Smokers lose their voices

The media is all lit up with excitement, as our fading, dying, failing government leaks its latest plans to constrain and control us.
Yes, we're back to the denormalisation and demonisation of the eeevil smokers yet again. According to the Telegraph, Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, will today launch ..

".. the government's "tobacco control strategy" ... which aims to halve the number of smokers in Britain by 2020.

In a major speech Mr Burnham will also pave the way for new "interventionist" policies aimed at stopping people smoking in their own homes or cars if they live with children."

Oh for fuck's sake.  Who voted for these idiots? Who gave them control of our lives?

Opinion is - astonishingly - divided on the wisdom of this, but there are, thank god, dissenting voices.

Simon Clark runs the Taking Liberties blog, which is associated with Forest, the Smoker's lobby. So, the smokers have a voice too, then? Good. Regardless of which side you come down on, it's good to know that the debate is .... what? .... oh, wait ....

Actually, it would appear that the smokers' voice is, to put it pollitely, somewhat supressed.

When CF tries to visit the Forest website, http://www.forestonline.org , on his laptop, he is given the following message:

Content Control
Restricted Access
You are not able to access this service because Content Control is in place."

What? So we're not even allowed to hear what Forest has to say then? Who told Vodafone - and doubtless other service providers - to block this website? And why in the name of fuck did they agree?

Listen, Vodafone, smoking, writing about smoking and debating smoking are all completely fucking legal, you bastards. As is CF pointing out what a bunch of nannying, censoring, illiberal cocks both Her Majesty's government and Vodafone are.

And what about Simon Clark? He's one of the 'pro-rights brigade' that so annoy the establishment, but in spite of this, he was invited onto the Voice of the Establishment, the taxpayer-funded BBC, this morning.

Did he put his case well? Did he get to put his case at all? Did he fuck.

The poor sod barely got a word in edgeways, against a pointlessly aggressive, continually interrupting John Humphrys.

We never really got to hear what Clark thought , with Humphry's  hurling such completely non-partisan and even-handed questions such '..so, smokings a pretty disgusting habit, isn't it'? at him.

A substantial proportion of the interview was wasted with endless variations on the question 'Would you tell your children not to smoke? Well, would you prefer them not to? Well why would you prefer them not to before they were 18? Well would you tell them not to?'

Lovely interview technique, John. Keep that up, and we won't have to hear anything the pro-liberty bloke says, will we?

So, Vodafone won't let smokers put their case on the Internet, and the BBC won't let them put their case on the radio. And we all know, who's behind all this censorship, don't we? Yes, it's dear old Nanny.

Smokers' voice? Nanny doesn't want you to hear.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

44 comments:

Cold Steel Rain said...

It is perhaps ironic I was going to pack the gaspers in today.. But after reading this, have now decided not to.

Bollocks to the Health Facists. I'm off to get some Lambert & Butler.

subrosa said...

I can access Forest CF. Give it another go.

If they want 50% of us to give up where are they going to raise the lost revenue from?

Don't tell me, 'green' taxes?

Jill said...

Didn't you moan about Vodafone blocking stuff before? It's v bad, innit?

They do have a revenue problem with smoking, don't they? Smoking costs are down the line. Revenue gains are now. That's a future hole of many billions - and it's indirect tax disproportionately borne by the poor. What happens when this kind of revenue from the poor collapses thanks to nannyism and direct taxes are all that is left? They won't - surely, gasp - proportionately tax the rich? How DREADFUL would that be?! Oh, perhaps the Lotto could go hourly and we could get the money off them that way?

Constantly said...

@subrosa

Oh, the websites there alright. It's just that if I try to access it on my laptop, using Vodafone as the dial-up provider, they block it. As if it had anything to do with them...

Choking said...

John H is right : smoking is a disgusting habit and will be banned everywhere in the end. You cry about rights but you don't have the right to blow smoke into my lungs you addict.

Constantly Furious said...

@choking

Oh do fuck off, you fucking Nazi.

JuliaM said...

"Who voted for these idiots? "

Indeed! This coming election, though, it'll all change. We can vote for...

Ah. Who, exactly?

JuliaM said...

"You cry about rights but you don't have the right to blow smoke into my lungs you addict."

We have the right to blow it into the air, though. If that's where your lungs happen to be, well...

JuliaM said...

I don't even smoke myself, and yet sanctimonious little prigs like 'Choking' make me want to start...

Uncle Marvo said...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article6999689.ece

It's a link from that Forest site that you can't access. Quite good, I like Clarkson.

"Choking": wot CF said. You Nazi. Fuck RIGHT off. No, I don't have the right to blow smoke into your lungs, and never would I. However, I have the right to suck it into my own, without having to mix it with air at -3 fucking degress fucking Centigrade because some ex-smoking fuckface with a wife who threatened not to marry him if he didn't give up decided that it wasn't enough to make it illegal to smoke in a pub and had to go the extra step.

I feel better now.

Now, I really, truly hope that they go the extra step and try to ban smoking in cars, houses, etc. Because they've missed the point. The ONLY reason I don't smoke in pubs is respect for the landlord, who will get the £2500 fine if he lets me smoke, or doesn't prevent me from smoking.

In the case whereby I am the only person who's being penalised, they will have a huge problem.

I regard my right to do something that isn't banned altogether, such as smoking a fag, as my right to do it in comfort. That is a basic human right. I have basic human rights, as I haven't burgled anyone.

Oh, "Choking", did I say "fuck off"? Yes. Good.

Fish said...

If you want to smoke in private where the smoke doesnt affect anyone else but you, for you slow right to emphysema, lung cancer and self gratification, go for your life. you make it sound like you where born with cigarettes in your mouths for that sweet trip to self gratification.

If you want to argue for smoking in public please look at it this way... you dont masturbate in public do you.

On a side, @ CF: if you have trouble with Vodafone, why dont you simply switch providers... and take awesome delight in telling them why!

Jill said...

The naysayers: what are you arguing against? The horrid smell or potential lung cancer? My understanding of the science is that the bulk of the evidence is that there's no definite causal link between lung cancer/heart disease etc and secondary smoking. In fact, it's almost a reverse of the global warming bolyx - most scientists say there's no link. If it's the horrid smell and dirt, well, I sympathise - I hardly ever have to clean the inside of my windows now I've given up! - but you can't legislate against bad smells. Cars? Buses? Bonfires? Farts, for fucks sake? Can we not drop one in the pub either?

There's just no basis for all this freedom-reducing anti-smoking legislation. Enforcing segregation in pubs and restaurants is as far as it needs to go - based on the available science.

Uncle Marvo said...

Give it a rest, Fish.

I claim my right to do what I fucking want, where I want, if it doesn't bother anyone else.

And if my masturbating bothers you, get on another bus.

I suppose you're one of the zillions of people who didn't used to use the pub but now the smoking ban's there you come in droves, thus keeping that sector of the economy flourishing?

Yeah, right.

Captain Haddock said...

Well I will blow a great gust of 2nd hand St Bruno straight into the face of the first jobsworth fuckwit who knocks on my door & attempts to dictate terms .. Then they'll get told to fuck off ..

As for "Choking" .. why don't you just disappear & choke to death somewhere ?.. Tosser ..

Anonymous said...

@choking
Now look here you pathetic little
lonely snivelling health freak,
you can have a choice between my
smoke or our Dereks Doc Martins
toe cap.Unless you live in a cave,eat twigs and walk everywhere
..........SHUT IT................


Killjoy Kicker

Jill said...

I don't think advocates of freedoms to smoke, speak or masturbate on buses or um... enjoy Steven Segal films, should really be telling people to shut it...

manwiddicombe said...

And if my masturbating bothers you, get on another bus.

That's easy for you to say Uncle Marvo but you drive the only school bus that comes through this village

;o)

Uncle Marvo said...

I know. My ambition is to die peacefully in my sleep, like my Grandad - not screaming in agony, like his passengers.

TheBigYin said...

Please people, don't have a go at the likes of Choking and Fish, they have been indoctrinated into believing that smokers are worse than child molesters. What's the betting that both are ex-smokers? Like Duncan Bannatyne who has seen the lord as far as smoking is concerned.

Now I am a smoker and I make no bones about it and at times i've thought about giving up smoking but decided not to because I enjoy it, I enjoy most things in my dreary life and some enjoyments (I think) are worse than others but I will not beat myself up over it. I am a people person, no matter their ills, it's just that I like a smoke, of the legal kind, but now I am being denormalised, pushed to the edge of society...why?

I was blissfully unaware of my status as a sub-human until 01/07/07. It was then that I was told something so stupid and without scientific merit that made me think WTF? It was then that I was told I was partly responsible for the deaths of millions, not counting both world wars or the countless historical leaders that butchered people on a massive scale...but I have contributed to more deaths than they, because of the myth of SHS (Second Hand Smoke.)

It turns out, after almost three years of the ban experiment that it has absolutly nothing to do with health, it's to do with non/ex smokers going home with the smell of tobacco on their clothes, now I don't want to go out socially as I get the smell of hypocrisy and government intrusion in my clothes, hair, teeth, brain.

Where has my Freedom2Choose gone?

Dick Puddlecote said...

"If you want to argue for smoking in public please look at it this way... you dont masturbate in public do you."

I love playing cliche bingo whenever Labour remind kids that people smoke. The one above is dated around 1995 and originated in Los Angeles IIRC. (I think you go for the swimming pool and pissing one next, Fishy boy ... yawn)

And to you, 'Choking', insults as already uttered but with bells on. Cunt.

Fish said...

@uncle marvo:
Im one of the dieing breed of people who used to use the pub before the smoking ban, and still do. I don't need the excuse of a smoke to see my friends, or to stop me from seeing my friends. and if the smoking ban stops you from going to the pub I wonder how much the pub meant to you in the first place.

"I claim my right to do what I fucking want, where I want, if it doesn't bother anyone else."

I think the problem here is that it does bother other people. Besides, I'm not saying stop smoking (you can smoke yourself to death in the privacy of your nicotine stained home), just don't feed me your addiction as a "freedom of expression" and then go around labelling everyone else as "anti-smoking nazis" and then telling them to "fuck off", simply because we dont share your addiction and prefer the fresh air or the sweet smell of beer stained carpets.

@ Jill: you may seek to research your position on passive smoking. One celeb' example i can think of is Roy Castle, but there are numerous studies done into the effects of passive smoking and increasing the relative risk of lung cancer.

The world health organisation doesnt generally issue papers on something because the windows get dirty.

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/index.php

Uncle Marvo said...

@Fish "Im one of the dieing breed of people who used to use the pub before the smoking ban, and still do."

So do I.

@Fish "I don't need the excuse of a smoke to see my friends, or to stop me from seeing my friends. and if the smoking ban stops you from going to the pub I wonder how much the pub meant to you in the first place."

It doesn't stop me either.

@Fish "I think the problem here is that it does bother other people. Besides, I'm not saying stop smoking (you can smoke yourself to death in the privacy of your nicotine stained home), just don't feed me your addiction as a "freedom of expression" and then go around labelling everyone else as "anti-smoking nazis" and then telling them to "fuck off", simply because we dont share your addiction and prefer the fresh air or the sweet smell of beer stained carpets."

I don't. I tell them to fuck off because I'm fed up with the whining ex-smoking (mainly) do-good luvvy attitude they seem to have.

I don't expect to be able to smoke everywhere, I understand that it might bother some people, and that's exactly why there should be a choice.

And if you look carefully, what I'm whining about, and rightly in my view, is the bit about only being allowed to smoke in places that are frigging freezing in this weather. Please argue against that, as that's what I'm arguing for.

Dick Puddlecote said...

First masturbation, then Roy Castle? Roy Castle smoked cigars, Fish. You really have been taken in, haven't you? ;-)

Fish said...

@ the big yin

Lost an family member to smoking related cancer. but that was her choice to smoke, much the same as its my choice not to go out the same way she did. & I refuse to have that (or the increased chances of that) pushed on me by anyone else.

"It turns out, after almost three years of the ban experiment that it has absolutly nothing to do with health...."

er... some people would argue with you... behold: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8267523.stm

please choose all you like, but passing opinion as fact is petty.

Fish said...

@ dick puddlecote:

roy castle, as far as im aware was a non smoking trumpet playing entertainer who played in many a smoke filled club.

There is far more evidence to support this available than one persona on blogger.

If you wish to prove me wrong then please point me somewhere as to back up your point. I will then consider myself educated and move on.

Uncle Marvo said...

@Fish "The world health organisation doesnt generally issue papers on something because the windows get dirty."

The WHO generally, in fact invariably, issues papers on what they are actually instructed to issue them on, because the only money they get comes from the people who want these papers, and they wouldn't have a job if they didn't have paymasters.

Without these "official" papers these people can't justify the taxes they impose, nor the laws they pass. See "climate change" for yet another example.

By the way, my daughter died of cancer. She never smoked. It was not a smoking-related cancer.

I don't think that anyone has ever died of cancer as a result of passive smoking, and I have read a heck of a lot of evidence, proper evidence, from raw data, rather than the stuff that the powers-that-be want you to read into it.

And I know just a teensy-weensy bit about this.

Yes, fags are smelly. I actually like the smell myself, and my abode (which is not a house) would probably be nicotine-stained if it had magnolia plaster walls, but as they're wood the only staining is from the log/coal fire, mainly because of the horrible glue that holds the smokeless "coal" together.

I am also addicted to fags, as well as being someone who likes them. Were this not so, I'd stop putting them in my mouth and lighting them.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Just as passing BBC articles as fact is not usually a good idea, either, Fish. ;-)

Both the English heart attack 'miracle' and the study to which the BBC refer, have been comprehensively debunked.

The American one was cherry-picked data from previously rubbished studies, and the English one wasn't even based on any study at all. ASH even distanced themselves from it on their web-site.

It would seem that you are addicted to tobacco control propaganda. Do you believe in fairies, too? ;-)

Dick Puddlecote said...

Fish: Roy Castle wasn't diagnosed as having contracted cancer from SHS. He said himself he was as likely to have got it from the chemicals he used on his instruments. And as a Lords Taverner, he was regularly seen with a cigar.

But as you don't like to believe that. Can you give me another person to have died from passive smoking? After all, it's so lethal there must be thousands to choose from.

That was the problem with pubs prior to the smoking ban ... it was so awkward getting to the bar with all those dead bodies in the way. ;-)

aljahom said...

CF - the message from Vodafone is because it;s a 3g device, so falls under the 'voluntary code' for Mobile providers to protect thecheeldren from adult content.

You'll also find yourself unable to get to the Veuve Clicot website, as here:

http://aljahom.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/nanny-alcohol-blocker/

The good news is you can unlock it by calling vodafone. The bad news is good luck with that if it's a company device.

AJ

DaveA said...

@Choking

Can I confirm too that Roy Castle and anyone else who is a non smoker will not contract lung cancer from breathing in other people's cigarette smoke.

The medical reason is that body is continually fighting off the growth of cancer using our natural defence mechanisms, and this mechanism is controlled by our genes. How we contract cancer is when our genes reproduce themselves instead of producing perfect copies mutate.

In smokers the Transprotein gene 53 (p53) on chromosone 11 mutates while in non smokers it is the epidermal growth factor receptor EGPFR protein. If I maybe allowed to quote from these 2 peer reviewed medcial papers. "Current evidence indicates that the two types of lung cancer are biologically distinct."

And "INTERPRETATION: Lung cancer in never-smokers should probably be regarded as a different disease-entity than smoking-induced lung cancer. This could impact prognosis as well as treatment."

Roy Castle did not die from passive smoking and neither has anyone else.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19844277

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18598932?ordinalpos=1&itool=PPMCLayout.PPMCAppController.PPMCArticlePage.PPMCPubmedRA&linkpos=4

Fish said...

ok, interesting... my eyes are opened, ish... plenty of reading. Opinion isnt changed in regards to my inhalation of SHS, it never will, but i understand the smokers argument better, despite my opposition to having your smoke forced on me.

@Dick Puddlecote:
point taken, but what all papers seem to miss out on is the advances on preventative care to major MI events by better testing and spotting for minor precurser events that can take place. Also be aware that both sources you directed me to simply point out there was additional reasoning behind a drop after the ban, not simply because of the ban but in addition to. yes there was a pre-ban trend but unless we magically go back, using the said fairies, and change the past neither group is going to be proved right.

@Uncle Marvo:
the right to smoke is there, as much as the right not to smoke. I think part of the argument isnt as much that as to where smokers should be allowed to crave that hunger, and how well that argument is portrayed. having somewhere sheltered and warm is something that is common sense and i never saw anything wrong with a properly sealed and ventilated smoking room.

Just another peice meal bit of legislation by NuLab...

@DaveA: it was me who mentioned Roy Castle.

ranger121 said...

For those that don't know,

Roy Castle contracted adenocarcinoma.

This type of cancer cannot be caused by tobacco smoke.

Roy "guessed" that he had contracted lung cancer from smoky bars. Roy guessed wrong.

All non-smokers have a 1% chance of contracting this form of LC. Roy was unlucky, but his post mortem proves that smokers were not responsible for his demise.

Angry Exile said...

I don't even smoke myself, and yet sanctimonious little prigs like 'Choking' make me want to start...

I know how you feel. I've quit and that just makes me want to go and buy a carton to chainsmoke while I follow the illiberal prick around all day. Duncan Banningtime had a similar effect.

DaveA said...

@Fish

Thanks for being open minded and allowing us our own rooms. The last study done into passive smoking and lung cancer that I am aware of is 2006 Neuberger, it actually found SHS PROTECTIVE, statistically significantly too, and I quote.

"A significant inverse association was found for those with some college education (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.48-0.81) and for those with adult passive smoke exposure at home (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.26-0.54)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876736/

Anonymous said...

Its not just about smokers, what about the non smokers who get covered in the stinking stench of fags! Stand outside and smoke yer smelly cancer sticks and shut the fuck up !

Captain Haddock said...

Anon @ 1825 ..

If, as is your right you don't like the smell of tobacco .. why not simply move away yourself ?

What we smokers do & enjoy doing is perfectly LEGAL ..

If you want someone to whinge at or to persecute, why not go after the Druggies ? .. after all what they either smoke, snort or inject is ILLEGAL ..

Oh, no .. hang on a minute .. Druggies are "victims" aren't they .. better not persecute them, eh ?

The problem with health fascists, like you .. is that you want everything your own way .. whereas, we smokers are quite happy to share space with smokers & non-smokers alike ..

BTW .. I've never smoked a "Cancer Stick" in my life .. I started on a Pipe at 17 & a half .. and am still going strong at 60 ..

caesars wife said...

i think they will end up banning it in part because they will want the land to grow other things .

however I think Mr burnham is doing a remeber blair dog whistle post chilcott , making a divider creating the apsirational class again , to live healty and independent under watchingyouallthetimebutprotectingasstateknowsbest.

Mr Burnham should be more concerned about needing fags to pay for NHS pensions , by causing early death of state pensioners to offset state employement is good model .

Espi said...

Hi all,

I understand that it can be very frustrating when you are unable to access a web page due to content control.

However we have to place this bar on all websites that may contain age related content when the account is first set up.

Here are some instructions on how to remove your Content Control -

http://bit.ly/6VG1Pn

I trust that this will help and you will have no trouble acessing any sites in the future.

Thanks,

Espi
Web Relations Team
Vodafone UK

Anonymous said...

Captain Haddock you can fuck off with your vile stinking smokers breath and co ordinated yellow teeth. I will not allow you or any other smelly selfish bastard out there with their nicotined stained fingers to come anywhere near me or my family with your poisonous guff. Can I trust I make myself quite clear! Now go and stand out in the fucking rain with your nasty little habit and blackened , fag junkie.

Thank you that will be all.

AJ said...

The authoratarians are at with our duty free, within the next 3 years EU Travel Retail companies are putting in contingency plans as the belief is that the EU will ban Duty Free tobacco sales as they feel the open sale of tobacco in airports encourages children to start smoking adn they feel it contributes to smuggling, despite the fact you can only buy tobacco if going to a non-eu country and the limit legally is 200 fags or 250g baccy.

The WHO organisation has just had to back down from putting forward a proposal to get rid of duty free alcohol sales around the world due to intense lobbying of all the worlds travel retail trafe bodies as was pointed out to the WHO 1 litre of spirits per person does not contribute to alcoholism.

The bastards need to get the fuck out of my life if I want to smoke I will if I want to drink I will, their fake statistics and "oh but think of the cheeeeeldren" mentality really pisses me off.

Whenever I see people on tv programmes talking about the cost to the NHS of aroun 1.7bn or what ever made up figure it is that day I want to punch them and say if we didn't smoke you would have to fund your own healthcare you fuckwit.

Captain Haddock said...

2 February 2010 11:03
Anonymous said...

My response is .. "Sieg Heil, mein Obergruppenfuhrer"

Fascist wanker ...

Anonymous said...

Captain Haddock

Your response is predictible.

You and others fail to grasp is that I care not one jot what you do with your life and if you want to poison your lungs thats up to you. I woud not ban cigaret sales.

What you do not under any-fucking-circumstances have the right to do is to poison me or others as a result of practicing your filthy immature adolescent habit in my presence.

For that reason you will continue to stand out in the rain till the penny drops.

Uncle Marvo said...

Anonymous, penny-dropping item:

When it comes to "fail to grasp" you seem to have all the relevant qualifications. What you have failed to grasp in this particular instance is that there is no reason, no reason at all, why we should stand in the rain. If we stand in a room, with loads of lovely nicotine in it, and choose to have some cyanide pumped in at the same time, and invite people who've been eating eating lentils for week in there as well, it has absolutely nothing to do with you, nor with anyone else.

It is the "in the rain" part. See?

Do I need to draw pictures?

Anonymous said...

Yes please do, can I suggest you shade them in with some of the loverly off yellow nicotine scrapings from your fingers and teeth.