Joe Jackson: don't stop the party
Monday, July 2, 2007 
Joe Jackson (left) has published an open letter to all smokers on his website. His suggestions include get educated, join a campaigning group, do not allowed yourself to be bullied, do not patronise places that forbid smoking, patronise places which make an effort to accommodate smokers, either legally outside or illegally inside. He writes:
"Smokers need to know the true facts. The more we know, the better we can fight back. Do not allow yourself to be bullied. Do not apologise to anyone. On the contrary, explain to people why you're a victim of unjust discrimination. You are enjoying a legal pleasure with a long and honourable history, and you're contributing £10 billion a year to your country in tax revenue. Be proud.
"Bad laws deserve to be defied, flouted, protested, or circumvented in any way possible ... The smoking ban will not last forever. But the less resistance there is, the longer it will last, the more the 'antis' will crow about what a great success it is, and the more it will serve as a template for all kinds of other social engineering. Every witch hunt seems invincible until a few people have the nerve to stand up to it. Stop being so damn passive. And don't despair; after all, we (not the likes of ASH) are the Party People. Don't stop the party."
Full letter HERE.
Reader Comments (50)
Seems to me that Joe is encouraging smokers to become more 'militant', Simon.
Do you support him?
I certainly do.
Whilst I'm not advocating breaking the law on this forum I would say that despite the "it's the law so you must obey it" crowd, the people we historically admire the most are those who ARE willing to break the law in pursuit of their cause.
The American founding fathers were English traitors, the Suffragettes routinely flouted the law, hell, even Robin Hood (admittedly fictional) is looked upon fondly.
Another excellent article from Joe Jackson. He realises that the linchpin of the Anti position is the scientific evidence. I can't understand why the lie of passive smoking is not being shouted from the rooftops at every opportunity. Only when it's exposed will the house of cards collapse. I also like his tone which is calm and measured in contrast to the shrill aggression of the Antis.
Excellent article i thourougly agree agree with everything said, im fed up of being treated like a leper for contributing heavily to the tax bill, and would any non smokers really be happy having to contribute more to a huge hole in the tax bill if nobody smoked?
Joyce; You are right about the "science" being the main justification and I completely agree that it needs to be exposed. But once that is done we would still be left with all the other legislation on many other issues that is also based on junk justifications. The real problem isn't that junk science can be used to justify bad laws but that the government has the power to make bad laws. It is the power that is the main corrupting influence.
Any law based on fraud cannot and should not be respected. Militants are normally called so by their enemies. It's meant as a dirty, insulting word, so it's very strange to hear it on this blog.Food for thought.
I agree Bernie that the war is not won when the fraud is exposed but it is a battle which must be won. Human rights and civil liberties arguments cut no ice if, in exercising your liberty or rights, you endanger others. The outrage of smokers and tolerant non-smokers is legitimate only because the law is based on fraud and a law introduced on the basis of a lie is not a legitimate law. It would be a brave government in a democracy that would continue to defend its introduction of such a law. If we have slipped so far that government really doesn't believe that it has to in any way justify its actions, then we now live in an elected dictatorship. Quite what one does about that, I don't know. How bad will things have to become before there is another revolution?
I agree, another excellent article by Joe Jackson.
The problem is the now almost subliminal anti smoking propangda which people have to suffer almost 24/7 in all forms of the media (especially the BBC). The truth is known by a few - see Christopher Booker's article in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph. Perhaps if we had a few more open-minded newspaper editors on side it would be easier to expose the lies that are being told.
I am also amazed how easily most smokers seem to be prepared to put up with such a monstrous erosion of liberty. We need to get this message out to all the people; if it's smoking today what will be next?
Jonathan, I would guess there's proportionally as many gullible smokers as their are non smokers.
The science is key. The anti-smoking lobby obviously know how shaky the scientific foundation of their case is, else they would be so eager to shy away from anything that undermines it.
The challenge is undoing the lie. To this day a significant minority (can't remember the exact figure from the last poll I saw) of Americans STILL believe that the terrorists who flew into the world trade centre included some Iraqis DESPITE it never being directly suggested. The link between the 9/11 and Iraq was simply made so overtly that people took the next step for themselves and assumed some of them WERE Iraqis.
Similarly with this fabled 25% rise in the chances of developing lung cancer. That this ONLY applies to those who work in a smoky environment ot live with a smoker AND applies ONLY to decades worth of exposure slips past most people.
Even if we were to accept that figure and applied it to someone who spent say 1 night a week (on average) in the pub throughout their adult rise, the risk would be 0.4% (ish).
But that aside, the spread the world requires the media to see spreading it as an opportunity to sell more papers or increase viewing figures.
I have read Joe's most recent article and am extremely impressed (as I always am!). I watched the Channel 4 programme 'Memoirs of a Cigarette' last night and, although there were a lot of balanced views, once again the Roy Castle scenario was emphasised (is this part of the fraud you are talking about?!). Yet again numerous adverts appeared promoting stopping smoking with various quit aids promoted! The sad conclusion of the programme was that smoking is dying out and everyone would have to stop!! The public is being fed all this continuously and does not seem to give a thought to what will provide revenue if everyone is forced into stopping smoking. Joe's message is spot on and I would like to know if anyone else watched the same programme and hear their views.
My husband and I have just returned from walking our dogs, (dogs will be the next thing to be banned I expect). Following our walk I sent the email below to a friend:
"Just got back from walking the dogs on Sullington Warren. On a bench at the edge of the warren were two middle-aged women in auxiliary nurse uniforms. They held cigarettes in one hand and the other hand was placed over their right breasts - like some strange kind of salute.
They had come out for a smoke in their tea break because they were not allowed to smoke indoors or outdoors, nor on any part of the premises of the Nursing Home which employs them. Not only that, they had to cover up the badge on their right breast pockets so that the Nursing Home couldn't be identified.
It made me think of the Jews in pre-War Germany, forced to wear yellow star armbands.
They were naturally very upset and aggrieved - especially since non-smokers they had worked with for years, who had been friendly with them in the past, were now 'ganging-up' on them and behaving towards them in a generally unfriendly way.
Although we were smoking too and commiserating, they didn't uncover their badges the whole time we talked to them."
It is simply appalling how Democracy is being eaten away - and a substantial proportion of Society is cheering it on, too blind to see what's happening.
Cathy
We run small hotel and we had 120 stay with us over 12 weeks and only 20 were non smokers. now they have to sit out side in the cold. and myself and partner and her mom @ dad cant smoke any more in our own home yer right.
Cathy - the nurses' situation - that doesn't surprise me at all - there are cartoons and jokes around now about people being monitored in pubs to check if they are drinking more than 1 unit of alcohol - after all, they won't stop at smokers. Also I believe (from what I heard earlier today) fishing (angling) is now to be given negative publicity. Soon people will be afraid to venture out of their houses because they may inadvertently be committing a criminal offence. The people who are cheering all this on don't realise what they are doing. I believe that Joe Jackson is completely right when he explains (above) about bad laws needing to be defied, flouted etc. When the chain reaction really starts, I don't know how long people here will be able to tolerate it.
Joyce; You have a point as far as winning people round. Most don't care that the government shouldn't have the right to legislate property rights away. After all the campaign against property rights has been going even longer than the campaign against tobacco.
I have tried to post a link here several times in the last hour and failed to make the post appear every time. I wanted to make a comment on the "what can be done about it" question.
I think Joe's advice is perfect. The most important thing to do is for ourselves to get educated in the science. When you have certainty it becomes easy to talk about. But we also need to create seeds of doubt in the minds of those who have accepted the claims without question but don't themselves have an axe to grind. Those are probably the majority of the population.
To attract their attention and to perhaps make them curious we need to do something extraordinary but quite easy to do too. Those who follow the MSM line will be expecting us to be hangdog, beaten and ashamed when we light up outside. So if we are not that in itself is a surprise. But we can be a bit more provocative than that in a very politically incorrect way that might even amuse people. Take a look at the last few posts on my blog to get an idea of what I mean.
www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog
Zitory, I strongly agree with you.
“Militants are normally called so by their enemies.” We should not alow to be caled militant because there is not any groung that justify such atributation. It should be treated as highly inculting.and as well as an atempt to prevent any posibile prosmoking – pro human movement.
In Joe Jackson’s article is nothing that encouraging militant behaviour.
It is great article and I hope we will plenty talk and discuss about contents of this article.
But for now I think that everybody that like this article should send here post or send e-mail to Joe Jackson and express thankfulness for such article.
We need to be more active and that is good opportunity to start by expressing our opinion about pro smoking activist and be ready to support them.
What do you make of this.
LEGAL NOTICE
To whom it may concern:
1. Be well advised that any party working for, or otherwise engaged by, the Council to spy on these premises regarding smoking is hereby banned from entering these premises.
2. Any such party that does so is trespassing, and if interrupting or interfering with any lawful activity herein, will be punished to the fullest extent of the law for Aggravated Trespass (an arrestable offence).
THE MANAGEMENT
PS. It would follow that any ticket issued for a fine issued during the the commission of said crime of Aggravated Trespass is extortion and therefore null and void (void ab initio).
#######################
Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 AND Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 Chapter 38, whilst committing simple Trespass, the interruption of any lawful activity - simple Trespass becomes Aggravated Trespass.
QUOTE:
“Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 / 1994 c. 33 – continued
link
Disruptive trespassers
Offence of aggravated trespass.
68.—(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he
trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity
which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or
adjoining land in the open air, does there anything which is intended
by him to have the effect—
(a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them
or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b) of obstructing that activity, or
(c) of disrupting that activity.
(2) Activity on any occasion on the part of a person or persons on
land is "lawful" for the purposes of this section if he or they may engage
in the activity on the land on that occasion without committing an offence
or trespassing on the land.
(vv3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on
summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three
months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
(4) A constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is
committing an offence under this section may arrest him without a warrant.
* In this section "land" includes --- "occupier" (and in subsection (8)
"the other occupier") means—
(a) in England and Wales, the person entitled to possession of the
land by virtue of an estate or interest held by him;”
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 Chapter 38
AMENDING Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030038.htm
CLAUSE 59 Aggravated trespass
(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended
as follows.
(2) In section 68 (offence of aggravated trespass), in subsection (1)
(which defines the offence by reference to trespass on land in the open
air and lawful activity on land in the open air) omit "in the open air" in
both places where those words appear.
27. Clause 60 amends Sections 68 and 69 of the Criminal Justice and
Public Order Act 1994 so that the offence of aggravated trespass can
now apply to buildings as well as the open air. ‘Obstructing’ or ‘disrupting’
the activity on the land constitutes an offence carrying up to three
months imprisonment.”
Andrew if you want to put that up on the door of your own pub then more power to you. I would omit number 2 though.
I agree that arguing on the science is the key to challenging the law. I also think,though, that the British should not rely on government to tell *them* what 'Britishness' is. It is for the people to decide - and I think the British need to really start thinking about whether they really want their main priority in life to be to conform to some governmental or WHO-inspired idea of a healthist 'Master Race' with perfect pulse and pecs (I am so sick of the shallow train conversations you hear these days - it's either 'my weight' or 'my car' or 'my house'. Boring as hell), or whether they want to be a nation of TRUE greatness - one of great thinkers, diversity in debate, broad education - and the kind of open-mindedness, flexibility and far-reaching tastes and influences that has produced the riches of the ever-evolving English language and some of the most original and influential music in the world.
For the latter, we need INCLUSIVENESS. We are at 'inclusiveness junction' right now. I only hope the Brits take the right turning from here.
Another amazing piece of writing by Joe Jackson. There were lots of people fighting this ban at the July the 1st smoke in. Four of us took a 2&1/2 hour jouney to Bolton. Nick Hogan put on a great day for everyone. Lots of non-smokers supported it too. I also understand others had a lot of support too.
What saddens me is the lack of media fairness, how easily they can manipulate the public, turning citizen against citizen. It is dangerous and immoral,based on so many lies.
I along with many will not go away, we cannot give up this fight.
F2C.co.uk
Smokers do have power collectively, MONEY, and mine will stay in my pocket for trips abroad where I am welcome.
I am fuming I am forced to pay for a license for blantant propaganda form the BBC,
I no longer watch soaps, too PC for me
Seems to me that a good percentage of the 10 million or so smokers in the UK feel the ban has gone too far.
10 million votes can make a vast difference at an election, or even when selecting a candidate.
Are they able (or indeed care enough) to organize themselves to unnerve their MP and government?
The objection to 'Crusaders' is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that they try to make us do as they think
Excellent article by Joe.
Many places of business are taking notice of the ban today! I keep giving out the Forest web site for obvious reasons.
State control in this country is getting out of hand. There is no freedom any more. We have a government which dictates and defies all and everyone to oppose it. And nobody does oppose it, nobody dares oppose it, even our so called opposition party just sits back and accepts that these terrible unjust laws, most of which that come from the EU are accepted and written into our law books without question.
As Cathy so rightly puts it, "It is simply appalling how Democracy is being eaten away - and a substantial proportion of Society is cheering it on, too blind to see what's happening".
She also states how she saw these two nurses, smoking in the park, but trying disparately to cover up their badges, for fear of being picked on and bullied by other members of staff, and how it reminded her of the plight of the Jews in pre-war Germany, forced to wear yellow star armbands.
I don't think that anyone on here is trying to equate the smoking ban with the murder of millions of Jews in Nazi Germany, but what people should try to understand is when the Jews were first being picked on, and used as scapegoats for all the problems Germany was experiencing at that time, no one ever dreamt of what their final fate would be.
England needs to wake up and be told the truth now, we need to lead the world in our quest for the truth to be heard. If we allow these impositions to our freedom to continue unabated, I dread to think what will happen next.
The problem seems to be that we are civilised, most laws overturned (poll tax) to name one, had a militant uprising.
The biggest problem is we are being 'led' by a big brother corrupt government and the smaller local governments are all too willing to go along with it for their own power kick.
Until such time as someone can expose unequivecally their corrupt schemes to the nation as a whole, this whole sorry state will contiue until it is too late to do anything about it.
Personally I think it would be very difficult to find any politician or local counsellor who isn't corrupt to some degree or another and I certainly don't trust any of them. Anything they do in the name of 'best for our electorate' basically means 'best for lining our own pockets'.
Andrew - you are very correct in what you say - eg. poll tax. Andrew Marr's recent history programme on BBC2 outlined all that and the fact that people got together and got angry to change things. I think Lyn is right when she talks about the local governments. My husband (a non-smoker but against this ban and infringing people's freedom to choose generally) stood for the local district council recently and was not elected. Although he stood as a conservative, he is fed up with that party's lack of stand against important issues. I think it is a blessing in disguise that he wasn't elected because the government is giving a lot of the unpopular policies to local government for them to implement and enforce. He realises that now he is lucky not to be on a council. The people on our local council now appear to be in favour of this blanket ban and other unpopular issues. I think we are now starting to experience 'what happens next' and hopefully it is only a matter of time before ordinary people actually make a stand against state control of so many things.
"I don't think that anyone on here is trying to equate the smoking ban with the murder of millions of Jews in Nazi Germany". Quite right Peter.
There is obviously a world of difference between a smoking ban and genocide. But it is still entirely appropriate to equate the smoking ban with Nazism. The genocide came late in their history. Nearly a decade earlier they introduced .... a smoking ban.
We are ignoring the lessons of history if we wait for the gas chambers to be built before we start to object. There were many things that should have alarmed people to action way before the gas chambers. Smoking bans should have been one of those things. Another would be a National ID scheme.
In all truth I have tried to quit smoking a few times in the past. But I don't know what eveyone else thinks, but I'm determined to carry on for good now. I hate flying, scared stiff, but I'm not spending hard earnt money in England only to be confined. So it's nerves on hand, and on that plane to Spain (many small bars excempt). Never thought I'd fly again, beter than prison, sorry meant England.
Above post in relation to my holidays.
Mind you there is Bolton.
For me one of the most irrtating things is the apathy of many smokers themselves. Comments like "I suppose it (the ban) will help me to cut down anyway..." are so far from the indignation I feel. Peoples' willingness to accept things as a fait accompli without trying to do something about it is very annoying. Decades of insidious anti propaganda are the cause I fear.
As others have written, I suspect that public outrage will be more likely if they try to ban outside smoking. The logic behind this would be laughable and difficult to defend.
We also need more celebs (quality ones) to be photographed as not being ashamed of smoking - good on u Kate Moss.
So many people in this country live a completely apathetic life Jonathan, 'Oh well, it had to happen didn't it' and 'well there must be some truth in it or they wouldn't say it would they'
I am fed up to the teeth with these ghastly little apologists for human beings. I remember a year or so ago, when "friends" of mine, who were serious smokers, suddenly stated that they were giving up, and their reason? 'Well it's going to be banned soon anyway, so you might as well give up now then mightn't you'
Not only did this weak little pair give up, but now they are among the most vicious of the antis that I have ever come across, swearing and shouting at smokers, and of course, always waving their hands about as if to save themselves from the Bubonic plague.
I put these people in the same league as the Nazi sympathisers and collaborators during the war.
Talking of apathy, it's interesting (and not a little worrying) that we're 2 days in and this blog only has 32 (ish) replies...from about 8 or 9 people. Hmmmm......
The question is how do we motivate people to take action like they did with the fuel cost demonstrations? They may not have worked but they the government to take notice and that's all we need to start with.
Rightly or wrongly it's all about perception and most people don't want to be perceived as being aligned with whats portrayed as a dirty vice. Until you change this perception you're really peeing in the wind.
As people have said the science is the key and debunking the junk science arguments used by the antis. People tend to be amazed when you tell them that someone who has never smoked and who dies of a heart attack at age 87 goes down as a smoking related death. Then they see that with that kind of propaganda it's easy to arrive at the the ludicrous stats bandied around by the authorities. In a few cases this makes them annoyed that the population is being conned so easily and so often.
Now if we could get this out on the mass media.........
Jonathan,
The freedom2choose site downloads section has flyers which are a good way of introducing people to the whole issue. Antis rely on smokers as well as non smokers swallowing the fraud. See also FOREST's downloads. Someone on The Big Debate has addressed the issue of perceptions of smokers and sugests tactics to use to smoke with dignity (see "Style Tips for the Resistance"). Smokers themselves can choose to contribute to the image of addiction driven losers huddled against the elements or to smoke stylishly and unapologetically.
You need a journalist, funding, then a radicle new newspaper handed out on the streets, called something like freedom. The articles must be well written, varied, and express the other side to the myth that people seem content with.
Jonathon
I think that forest need a big link to this blog, it's not that clear how to get to this site. Many people visiting the forest site are probably unaware this blog exists.
We could do with a few comments from the celebs, that would increase numbers.
"I put these people in the same league as the Nazi sympathisers and collaborators during the war."
And so you should Peter.
For all those who want to do something please go to my blog and share your ideas on what can be done. F2C is great and so is the big debate. There are lots of people to connect up with. If you want a shared plan of action and coordination please post a comment on my blog.
Excellent suggestion, Bernie!
Would have been even better Joyce if I'd included the address :-)
www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog
I think that the word "blog" might not be the right word to use in connection with serious debate.
I personally always associate "blog" in the same terms as I do "chat rooms", in other words, not very serious.
F2C call themselves a campaigning site, which sounds much more important, don't you agree?
Like your legal notice Andrew - but the aggravated trespass part of it pertains to interference with any legal activity - unfortunately smoking inside premises is now an illegal activity.
RedCat
Are you allowed to enter based on a guess there is illegal activity??????
Peter; Yes "blog" is a dumb word. Nevertheless you are one person in particular who has thoughts on what should be done and your input would be appreciated. Losing "blog" is an idea and I'm sure you have others. It is a campaigning site but at this stage we are still working out what the campaign should be. What is the purpose, how shall we carry it out, how should it be organized, what can realistically be done, etc.?
In regard to the Jewish persecution under the Nazis, it might sound odd, but I am reminded more of the stories of Colditz castle where prisoners of war built a glider under the noses of their guards.
Basically, the way I look at it, smokers have two social mindframes to choose between:
1) Allow themselves to be persecuted into the metaphorical concentration camps and be re-educated in the ways of the anti-smoker.
2) Take the fact we're all being shepherded outside and our lives are being made deliberately awkward for what it is - a chink in the authoritarian society's armour. Exploit it, build on it, communicate!
The last thing the health lobby are expecting is a mass breakout. But they've spent so much time wrapping the population in a blanket of social guilt and thinking big, I doubt they've calculated the power of one smoker saying to another "Oh don't feel guilty about it; we're all in the same boat."
Perhaps what we should be doing is playing them at their own game by protesting against smoking in Westminster - see how they like it!
SMOKING SHOULD BE BANNED
HOW CAN THIS WEBSITE BE SUPPORTED
I AM DISGUSTED
SMOKING SHOULD BE BANNED
Die you fuckers
SMOKING SHOULD BE BANNED
I HATE ALL SMOKERS, AND THIS SITE DISGUSTES ME.
I WANNA KILL ALL SMOKERS
DIE SMOKERS DIE
"SMOKING SHOULD BE BANNED
I HATE ALL SMOKERS, AND THIS SITE DISGUSTES ME.
I WANNA KILL ALL SMOKERS
DIE SMOKERS DIE"
Dear BAN SMOKING,
I really hate to to unsettle you, but you will get your wish - smokers will indeed die. So will you, sooner rather than later, unless you control your blood pressure.
Have a nice day.