Tuesday
Jan202009
Obama's "toughest task"?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 The credit crunch, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ... it's good to know that these problems pale into insignificance when Obama confronts his number one enemy. Or, as an article in The Times put it yesterday: "Can Barack Obama kick his nasty habit? One of the toughest tasks facing the new President when he steps into the White House is quitting the cigarettes."
Full article HERE.
Reader Comments (35)
Typical mind-numbing level of journalism,but appropriate in this upsidedown world,where the importance of p.c.image is paramount regardless of the real issues.
When Obama and the powers behind him get started on their mission for the new century, and the probable carnage that it will bring, the last thing on people's minds will be his smoking.
I sincerely hope he does not give up, if he enjoys it and, lets face it, he will be enough stress and pressure without trying to give up the cigs as well!
Go for it Obama and start the tide turning back in the direction of choice for all!
Who's in charge? Watching BBC Panorama last night, his biggest problem is to restrict the powers of Health Insurance, Big Pharma and Wal-mart. They rule the USA and it was mainly their money which got him into power.
A typical article there from Emma Mahony which is really a bit of self therapy for her struggle with giving up smoking. As usual, there are two big mistakes.
Mistake number one is the belief that a smoker becomes a non smoker, no, a smoker becomes a smoker who does not smoke. Does an alcoholic who stops drinking stop being an alcoholic?
Mistake number two is when she says that she made the mistake of not using patches or gum. Wrong again. If a person really wants or needs to stop smoking, then the best way is cold turkey, otherwise, you do not really stop until you stop the NRT.
She does not really want to give up, so it probably won't last. As for Barack, neither does he, mmm, let's see what happens.
I have no more wish to give up smoking than I have a wish to give up drinking or give up reading or give up daydreaming or give up anything else that I enjoy doing.
I wish that Obama felt the same.
I hope Obama does not give up the cigarettes because look what happened to Bush when he gave up the drink. He became a religious zealot and warmonger and probably should have stuck to a few beers and chasers with his 'Good Ole Boy' pals in Texas. The world would be a much better place[unless you were a deer].
What I find so nauseating from the liberl/left/BBC sort is that Obama's election is being treated like some Second Coming of Christ. To me he is the elected President who happens to be black, alright and a smoker.
Mind you if he said in his inauguration speech "I am a smoker, I know the risks, now STFU, and I don't buy all this BS on SHS," I would not be able to contain my smile.
Shame we were not on Devil's Kitchen :)
Agreed Dave.
And I'm deeply suspicious of that wife...
Simon, please, this is not a 'credit crunch' it's a full blown Recession with a capital 'R' - soon to be a full blown Depression. The soft leftie term 'credit crunch' implies it's just a problem with credit or borrowing, whereas those who have struggled to save and have worked hard all their lives for their pensions are being well and truly stuffed.
Religion means nothing to Bush. Remenber he's a member of one of THE families in the world, where empathy doesn't exist, go back to his Grandfather Prescot who was one of the main financial supporters of the building of Hitlers Nazi state, and his father/CIA who was certainly involved in the Kennedy assasination The same forces behind Bush are now backing Obama, he owes big time, and won't make the same mistake as Kennedy who took them on. His smoking is irrelevant.
A new face was needed that people could put their hopes on, a blank canvas, while the agenda goes on even easier now they have faith restored in a 'saviour' who will be followed, until the penny drops, and all change again. It's good cop/ bad cop, and millions have fell for it. McCain was the worst possible opposition. Why? Obama was groomed for this for many years, and did NOT come out of nowhere, as they want you to believe. He may have a smoking habit, but does not believe in freedom or peace. The Zionists and Neo-cons he has assembled in his inner sanctuary are all the proof anyone needs.
What a load of paranoid, conspiracy theory nonsense!!
I'll forgive Saint Barack's 'quitting' - PROVIDED he also 'quits' proselytising on behalf of that other dangerously adolescent (and equally well-funded) fantasy known as 'Global Warming'.
My HOPE is that he'll start listening to the Grown-Ups.
But my GUESS is that he'll simply fail on BOTH counts !
I second that Zitori, I think Obama was put in place to keep the Clintons out (and thank god for that) and the blacks happy, he's only another front man for the powers that be, just like George W was a front man for daddy and his Chaney and Rumsfeld pals.
All Obama has proven so far is that he's a good rappa artist with no substance, how could he be with no history. People are so desperate for a saviour now they would latch on to anyone with a good line in bullshit.
I think we're in for more of the same only more dangerous this time with the emphasis now on more leftie multiculturism.
At least Obama has normal obvious habits unlike deadly Hilary who banned smoking in the white house, but I dont think he'll find it easy to slip out of the white house for a quick puff as the bullet proof cover would prove too expensive, then there's Michelle, a force to be reckoned with I'd say, not to mention her mother mamma Robinson!
On the other hand if Obama stands up and says 'I'm a smoker so what', I will look at him in a new light.
That's a very disappointing answer Simon, but maybe to be expacted from, it seems, someone who can see no further than the institutionalised media fantasies.
It may have escaped your notice but the truth about the passive smoking fraud is seen by many as 'paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense', and you know very well that investigation throws a different light on the subject.
Have you read 'The project for the new American century' document? I doubt it. Everything in it is being done now. FACT.
Prescot Bush's involvment in funding the Nazis is FACT. Have you read the history? Again doubtful.
NOT a conspiracy theory but truth. The phrase' conspiracy theory' is now being used as an insult to any opinion that goes against the orthodox propaganda, and you should know better.
Einstein said, 'condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance'.
He knew a thing or two.
This may or may not be relevant here, just now I am angry and disappointed, but maybe not too rational!
As a direct result of the smoking ban and the fact that is perfectly ok for employers to stop their smoking staff from smoking at any time during working hours, I have just lost my job.
I also suffer from depression and stress and even my GP and Psychiatrist have advised me not to attempt to give up smoking at the moment, even if I do want to!
I already have a battle with my weight and know that if I were to capitulate and stop smoking, or try to, then my weight would become an even bigger issue, in more ways than one and this would adversely affect my health far more than smoking does!
It seems that I am a pariah because I smoke, I am a pariah because I am overweight and I am probably also a pariah because I suffer depression - not that the NHS have done anything much to help with that or to help me to improve my mental state. Four and a half years in a job to become persona non gratta because the MD has decided with just 4 weeks notice that the company will be totally smoke free!
As many of you can probably imagine, I am spitting feathers.
Whether Obama will stand by his guns and continue smoking and undo some of the harmful legislation that has been put in place remains to be seen, but I somehow doubt it, so there won't be any bit of common sense coming down to the UK from the US!
Sorry if this is not appropriate, but I just felt the need to share this!
What is it with so many people, who just do not seem to be able to good in anything or anybody?
So what if Obama gives up smoking? He wasn't made President of the USA because he smokes or because he doesn't, he was made president because 80% of the people of the USA believe in him.
Our country could do well to learn from the American system. We have a system where no one votes for a leader of a political party, and he becomes the Prime Minister.
And what is the point of bringing up old hat stuff about Bush now? He's gone, he's yesterday's man. You might just as well say that he was Hitler's grandson for all the good or bad, that it would do now.
I personally think that there are going to be a lot of very disappointed people in America during the next couple of years. When I watched those people on my TV last night, I couldn't help but feel sorry for them. In their ignorance, they are putting all their faith into this one man solving every problem in the world. It's just ain't going to happen, Obama is, contrary to what most people on here are saying, just one ordinary guy, and I really do believe that he will do his best, and no one can, or should, ask for more than that.
As for his smoking habit, we should all be pleased that 80% of the people in America, think he is great, that means that 80% think a smoker is great, get it?
We now have Ken Clarke, a confirmed smoker, back in Government here, and Obama, also a smoker, and now the most powerful man in the world, entrenched in America. Smoking now has every chance of being on its way back, being accepted once again. The old guard are gone, long live the new!
Zitori wrote: the truth about the passive smoking fraud is seen by many as 'paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense'
Is it? Nobody has said that to me. Passive smoking is indeed a fraud, but nobody has to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that it's a fraud.
And it's quite easy to see how the fraud got started. Reading this may help.
The blueprint for this campaign dates to 1975 when British delegate Sir George Godber instructed the World Health Organization on how to get smokers to quit. (1) As reported in "Passive Smoking: How Great the Hazard?", Sir George said, "it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air."
Sir George Godber was one of the founders of the NHS, and was for a while in the early 1970s a government Chief Medical Officer. He was one of the earliest converts (1950) to the idea that smoking caused lung cancer. By 1975, it seems that he was becoming distressed that so many people were continuing to smoke. Encouraging the idea that smoking not only harmed them, but also the people around them, probably struck him as being at most a "little white lie" that would help advance his noble cause. He felt smoking should be seen as an infestation of the home, to be wiped out like head lice.
In this manner, the modern menace of passive smoking was born. And even though principal figures of the antismoking movenemt, such as Ernst Wynder and Sir Richard Doll, were not persuaded, the perception gathered momentum.
There is little or no evidence to support this new perception. Even in 1991 most of the passive smoking studies showed little or no harm in it (see Table 2). Nevertheless, the WHO, and the pharma companies, and then governments, all gradually signed up.
And now it has become a monster, rampaging all round the world, closing pubs and bars where smokers meet, and dividing communities, and making shunned pariahs of smokers.
Is this what Sir George Godber, the WHO, and governments around the world have wanted? No, it probably wasn't. What they wanted was to give stronger encouragement to smokers to give up smoking, and to protect people from the new phantom menace. All the rest has been unintended consequences. These idiots don't know what they're doing.
It would only become a conspiracy theory if it was believed that the WHO and governments around the world have intended to close pubs and bars, and have intended to take control of ordinary people's drinking and smoking and eating habits in a new totalitarian state. It becomes a conspiracy theory when it is believed that these people know perfectly well what they are doing, and have intended the consequences of their actions.
Of course, there's a deeper Nazi history to antismoking which has been emerging in recent years. Nazi antismoking was part and parcel of an international 'healthist' eugenics movement which grew up a century or more ago, and which is still alive and well, despite having been deeply discredited by its association with Nazism. It is a strand in medical thinking that has been enjoying something of a resurgence in recent years. But even with this history added, there still isn't any conspiracy theory.
Lyn -
That's a bloody APPALLING way to treat staff (or anyone else for that matter).
My deepest sympathies to you: I know EXACTLY how you feel. It was nearly the same with my (American-owned company) - though they (via a sour-faced Patricia Hewitt lookalike known as the 'H R Manager') were kind enough to offer us free 'advice' on how to quit. Just what we needed ! Any attempt to dispute the justice of this sort of thing, of course, is simply met with a peremptory 'Well, it's company policy' - as though that answers anything.
In our case, they simply got rid of the Smoking Room - a cheery, well-ventillated place, where you could do your crossword, read a paper, engage in amusing conversation with your colleagues (mostly the INTERESTING ones) - and relax in comfort. The non-smokers were even better catered for, of course - but (the key point) EVERYONE was happy.......except for the bosses in Chicago.
And on a 12 hour shift, 'happiness' is quite important.................
But, is it STRICTLY true, as you suggest, that:
"(it is) OK for employers to stop their smoking staff from smoking at any time during working hours............." ??
I sincerely hope that their 'powers' are limited to 'company property'. Any attempt to go beyond that would merit a legal challenge, I'd have thought.
At least be grateful, Lyn, that they didn't attempt to expose you to the indignity of a urine test - as they do in some places in the Land of the Free. I'd sooner steal from graves than put up with THAT !
As for me, I just sit in my car now (in the street outside): they can STUFF their stupid smoking shelter !
I feel another phone call to Central Office coming on..........
Good luck for the future, anyway.
The smoking issue doesn't fit within the 'normal' parameters of the so-called conspiracy theory,Idlex, that is true, but when the drug companies involvement, which is paramount is stated as the power behind worldwide smoking bans, and cases such as the U.S. Master Settlement Agreement'stated as a massive form of income that is added to the already gigantic funds, then THIS is when these statements are called 'just a conspriracy theory that gives the smokers a belief that they are fighting something other than a genuine concern for their health, an excuse because they're addicts' I've had it said to me many times in arguments about this situation. So it would seem that it is true in some peoples minds.
Probably the reason that it is not a widespread opinion is that not that many know that a movement against the bans and it's beliefs about the origins exist.
As for Peter's remarks 'what's the point of bringing up old hat remarks about Bush etc
I was making the point about the connections, and the power of the 'families' that manipulate behind the scenes. The history of Bush's family ties should NOT be forgotten, by the way, are not old'hat, because they show the reality of power. That reality existed then and still exists.
One last word about Obama..I promise.
I heard the other day 'he will free the palestinians and bring peace with Israel'.
He has surrounded hiself with former warmongers, Zbigniew Brzinski being his mentor, and very dangerous. Extreme Zionists, Robert Rubin, Timothy Geithner,Joe Biden (Vice President), Rahm Imanuel,Dennis Ross, David Axelrod ( who ran Obamas Campaign), these are but a few and it doesn't bare well for the future of that region. Obama could end up much more dangerous than Bush, because he now has for a while an almost fanatical following. Not good news, never is.
Lyn,
You don't say on what grounds you've lost your job. As an employee, there are two ways you can be dismissed: you can be sacked because you have been guilty of a minor misdemeanor while still under written warning for a previous misdemeanor or you can be sacked for gross misconduct; you can be a victim of constructive dismissal. As far as I'm aware you can't be dismissed on the grounds that you use a legal product in your own time - as long as it doesn't interfere with your capacity to do your job (which smoking unlike, say, alcohol, doesn't). Unless you've resigned because the company won't allow smoking breaks, I'd say take this up with your union rep or, if you don't have one, ACAS.
Good luck.
"Is this what Sir George Godber, the WHO, and governments around the world have wanted? No, it probably wasn't. What they wanted was to give stronger encouragement to smokers to give up smoking, and to protect people from the new phantom menace. All the rest has been unintended consequences. These idiots don't know what they're doing."
I agree in part idlex, but I think that they are fully aware of the 'unintended consequences', and it has created a new agenda, a new vision. It is like the person who tries an experiment, which gives results they were not expecting, and they jump for joy.
Lyn, if it helps, there are people out here thinking about you.
i wish with all my heart that Obama will prove to be the saviour that he could be. His speech was awe inspiring. I was carried along almost to the point of tears. Then a chill hit my soul when he slipped in those innocent words, "common purpose". For a fraction of a second his eyes had a different look.
I fear that Zitori is right. And logic tells me he must be. Let's see what happens next..
As for the conspiracy theory; that has been around since long before Big Pharma started its commercial war against the cigarette manufacturers. I believed it then, I believe it now. It is all part and parcel of the same thing. To rob people of the health benefits of smoking, be it active or passive, will disorientate them and and also increase their dependence on doctors and pharmaceutical drugs. It is a sure way to global domination.
Nothing that has happened as a result of the smoking ban is accidental and it was certainly never started for genuine "health" reasons. The majority of anti-depressant and mood enhancing pharmaceutical drugs have always had nicotine as their base. Read the labels. Look for Niacin, Nicotinic Acid & Vitamen B3. All are just plain old fashioned nicotine.
I would guess that Simon popped in his little disclaimer of the conspiracy theory just to get us all rampaging again. He is clever like that!
.
Lyn.
Let's hope that losing your job will lead to a better life for you. Especially one where you can smoke in warmth and comfort whenever you like. Focus your considerable intelligence and discover what may be waiting just around the corner. This could prove to be the best thing that has happened for a long time. Best wishes!
It is like the person who tries an experiment, which gives results they were not expecting, and they jump for joy. - timbone
Why should they jump for joy? Most experiments don't give the results wanted.
For example, when Frank Whittle was inventing his jet engine, most of his attempts failed. They blew up. Or they petered out. Or they burned like candles. That wasn't what he was expecting. It was only after many attempts that the thing actually worked as he expected.
The same is true elsewhere. Kepler tried to fit the orbits of planets to all sorts of things before he hit upon ellipses. Was he delighted when most of them didn't work? Of course he wasn't.
If the smoking ban has been an experiment, it's one that hasn't worked. What they expected (or rather, what they'd told themselves) was that it would all go very happily, and smokers would just give up smoking those stupid cigarettes, and the pubs would fill up not just with these newly-reformed smokers, but with droves of non-smokers who'd previously been kept out of pubs by the 'stink' and the fear that they would have contracted lung cancer the moment they stepped inside those smoky places.
The antis are furiously trying to convince themselves that it was all a "great success", and that the explosion of the jet engine was a "triumph", much like fitting the orbit of the planets to a square came out "just right". Oh, no, it didn't!
It won't wash. Sooner or later (sooner, I beg) they are going to find that the experiment was a catastrophic failure, and that they have set upon themselves an angry horde of avengers.
And, just speaking for myself, I WANT VENGEANCE!!
Thanks Martin V, Joyce, timbone and Margot for your support.
To answer to some of your questions:
I have not been sacked, but paid off on what they call a compromise agreement, which means I get paid to leave and have a gurantee of a good reference (which I deserve anyway!) so long as I don't 'rock the boat' or take the issue any further.
I would dearly like to fight this, but as we all know, put smoking into the equation and you don't have a cat in hells chance! I did approach a firm of solicitors on line who will give you an opinion, free of charge, as to what they believe your chances would be and, as I had thought, the chances of even getting to a tribunal would be very, very slim and not one they would recommend trying.
When I discussed this with my husband we agreed that essentially (and I know this is what the company relies on) I don't have a choice. I can leave now with some money in my pocket or decline the offer, stay and end up, within a few months, being sacked due to my work deteriorating or through being caught trying to have a crafty smoke and then still be out of a job but with no money in my pocket! In todays' climate I cannot, unfortunately, risk that.
In terms of when and where we smoke; the company has decided that it has a duty to 'help' us give up, which, as I said to the MD was very commendable, for those who actually wanted to stop smoking, but did the company have the right to force or coerce those that did not want to stop smoking into doing so? Suffering depression I know that not smoking would not help my mental health and already being overweight, it would not help with that either and I felt the weight issue would do me far more harm, medically, than smoking has done me for the past alomst 40 years (I started very young!).
Our offices are on an industrial estate and as they outgrew the building they owned they rented office space across the road, the other side of the estate - a walk of a minute or so, depending on traffic and how fast you walk. I would normally have a smoke en route across the road to collect the post or for meetings, or whatever other legitimate reason I had for going over. I would sometimes have a smoke on the way back as well. This would now be banned due to it being in work time, even though I would be out on public land. I would then possibly nip out for less than 5 minutes on one or 2 further occasions, if I only made one trip across the road in the day. I did not feel that this was excessive, especially as I made the effort to get in to work half an hour early every day!
I will say, even the non smokers and anti smokers at work are disgusted with what has happened and do not think it at all justified. Some even said that it was tantamount to saying they could not drink coffee during working hours!
Anyway, thanks again for your kind words and support.
Margot, yes, it could end up being the best thing that has happened for me, but I will have to wait and see what opportunities I can find and hope they are not ruined by the fact that I smoke!
Its an absolute disgrace the way employers are riding roughshod over workers in the present climate just because they can.
During the boom years they cleaned up and made a mint for themselves with their off shore accounts and investments.
And all we got was a job.
Now that the shit has hit the fan in the economy stakes we're the ones that are made to suffer and have to pay for their greed by being burdened with extra taxes and cut backs and our jobs, like Lyn.
They can do what they bloody well like now with jobs so scare that they can put through workplace smoking bans and god knows what other bans because they know that someone out there will be happy to work under any conditions to get a job.
But they should take care, look what happened in Greece and recently in Iceland!!
Absolutely Ann. How long before smokers will be denied benefits on the basis that they are not eligible to work, so cannot claim jobseekers allowance? What other benefits would be available, or would these only be available if the smoker gave up?
Very dangerous territory indeed!
Lyn,
It sounds like you're doing the sensible thing and cutting your losses. Unfortunately, it's now very much an employers' market and employers do have the right to dictate what is acceptable during working time even though their conditions could be considered unreasonable. As smokers, we have to - for the moment - just bend with the wind. My colleagues know that I smoke (and my rage at the ban) but during meetings that can last for three hours I'd never go for a cigarette at the 'comfort break' (much as I dislike using it, I rely on NRT) to avoid giving anyone ammunition.
You've been open about your battle with depression, Lyn, and I think it a compliment to those of us who read this blog that you feel able to disclose it but might I humbly suggest that potential employers will almost certainly be unsympathetic and you needn't feel obliged to inform them - after all, if it were to affect your performance, you wouldn't be applying for that particular job!
All the best.
Good news, Lynn, that you got out while the going was better than it will become. Look to self-employment. I did. It gave me the priceless gift of freedom. Freedom to starve, maybe, but I worked even harder and I didn't starve. The going was very tough so I became tougher.
Yes, Ann. at present the future looks bleak. The EU are now empowered to take away all rights from us, including pensions and benefits, if we disagree with their regime. Our present main political leaders appear comfortable within the inner circle of this global control.
Bear in mind, always, that there are 49 states in Europe. Only 27 have signed up to the EU. Only 16 have adopted the Euro.
But I do see a silver lining. I believe the pwers that be are now in meltdown. They have over-reached themselves in their greed for wealth and power. This global recession has been created by them and just as in Greece and elsewhere, there will come a point where ordinary people have had enough.
In spite of the gloom and doom of agreeing with those who see Obama's rise to power as engineered by the powerful global inner circle, I still believe in him. It is not impossible that he would have used all means available to become the first Afro-American President, but still retain in his heart the dreadful injustice suffered by black people throughout most of our lifetime. Such injustice, of course, extends way beyond the colour of ones skin. He will be well aware of the dangers of bucking the established system but he will have the ultimate power and also the means of personal safeguard.
So let our prayers be with him and our hopes that a new age is dawning. The death knell may now be sounding for those who believe that lies and corruption are justifiable as a route to personal gain.
Hope CAN spring eternal.
Lyn, are you in a line of work you could possibly do as a freelancer or self-employed? And possibly even from home?
Because that’s what my husband and I decided to do when we got fed up with being wage slaves. It’s the best decision we ever made and we’ve never looked back. We have our own ‘pop&mom business’ where *we* set the rules, including those on smoking.
Of course, the first two years were a bit difficult, but fortunately we had some savings. And it may be an employer's market now, but this has a reverse side which could benefit you. We’ve experienced that during an economic slump, many businesses prefer hiring freelancers or self-employed people to taking on new staff.
Lyn, I'm appalled but, in the present climate of bigotry and intolerance under this venal corrupt dictatorial nulabor junta, I'm not surprised. Where is the worker-representation? Seems the left don't believe in that any more unless one's grievance is on the approved list.
My hatred for the party I'm a former member of will survive for decades after the last toadying faux-socialist box-ticking piggy-parasite has departed Westminster for the better-padded troughs of Brussels.
In the meantime...
Please consider naming and shaming your employer. I don't wish to do business with any company who show their staff such disrespect.
Lyn, you might be interested in Michael Siegel’s latest headline:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
Sorry idlex, I take your point, very well put, and I totally agree. I think I misread the original post. Having said that, I still think that there are many people who Dick Puddlecote refers to as the righteous, who are jumping for joy to see things like grubby, smokey pubs full of drunkards having closed down (I am speaking their thoughts not mine). These puritans love being able to stop people from smoking on open railway platforms, and of course employers being able to bring in no smoking during work hours. They are euphoric about being able to stop people from smoking, and be given a pat on the back because they are supposedly contributing to peoples good health.
Anna, thanks for the info, I have read the article and posted a comment.
With regard to self employment, I have looked at this in the past, but it is not something that has ever got off the ground. I am working, until the end of today, as a PA to the Chairman and MD of a private company. I have various PC skills, but then so do many other people these days, including Chairmen and MD's!
I have thought of perhaps trying one of these companies that use self employed drivers for small deliveries, where I could use my own car, however, my car is not that young and is high mileage already, so not sure how long she would last! I would prefer to be able to use my HGV licence, but with so many experienced drivers already laid off and looking for work, that is a really tough one!
Basil, I would love to name and shame the company, however I and due to sign a compromise agreement and this could be in breach of that! Suffice it to say, the company is in a niche market concerning people with visual impairments, it is not a high street name.
Thanks again for all the support here.