, there are VERY few independent or brave enough to question it.

        After all, “When it comes time to vote, will you vote for The Health Of The Children? Or for Evil Big Tobacco Executives?” :/

        Same deal with beliefs about secondhand smoke. We just haven’t had the outreach to anywhere near the same number of people and with the same authority that the Antis have. Simply getting the printed material out on the net doesn’t stand up in clout to TV ads and subliminal messages sent through antismoking messages and portrayals in the video media… because so few people bother to read anything beyond a three line argument on the net today. Still, the net is free, which fits our pocketbook, so we keep plugging away… but it *is* an uphill battle!

        – MJM

        • waltc says:

          Not To mention the free newspaper and tv coverage of every new “study.” That’s how we got to thirdhand smoke, which plays back to apartment renovation and the belief that the floorboards have to be ripped out and the tiles regrouted

        • Exactly. If my memory is correct, Georg Matt actually created the thirdhand smoke mythgend (Combo of myth and legend…. I.E. when something may have SOME microscopic nugget of fact at its base, but is then expanded and distorted beyond all connection with reality into a myth.) in 2009 with a paper about nicotine on surfaces and concerns about it transforming into picoscopic quantities of NNN or NNK etc.

          Unfortunately for Matt, not only was the idea too silly to be picked up by the popular press, but it was also too technical and academic. Enter Stage Left however…. Winnie-The-Cough in 2011ish with his essay about a survey of random people, a certain percentage of which felt it might be bad to take babies into rooms where people had been smoking. Of course it was just a random survey of housewives and meth-heads and who knows what else, and 99% of them had obviously been thinking about “secondhand” smoke since nothing else really existed in the public mind at that point,…

          BUT…. Winniekins took that survey and twisted it to the media with the creation of the term “Thirdhand Smoke” — a soundbite that took off beautifully when he managed somehow to get both the NY Times *AND* Scientific American to take it seriously, repeat the term to give it “official standing,” *AND* connect it in a ridiculous fashion to the KGB agent killed a few years earlier with an injection of Polonium 210!

          THAT is what made it take root and take storm in America and elsewhere: the catchy phrase was easily remembered and repeated, it played to our paranoia about radiation, and most specifically it focused on our biological drive to Protect The Children. Never mind that the simply “bringing a child” into “a room where people had been smoking” would expose the child to ZERO “thirdhand smoke” unless the parent let it crawl around on the floor, and never mind that the child would have to crawl around and actually LICK the floor for a thousand times as long as the entire universe has existed in order to get that KGB-killing dose…

          None of that mattered, simply because:

          1) “Thirdhand Smoke” was a great meme-type soundbite phrase,
          2) The NY Times and Scientific American threw their reps in the drain by repeating it,
          3) The connection to the universal fear of radiation and the American distaste for KGB tactics,
          4) Translating the scientific fantasy into an attack on crawling infants who’d supposedly die horrible deaths from radiation poisoning…

          … all combined to create the monster it became.

          You can read a bit more about the science of it at:

          (and comment 51),

          and if you’ve got a copy of TNacht around you can read about my multiple efforts through different avenues to get the NY Times to print some sort of corrective letter or statement to remedy the damage, panic, and destruction of human relations and families (not to mention the real estate market and values) it had caused. Too bad realtors haven’t put together a good class-action lawsuit on that: I think The Times would be pretty vulnerable (Sci.Am. might be as well, but I don’t have a documented history of alerting them and asking for correction.)

          – MJM

        • Frank Davis says:

          If people just SOOOO consistently hear one side and one view repeated over and over, there are VERY few independent or brave enough to question it.

          That can only happen if they’re plugged into monopoly MSM – everyone getting their news and information from a few TV or radio stations or newspapers. That was certainly how it used to be. But since the rise of the internet it’s increasingly not like that any more. There are lots of news and information sources these days.

          I get all my news from multiple internet sources. None from TV or radio. So I don’t consistently hear just one side the whole time. In fact I’m always encountering multiple views on more or less everything.

          Am I unusual? I doubt it. In a world where almost everyone has a mobile phone, more or less everyone has access to the same multiple sources that I do.

          In this respect I think the current US election is fascinating. Hillary Clinton is using the established MSM, which seems to be 100% behind her. She pays out millions on TV ads each month. But Trump is using the internet plus (very old style) town hall speeches, and spending next to nothing on ad campaigns. It’s old media versus new media.

          I think the MSM are dying. In the UK virtually all the newspapers are losing readers. TV isn’t doing too well either. We’re at the end of the monopoly news era when everyone got the same message.

        • garyk30 says:

          Nor do we have a ‘playbook’ that contains a simple set of ideas attacking the anti’s claims.

          Facts that could be repeated over and over and that would put the anti’s on the defensive.

        • Actually, that sort of “playbook” was what I attempted to create back in 2005 with my booklet. I worked on it a lot over the years from 2005 to 2012, updating it for more currency and impact etc, but it never seemed to catch on so while I still refer folks to it, I don’t try to keep updating it.

          TobakkoNacht’s “Slabs” section is supposed to play that sort of role as well. See the titles of the various “Slabs” in the Table of Contents under the Book Selections tab at and you’ll see the different areas I addressed in it. And the Brains excerpt, “The Truth Is A Lie” was meant to do the same thing (though many of the points refer back to the material discussed at length earlier):

          Dunno… my approaches haven’t seemed to work all that well in gathering spread out there, so I don’t know what will!


  7. harleyrider1978 says:
  8. Reblogged this on artbylisabelle and commented:
    The waves move right across the pond. George Soros hard at work to destroy western cultures!

  9. Clicky says:

No need to log in

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

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

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.