The Enemies of Society

Many thanks for all the comments under yesterday’s post, where I sketched out my plans for producing YouTube videos of Skype conversations between smokers. I’ve taken note of 7 or 8 people who seem interested in participating. At some point I’ll be emailing them all.

As I wrote in response to Dmitri last night: In the first place the idea is to have smokers recount their experiences of smoking bans for other smokers to see, and say, “That’s how it was for me too!”But the other purpose is for non-smokers to watch these videos, and hear all their stories, and say to themselves, “I never knew that smokers were having such a terrible time!”

Either way, it seems like the only way round the mainstream media black-out of smokers, that has rendered them voiceless and invisible.

But it does mean that I want to hear the worst from smokers, not the best. I want to know how bad it’s been for them, not how good. I want to hear how smoking bans shattered their communities, bankrupted pubs, and set friends and families against each other. I can and do write about the impact that smoking bans have had on me personally. Now I’d like to hear from other people – how they personally responded to smoking bans, and how the people around them responded.

I’m never really sure whether I’m  libertarian, but I read this morning that the Pope has been condemning libertarianism:

“A common characteristic of this fallacious paradigm is that it minimizes the common good, that is the idea of ‘living well’ or the ‘good life’ in the communitarian framework,” Francis said, while at the same time exalting a “selfish ideal.”

The current Pope is a socialist. And over the past 50 years, popes seem to have alternated between being socialists or conservatives much in the same way as national governments all over the world have alternated. Why should it be any different for popes?

And for socialists, it seems that all individuals are members of society or societies. They are members of something that is both larger and more important than they are, much like the individual grains of sand in a sandstone building are part of a work of architecture that is far more significant than any of them. Something along those lines. Whatever way, society is more important than the individual.

But in my individualistic way of seeing, societies are made up collections of atomic individuals that are connected, like the atoms in a piece of sandstone, by bonds between them. There are all sorts of different bonds, There are family ties, bonds of friendship, comradeship in companies or armies, as well as shared languages, cultures, and countries. There are all sorts of invisible ties between concrete individuals in societies, just as there are invisible ties between concrete atoms in sandstone blocks.

I can’t think of “society” as being separate and apart from the individuals that comprise it, any more than I can think of a “table” as being separate and apart from all the atoms of carbon and hydrogen and oxygen that make up the wood in the table. For if the table catches fire and burns completely away, I don’t think that the “table” will survive as some sort of after-image or phantom form. I think it ceases to exist.

And when I got round to thinking about societies in Idle Theory, it was to first think of lone nomadic humans living entirely separate lives from each other (i.e. no “society” whatsoever), and then combining together to form societies which were more idle than any of the lone nomads had ever been. That is to say that the formation of human societies brought with it an increase in human idleness. And this increase in idleness was experienced by every single individual member of these societies. “Society”, seen this way, was as much a useful human tool as any axe or saw or hammer.

And in what sense is the “common good” ever really separate from individual good. I suppose that roads are a good example of a “common good”, because they benefit everyone. But in practice what these roads do is to allow individual people to go from A to B (or from B to A) more rapidly than they would if there was no road between A and B. And so in practice the “common good” is found to consist of the sum of all the individual benefits – in saved time – experienced by many thousands of individuals using these roads. The “common good” becomes, if you like, many thousands of individual “selfish ideals.”

And if “society” and roads and hammers should ever cease to benefit individual humans, they will cease to be manufactured and maintained. For it takes an effort to manufacture and maintain society, just as it takes an effort to construct and maintain roads.

And the wonder of it all to me is that it always seems to be people who call themselves “socialists” or  “communists”, and who profess to be deeply concerned about “society”, who actually do the most damage to society. For it was the socialists in the UK Labour party who brought in the 2007 smoking ban which completely shattered the society to which I had belonged. And, equally amazingly, it was the greedy, selfish Conservatives in Parliament who voted against that draconian ban. And so I have begun to wonder whether anyone who calls themselves a “socialist” or “communist” is actually someone who is the enemy of society, and the enemy of community.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

34 Responses to The Enemies of Society

  1. Dirk says:

    Did you enjoy the video about smoking ads?

    • Frank Davis says:

      I only watched a bit of it.

      • Supergran says:

        Imagine Frank, if your little idea went MASSIVE. So that people at work might say, eh, have you seen that guy who has ‘live’ chats on Skype (or whatever), it’s groups of smokers having a right good old natter about the old days, and how excluded they have been since July 01st etc.

        It would be fantastic if it grew and grew. Like the Infowars or Breitbart news things. Thousands and thousands of peeps follow them now.

        Like you say Frank, millions of folk have been “cast to the outdoors” and I guess many don’t have a lot of people to talk about their isolation with, and if nowt else, I would like to think that it would give some of THEM a chance to air their views and make them feel a bit less isolated.

    • beobrigitte says:

      I Have better ones. (See below)

  2. Roobeedoo2 says:

    I read this last night and thought you might be interested, Frank – a trove of JFK documents are due to be released later this year:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/will-trump-release-missing-jfk-files

  3. waltc says:

    Continuing the OT trend, I said yesterday that I’d “share” this, so:

    On Thursday, the NYC council health committee met to discuss the many proposals to screw smokers–including raising prices, eliminating places to buy both cigarettes and e’s, banning both smoking and vaping in cars with The Children™, banning smoking in subsidized housing and getting their tent’s nose under the Camel in private housing.

    Tho we submitted written testimony for the record, neither Audrey nor I bothered to attend this kangaroo court, but I watched it on tv and, putting on my old reporter’s hat, took notes and reported to her. Since I think it might interest you, here’s an abridged version of that Report:

    “…It was the largest gathering of people-you-would-not want-to-have-a-beer-with this side of a proctologists’ convention.

    No smokers were represented. Smokers were only referred to as either problems to be solved, lives to be nobly saved, or killers of the innocent.

    The notion that raising the minimum pack price to $13 would cause people to buy beyond city limits or on the black market was dismissed, side-stepped or ignored. But a black councilwoman was offended by the black market being called black and got apologized to with a promise to now call it the unregulated market.

    The notion that poor and “addicted” (“harder to quit than heroin”) smokers would be financially squeezed by the exorbitant price was dismissed because surveys showed they’d quit and all they’d have to do was call the quit line and get a patch.

    The sponsor of the ban on smoking in subsidized housing said it was not meant to make people homeless and wouldn’t because most people when threatened w eviction “comply after one or two warnings”. Another added that yes, it would make smoking difficult but “anything we can do to make smoking more difficult is worth doing” and added “we do it because we value your life.” Pause. “And the lives of those your smoking is affecting.”

    Councilman L. said the decrease in places that sell cgts and the ban on pharmacy sales won’t in the long run hurt business because “when your business model is poisoning and killing your customers” it can’t last long anyway. It will also save 50, 000 (count em) lives.

    The head of the Health Dept was pleased that the city would soon “claim the distinction of having the most expensive cigarettes in the country. ” She called this a “noble effort” and said that constituents who complained of harm from these bills should be told they’re being saved from “a greater injury'”

    She added that there was “no safe level” , that smoking provably travels between apartments through vents and walls that “every human being” exposed to it would have health effects, that it causes (list the diseases), that a third of all free-market apartment residents report they can smell it, but then mumbled the useful admission that SMELLING IT DOESN’T MEAN THERE ARE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS and implied that there were studies done that showed no effects in the blood or urine of the mere smellers.

    Still, she spelled out that the hope that forcing private landlords to establish written smoking policies and include them in all leases and sales agreements would “encourage” more bldgs to go smoke-free and that luxury bldgs were already responding to the increasing demand for “safe, smoke-free living ” and seeing it as an advantage. I believe this is merely the “voluntary” stage before city law bans smoking in all apartment buildings and perhaps even private attached row townhouses and I look to buy a cabin somewhere deep in Thoreau’s woods.

    Experts from the alphabet health groups imparted , among many other whoppers, the following intelligence:

    Exposure to ets causes smoking because it alters the brain, increasing its nicotine receptors. And by the same route, “exposure to tobacco smoke is a part of the opioid epidemic.” Exposure to stores selling cigarettes and ecigs also causes smoking.

    A civilian witness testified that she recently discovered that the 40 year ago death of her then 7 year old brother from brain cancer had been caused by her parents’ smoking.

    World gone dangerously silly. Q.E.D.

    • nisakiman says:

      And thus we descend ever deeper down the rabbit hole.

      In your opinion, Walt, do these people actually believe the rubbish they’re spouting, or is it just part of the ‘reasons we can think of to persecute people we don’t like’ trope?

      • waltc says:

        They fall into different categories.

        Of the committee’s 9 members, 7 were idiots (poor neighborhoods tend to elect One-of-Their- Own and usually the one who’s the fastest talker but not the deepest thinker) and 2 were Superior Beings. The idiots believe whatever The Experts tell them and want to identify with Acceptable Attitudes. There’s also, I think, the irresistible enchantment of passing the kick–abused turned abuser, powerless given power.

        The white guy who said that “making it difficult” was good, was– to steal a line– “nasty, brutal and short” as in physically short, and he seemed to spit it out with a gleeful malice. The Science, for him, is probably nothing more than a prop for his malice.

        The sponsor of the bill to hike up the price is a self-admitted smoker, and also a self-admitted former alcoholic and former druggie who claimed he still “struggles” to try to quit smoking (which is “harder than quitting heroin”) and hopes that these bills will “finally help [him] quit.” You can analyze that one in whatever your spare time.

        I think a few others admitted to former smoking and former finding-it-hard, except one who said she quit w/o any trouble when it got too expensive at $2 a pack. Dogs in the manger? Neo-puritans attempting to slay temptation? Or simply evangelists?

        The health dept head is a frumpy Mother Superior who believes in The Science (or, at any rate, believes that the ends excuse the means) and in her role as a Savior. The other Experts, I believe, Believe or, in any case, enjoy being part of a winning movement in which they can make a name as well as a living wage. Some, seeking attention, are trying to pioneer a few new “proven facts” and really reaching to find them (like breathing ets leads to heroin addiction or breathing the smoke from hookahs breeds depression and diabetes).

        Most interesting to me was a panel of cleanly- (a little too cleanly) attractive young women from a local university who, with their professor (of Environmental Science), were earnestly proposing that possession of tobacco or ecigs by Youth (meaning under 21) should be turned into a crime, punishable by fines, community service, suspended licenses and mandatory attendance at a stop-smoking class. (Where do these people come from –these young Stepford judges, shoveling out the Discipline from tight little faces? I think of the girls of yore, smoking at least cigarettes and likely marijuana, whose lips never tightened in disapproval of anything, and wonder how their daughters turned out to be such smug, stern, and unappealing twits. )

        Beyong those suggestions, your guess is as good as mine

    • beobrigitte says:

      Experts from the alphabet health groups imparted , among many other whoppers, the following intelligence:

      Exposure to ets causes smoking because it alters the brain, increasing its nicotine receptors. And by the same route, “exposure to tobacco smoke is a part of the opioid epidemic.” Exposure to stores selling cigarettes and ecigs also causes smoking.
      I do hope the alterations to the brain are more pronounced in smokers, because nicotine appears to enhance common sense amongst other beneficial (I believe Rose and Harley put up quite a few links to that) aspects.

      It must be the lack of nicotine in smoker haters that causes nonsense like this:
      A civilian witness testified that she recently discovered that the 40 year ago death of her then 7 year old brother from brain cancer had been caused by her parents’ smoking.
      How did this civilian witness prove her case?
      May I ask her if I could blame my dad’s smoking being the cause for my little (non-smoking) brother to ride his motorbike on 11.9.1977 at 12:15hrs to be run over by a car and die on impact?

      • smokingscot says:

        Here’s another one – and it may be pertinent.

        “Girls whose maternal grandmothers smoked during pregnancy are two thirds more likely to show behavioural traits linked to autism.”

        http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/797247/smoking-pregnancy-linked-autism-granddaughters-dna

        I’d love to slag it off, but it’s so beneath contempt I can’t be bothered.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Yep. Let’s watch them from a seat in the first row to put the noose around their throats themselves.

        • Joe L. says:

          Looks like this bullshit “study” is making the rounds. I posted a link to a different article about it from “Neuroscience News” a few comments down.

        • smokingscot says:

          @ Beo @ Joe

          Thought crossed my mind.

          It’s only female sprogs that are affected.

          So is that sufficient reason for the folks in India and China (and a whole bunch of places) for prospective parents to demand a female fetus is aborted?

          Is it at all possible this’ll catch on and become sufficient reason, even in the UK?

          If Granny’s dead, no probs, can’t be refuted. Or she can be in on the act. She doesn’t need to have ever smoked, just state she did.

          One to ponder as we continue down this route of total insanity.

      • waltc says:

        She saud she ‘did research.”

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      It seems they are caught in an irrational groupthink fueled feedback loop. That is they are exhibiting classic mob behavior. To top it off they all want to be seen as exemplifying the “best” accepted mob behavior so they rely on posturing no matter how absurd. They aren’t interested in democratic process or Constitutional debate; they’re interested in approval of their self-selected peers by mouthing “political correct” platitudes no matter the ultimate societal cost (which they neither recognize or and concerned with).

    • Joe L. says:

      But a black councilwoman was offended by the black market being called black and got apologized to with a promise to now call it the unregulated market.

      You’ve got to be shitting me, Walt. The meeting was actually interrupted for this?

      So a black councilwoman, a member of two former ODPOMs (blacks, women), not only had the audacity to participate in a meeting discussing new ways to oppress a current ODPOM (smokers), but she actually derailed the meeting in order to steal the spotlight and remind people of her former ODPOM over something so ridiculous? The name “black market” has absolutely nothing to do with race! The selfishness and hypocrisy are sickening!

      • waltc says:

        She was/is a member of the council health committee and she did indeed make a point of that and did indeed get a round of self-conscious apologies. I couldn’t make that up. As for derailing the hearing, if there was ever a hearing in need of derailing, I’d say that was it

    • beobrigitte says:

      The sponsor of the ban on smoking in subsidized housing said it was not meant to make people homeless and wouldn’t because most people when threatened w eviction “comply after one or two warnings”. Another added that yes, it would make smoking difficult but “anything we can do to make smoking more difficult is worth doing” and added “we do it because we value your life.” Pause. “And the lives of those your smoking is affecting.”
      Well, here I have a problem. I have NEVER seen an age difference of old people (smoker or non-smoker) when it came to dying at an old age in my family. My non-smoking grandmother died at 82; my smoking granduncle died at 94.
      Tobacco control, explain and write a 500 word essay about that.
      “we do it because we value your life.”
      Bullshit. You don’t like smokers and want to scare them with bullshit. You lot provide me with truly independent research that includes physical changes in gene expression that a normal person experiences, and I will examine it closer. Just cut the idiocy.
      Or, on the other hand, crank up the idiocy as I will occupy a seat in the first row of this theatre to applaud the loudest when you hang yourself.

      Councilman L. said the decrease in places that sell cgts and the ban on pharmacy sales won’t in the long run hurt business because “when your business model is poisoning and killing your customers” it can’t last long anyway. It will also save 50, 000 (count em) lives.
      Just a question, how many people in the States have been described the “safe” painkiller Oxycontin (not sure about the name as it is not available here in England) to find themselves buying heroin in the streets because it’s so much cheaper?

      Yeah, smoking renders people incapable of functioning perfectly sound in day-to-day life.
      REALLY???????? Let a heroin addict do what I did. Then we can discuss this matter further.

      Walt, wherever you live, it’s time to hold a funeral for common sense.

  4. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    The tobacco tax rates in Australia are already at the obscenely punitive level of $850/kg. Pure silver bullion is around $680/kg. I order my preferred brand over the Wide Wide World of Web, but checked ‘convenience store’ prices earlier today. The debased ‘plain pack’ (not plain: in fact plastered with grotesque disease propaganda) products available under the bullying Australian government tobacco monopoly cost up to $50/pack. This disgusting persecution forces adults who choose to be tobacco consumers into poverty. Utterly disgraceful behaviour by government in relentlessly stigmatizing a large minority of their own citizens, combined with petty and intrusive laws. These monomaniac smokerphobes must be stopped, and forced to return the money they steal daily.

  5. Some other Tom says:

    I agree with your definition of society – it is a phenomena of individuals freely associating with one another; it’s impossible for it to exist in any other form. And yet the whole premise of social engineers is that society is up to them to shape and define and the individuals must sacrifice and conform to whatever norm they’ve determined…

    • beobrigitte says:

      And yet the whole premise of social engineers is that society is up to them to shape and define and the individuals must sacrifice and conform to whatever norm they’ve determined…
      Isn’t that the definition of a dictatorship?

  6. Joe L. says:

    OT: On today’s episode of “Pseudoscientific Fun with Smoking Statistics”:

    Diagnosed Autism Linked to Maternal Grandmother’s Smoking During Pregnancy

    Scientists from the University of Bristol have looked at all 14,500 participants in Children of the 90s and found that if a girl’s maternal grandmother smoked during pregnancy, the girl is 67% more likely to display certain traits linked to autism, such as poor social communication skills and repetitive behaviours.

    So, if you’re female and your maternal grandmother smoked during her pregnancy with your mother, you’re 67% more likely to be autistic.

    According to this, we should have seen a huge surge in autism among women born in the 1940s-1980s, when smoking was very prevalent. That’s strange, because everything I’ve ever read about autism states that the prevalence of autism has actually been increasing in recent decades while smoking has been on the decline. Take this graph, from http://www.autismspeaks.org, for example:

    The antismokers have completely lost their minds. At what point will they actually lose their credibility?

    • beobrigitte says:

      So, if you’re female and your maternal grandmother smoked during her pregnancy with your mother, you’re 67% more likely to be autistic.
      Darn, something went wrong in my family. Neither mother, grandmother, great-grantmother and so on smoked. Where did that kid come from then?

      The antismokers have completely lost their minds. At what point will they actually lose their credibility?]
      Did they ever have a mind? Usually it’s a case of no soul – no mind.
      Credibility can be bought. It runs out though after a while. Let’s hope they are dumb enough to publish more nonsense.

      • Rhys says:

        Hasn’t heart disease been going up whilst smoking rates decline, too? And I recently read some study (I can’t remember where, but I will see if I can find it again) that first-hand and second-hand smoke is inadequate to explain many cancer cases, so now third-hand smoke must be studied to see if that’s doing it. Presumably we now know that only tobacco smoke causes cancer, or at least causes 98% of it?

        Ever wake up and feel like you stepped into some weird alternate universe? That’s me, every day.

    • Very interesting Autism increase. A 5,000% increase since the start of the “passive smoking” attacks on smokers and implementation of the first bans in 1975!

      • I wonder if the reduction of nicotine in the air and among child-bearing women as a neurotransmitter of some sort could be causing the 50x increase in autism?

        • Joe L. says:

          Interesting thought, Michael. Unfortunately, a study of this nature would never receive funding in our current climate of “settled science.”

  7. beobrigitte says:

    I’m never really sure whether I’m libertarian, but I read this morning that the Pope has been condemning libertarianism:

    “A common characteristic of this fallacious paradigm is that it minimizes the common good, that is the idea of ‘living well’ or the ‘good life’ in the communitarian framework,” Francis said, while at the same time exalting a “selfish ideal.”
    Although I don’t believe that libertarianism “minimizes the common good” (whatever the “common good” may be?) it is not what I believe in, simply because I would have to be a saint in order to see what causes hurt/harm to another person when in my mind I do no wrong and no-one should be offended or even hurt.
    I’m not willing (nor able) to take on such a huge responsibility. I’d fail rather often.

    Doesn’t tobacco control aim to “liberate” the world from smoking and smokers? Perhaps tobacco control’s “libertarian” angle is unknown to them and the anti-smokers believe they are doing something good, despite causing avoidable misery and occasionally deaths.
    I’m afraid, I’m an Egalitarian and in the case of smoking I would support completely separated smoking/non-smoking sections so that we ALL can have a wonderful social life AGAIN. Equal rights for all.
    In return I do list the huge amount/year additional tax paid by smokers.
    I do not know who of the Germans (or maybe the guy from Luxembourg?) sat down to compile the list of cigarette prices all over the world.
    https://www.zigarettenpreiseweltweit.de/
    Preis in Euro = cost in Euro
    Preis pro Stange = cost of 200 cigarette
    Preis in der Landeswährung = cost in the individual currency
    In my life time I sure have paid enough tobacco tax to demand 1rst class care + a one-to-one care when frailty gets the better of me. (After all, we all are living longer these days. And that includes us, the baby-boomers born in the early 50s to the mid 60s when there were smokers everywhere, who no longer can retire from work at the age of 60.)
    Food for thought.

    And for socialists, it seems that all individuals are members of society or societies. They are members of something that is both larger and more important than they are, much like the individual grains of sand in a sandstone building are part of a work of architecture that is far more significant than any of them. Something along those lines. Whatever way, society is more important than the individual.
    I used to be a socialist and in my surroundings I still help out where I can. In 2007 I learned that the socialists don’t want me. I may be an individual, but I’m an individual who believes in Egalitarianism and that makes me important, too.

    As I wrote in response to Dmitri last night: In the first place the idea is to have smokers recount their experiences of smoking bans for other smokers to see, and say, “That’s how it was for me too!”But the other purpose is for non-smokers to watch these videos, and hear all their stories, and say to themselves, “I never knew that smokers were having such a terrible time!”
    We are treated as sub-humans and therefore we are having a terrible time.

    And in what sense is the “common good” ever really separate from individual good. I suppose that roads are a good example of a “common good”, because they benefit everyone.
    Roads, motorways, availability of food stuff etc. benefit everyone. And everyone has a choice of using/buying whichever suits the individual need/purpose. I certainly don’t buy everything that is available, never mind how hard the advertisements are trying to push me. And most certainly none of the non-smokers I know felt the urge to buy a packet of Marlborough because the guy looked cool. (Neither did I, I stuck with rolling tobacco since 1972 when my dad died suddenly. Reval via the Stielkamm [?stalk comb] trick no longer was available to me)

    Common good is when EVERYONE benefits. Smokers nowadays clearly don’t benefit. The smoker haters do. They get their free treatment on the NHS still on the smokers’ backs. (Work it out for yourselves on 20% of the population being smokers and most of them paying this country’s horrendous tobacco tax on a daily basis).

    And the wonder of it all to me is that it always seems to be people who call themselves “socialists” or “communists”, and who profess to be deeply concerned about “society”, who actually do the most damage to society. For it was the socialists in the UK Labour party who brought in the 2007 smoking ban which completely shattered the society to which I had belonged.
    Indeed. Prior to 2007 I used to go out, meet people, a few new people, too, and had a wonderful life despite have 60 – 90 hour working weeks. Now I invite my friends round.

    And, equally amazingly, it was the greedy, selfish Conservatives in Parliament who voted against that draconian ban.
    I like the Greek people. They welcome me. Merkel can rant and rave, I’m not changing my mind.

    And so I have begun to wonder whether anyone who calls themselves a “socialist” or “communist” is actually someone who is the enemy of society, and the enemy of community.
    The socialists being the enemy of a functioning society I have experienced.

    • Barry Homan says:

      “I’m an Egalitarian and in the case of smoking I would support completely separated smoking/non-smoking sections so that we ALL can have a wonderful social life AGAIN. Equal rights for all.”

      Oh no no no, that won’t do at all – because that would force all the anti-smokers to associate exclusively with and among themselves, and that’s what really scares ’em – then they’d look around and see just what kind of people they really are: society’s rejects, basically. Social justice warriors stripped down naked for all to see, noooooooo!

      Nope, they can’t have that.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Oh no no no, that won’t do at all – because that would force all the anti-smokers to associate exclusively with and among themselves, and that’s what really scares ’em

        I might be a little old now and I do remember the smoking sections (at the time badly separated from the non-smoking sections, except in trains) being packed with people talking, laughing and standing because all seats were taken.
        The non-smoking sections in a pub always had seats available (which we carried to the smoking sections). It was punishment to do the 15 minute train ride in the non-smoking carriages, in which one or two people sat. I stood in the smoking-section with numerous others who couldn’t get a seat. The non-smoking carriages were like a funeral parlour.

        Yep it scares the anti-smokers to sit ALONE in a room. Still, as an egalitarian, I am happy to provide a smoke-free COMFORTABLE place for them. Just don’t blame me if you anti-smokers have a sh*t night out! I did what I could. Equal rights for all.

        Social justice warriors stripped down naked for all to see, noooooooo!
        No internet to hide behind and alone in public.
        That does remind me of what I was told about some anti-smoker’s protest in Germany. All 6 members showed up.

    • Rhys says:

      And let’s not forget Public Health, the self-proclaimed Enemy of the People: https://twitter.com/MavisDuncanson/status/848702075655438336

  8. beobrigitte says:

    Someone did post cigarette ads yesterday and is eager to see if we like them. Really?

    It’s a long time ago but they still bring a smile to my face

  9. Pingback: The Rise of the New Idiocracy | 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