Threatened with violence ... for smoking
Friday, December 10, 2010 Apologies for the lack of blogging this week. Very busy, one way or another. Hope to catch up over the weekend if I'm not Christmas shopping. Feel free to talk among yourselves or you may like to comment on this email which I received this week in response to the Forest petition:
Thank you for all your good work. I have just signed the petition.
I follow your work closely and I wish I could I could do more. At times I feel like resigning from my position as a school principal and focussing on protecting the rights of smokers.
Last weekend, when standing in an open car park, here in Poland, someone came speeding towards me in their car with its horn screaming at me. I had to jump aside, to avoid being hit! It wasn't until the driver got out and threatened me with physical violence that I realised what his problem was .... I was smoking in a public place.
Since then I realised that I was in fact a victim of a hate-crime because I am a smoker. And what's worse is that because there is a smoking ban now here in Poland, he (incorrectly) believed that he had the law on his side.
The harm of the smoking bans is greater than the infringement of our rights. It creates division and hatred in our society.
I can't reveal the name of my correspondent because, as he/she writes:
As the anti-smokers can be very powerful and influential ... my freedom of speech is limited.
Now what does that say about the "liberal" society in which we live?
Reader Comments (29)
There is one sure fact, we are no longer are a 'civilised' society especially when prisoners have more 'rights' than us. The above is truly disgusting.
It's called empowering the people - well -er- empowering some of the people in an inclusive society - well -er - only if you're included in the Big Society - except - er - it's not that big when they want more local controls giving us all a greater say in community - well - er - only if lots more newly trained bureaucrats tell us we can't -----------
Well it takes pressure off our (can't government) Governments and ....................
It is more than disgusting, it is criminal and uncivilised.
What the hell is happening to our world? I watched the late night news with horror last night as Milliband's Children ran amok through the streets of London, burning, smashing and destroying everything in their sight, and then tried to kill the heir to the throne of England.
I woke up this morning with a headache, which only worsened when I saw the pictures in the paper and the ghastly photos of them wrecking the Cenotaph Memorial, and scrawling their illiterate rubbish on Churchill's statue.
Even as I walked back from my local paper shop, I was nearly run down by a lycra-lout, cycling along on the pavement straight towards me. I called him an effing lemon, to which he challenged me to say it again. I am not one to back down to this sort of scum, and I did say it again, except with a few more expletives thrown in and the warning that I would wrap his effing bike around his neck if he ever came near me again.
Then I read this, about more scum, this time in Poland of all places, trying to kill someone because he is smoking. My blood is boiling over as I am typing this. I used to think it was just this country, now I read this and realise that the whole world seems to be falling apart. What hope is there for our children and our grandchildren? Not much at all I am afraid, unless we start taking back our country, and our freedom, and our world, from these left wing freaks who are slowly but surely taking it over.
You hit the nail on the head there Jack. "Milliband's Children" a perfect description.
Last Sunday I was on Manchester Radio talking about alcohol and smoking for about 30 minutes. Please have a listen.
http://freedom-2-choose.blogspot.com/2010/12/meet-dave-atherton.html
As far as I can see the trouble makers are spoilt middle class prats who would never vote Labour in their lives. Many voted LibDem solely because of the pledge not to raise tuition fees and it is disingenuous to try and blame Milliband.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329510/Poor-Disadvantaged-Pull--The-rich-rioting-students.html
Returning to Simon's point about a Liberal society, we have a man in jail on trumped up charges because he published information available to 2.5 million Americans but not available to us the electorate. Wikileaks has been attacked on all sides by massive agencies which goes to the heart of the problem. We are living in a society whereby everything has to be controlled centrally and dissenters are targeted whether smokers or internet campaigners.
We either have a libertarian or authoritarian society and you cannot pick and choose the bits of each to suit yourself.
A very dispiriting piece of news, but the only real surprise is the location. I'd have thought the Poles, of all people, had suffered more than their fair share of State-sponsored intolerance by now. It tends to be infectious (as many of the returning Jews discovered in 1945).
It MUST be (it has to be) that there is SOMETHING in certain people's genetic make-up that makes it quite impossible for them to get through life without being conscientiously able to HATE and PERSECUTE certain categories of people.
Doubtless, it's the same sort of motivation that enables prisoners (and the products of a limited gene-pool in certain council estates) to feel morally superior to sexual deviants: it's obviously more acceptable to throw acid in a girl's face or torture a pensioner to death than flash one's private parts at a group of giggling schoolgirls.
Bad enough that this quirk of human nature should exist at all.
But even worse that we actually PAY Certain People to 'facilitate' it...............
My instinct is that the car driver knew he was wrong speeding in the car park and out of desparation picked on the smoker, grasping at straws to find some higher moral ground. Anti smokers in my opinion fall into 3 areas:
1. They get paid for it.
2. A relation has illnesses attributed to smoking.
3. They are hiding a dark secret and want to cover it up by feeling superior in one aspect.
Everyone - (Simon did suggest to talk amongst ourselves) I: would like to make a suggestion: on this site perhaps we could have a listing of the current state of smoking bans across the world - certainly in Europe. The wikipedia list of smoking bans I don't think is being kept up to date and I'm not sure of the accuracy anyway.
For example, me and my mates are thinking of a weekend jaunt to a smoking friendly country and I think going east is the best option - so we're looking at St Petersburg - but one site says Russia has a ban and another says it doesn't. Does anyone know for certain?
But I think a blog constantly being updated by us - by people who know from experience would not only be very useful but also a weapon in tackling the ban as we take our discretionary money to countries that will welcome us.
Thoughts?
oh... and hang on.. this: second hand smoke kills orchid (but not Keith Richards)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/dec/10/keith-richards-kills-orchid
I've been saying it's hate crime for ages and Govt should not be backing it!!!
We have an orchid plant in our bedroom. It is very close to the window, which we open up every night when we go to bed. I do not smoke in bed but I have smoked in that room from time to time, and as yet, after having this orchid since the summer, it is in perfect health.
Will Keith now become known in New York as the hit-man who rubbed out the White Orchid mob....all in one night....It's like the St Valentine Day's murder all over again isn't it?
Dave A -
Just listened to your radio interview. Well done ! But it really is high time that we nailed this ridiculous myth (and that's what it is) that smoking 'causes' 80 to 100 thousand deaths per year (106,000 – according to one e-mailer).
As I've pointed out before (and I invite any challenges and corrections - I'm no statistician), given that:
a) Annual mortality in the UK is running at (around) 500, 000, and
b) Current smoking rates are running at (around) 20%
one would EXPECT that around 100,000 WOULD be smokers, surely ? And if 50% of the population were habitual Mars Bar-eaters, then we would expect 250,000 of THEM to expire annually, too, would we not ?
If WE were to suggest that NON-SMOKING ‘caused’ 400,000 deaths every year, we’d soon be jumped on for spouting rubbish.
And this is without even beginning to consider the vital importance of age-related factors (Old People being notoriously susceptible to death).
When one also bears in mind the wholly fraudulent nature of the 'smoking-related disease' (ANY disease that MAY have been caused by smoking - but, equally, may not), then it's clear that such 'statistics' - when employed by the Nanny-knows-best types, need to be CHALLENGED - and robustly so. Why grant Arnott and her buddies such an easy round of applause by allowing them to hoodwink an uneducated audience so easily ?
Putting the Libertarian arguments to one side for a minute, it seems to me that we're missing a trick in NOT pointing out the total unreliabiltiy of such arithmetic - which forms such an important part of the Antis' persuasion-by-shock strategy, and only helps to feed this (dare one say ?) CANCEROUS Culture of Intolerance.
Children shouldn't be allowed to watch films with in which people smoke, says rabid nannyist
Have a look here
INTOLERANCE IS THE MOST PREVENTABLE CAUSE OF INEQUALITIES.
OT, ASH UK News reprints a piece from the Morning Advertiser with the original headline describing FOREST as "pro-smoking". I've heard you correct people on the radio. Is there no way of stopping them? ASH UK must love it when they can quote someone else describing FOREST as "pro-smoking". Perhaps put at the top of every communication, PRO FREEDOM AND CHOICE - NOT PRO SMOKING.
I think just by Forest refering to themselves as pro smoking, that is enough for the views of the group to be totally ignored.
It conjures up an impression, of a group encouraging others to smoke.
It clearly is nothing like that and we are commenting on here because we are being persecuted and denied decent social lives through the enactment of smoking bans. Perhaps Forest should redefine itself.
At least two years ago, I was saying on here that we should not cast ourselves as "smokers". I am not saying that we should be ashamed of smoking, but why call ourselves "smokers"?
We eat and we drink coffeee, and we sleep, yet we don't call ourselves "eaters" or "coffee drinkers" or "sleepers", so why just "smokers"?
As people like ASH had demonised smoking, so just the very word "smokers" is seen as someone who does something wrong, something bad and evil, so why give them the privilage of hanging this handle on us?
I am a person who likes to smoke. I am not a "smoker". In the USA a "smoker" is a type of oven, and I am definitely not one of them.
A few of you are saying that FOREST should change its logo from "Pro-smoking" to "pro freedom of choice". Maybe, but as FOREST are funded by the Tobacco companies, I hardly think this appropriate, do you?
Instead of relying all the time on FOREST being our Nanny, and speaking up for our rights, I suggest we start speaking up for ourselves, starting with this silly "smoker" business.
FOREST does not have the words "pro smoking" anywhere on its web site. The point I'm making is what Tim picked up on. We are not pro smoking and should not give ASH UK the opportunity to refer to us as such. It is hugely damaging to our cause.
The BBc and other media are as bad - often quoting FOREST as a pro- smoking group. The only thing Simon can do is demand that It should be corrected or rephrased and that journos do not resort to such lazy labels. Time also perhaps to refer to ASH as an anti - SMOKERS group - their tactics and aims having moved far beyond the 'protecion' of non smokers - to the vicious smears, lies and their depiction of what - I use the word advisedly - smokers are - a species to be eliminated.
Mark B,
If you register on the Forum at Freedom2choose, there’s a whole section devoted to International News with individual threads for pretty much all the major countries, including, often, updated comments from members who have been there re implementation, adherence, strictness etc etc. And if there’s a place you’re interested in that isn’t mentioned (or hasn’t been updated in a while) you can always post a question asking about it, in case someone from the forum has been there recently and can give you the latest low-down. It’s where I first look whenever I’m thinking of going anywhere, and quite a few of my plans have been changed in the light of comments on there. Be warned, though – there are now so many countries that have brought in bans that there just aren’t many places that I fancy visiting any more. Fly all that way just to be treated like sh*t? Nah. I can stay at home and get that, thanks very much - and save myself a few hundred pounds, to boot!
Misty.
The key to me is the weather where you are going to! The wife and I go to Magalluf three or four times a year. We get out fags half price. Our hotel has a smoking ban but you can smoke in your room and they have a good smoking room (big, comfortable, TV, pool, darts, etc). Our favourite pub is smoking mostly. But, because the weather is pleasant, we CHOOSE to sit outside mostly. What will happen as from 1st Jan 2011 we wait to see as yet.
Dave Atherton.
I have listened to your broadcast. Well done!
I think that I have mentioned before that there is a distinct possibility, because we have never had to suffer from the effects of invasion by a foreign power, never had to watch our friends and neighbours being dragged from their homes to be taken away and exterminated, that we 'take our freedom for granted', as you put it. But I do see some light - people are beginning to wake up to the dangers.
You raised the point of 'unintended consequences'. I would go further. I would say that the 'unintended consequences' are not just 'unforeseen consequences'. I think that they stem from INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS. I think that this is the reason that we are all so confused and wondering what on Earth is going on. A beautiful example is the LA's (police) refusal to prosecute under 16s who smoke in a 'public place' so as not to give them a criminal record. The contradiction is that they are quit happy to prosecute them for vandalism or whatever. Another inherent contradiction is prosecuting publicans for 'allowing' smoking without saying what steps should be taken to 'not allow' smoking without using violence.
Spain. Another 'all inclusive' smoking ban allegedly, to begin on 2nd January, not the 1st, as the obsessive left are allowing for New Year Celebrations to subside.
However, has it passed the final hurdle? Has it been given the seal of approval? Is it like the ones planned for 1st January 2010 and 26th June 2010?
I know one thing, when I asked bar ands club owners in Benidorm recently, it had not even been in the local news. One bar owner said that if they try it he will not change his calendar so it will always be the 1st January in his bar!!
The critical thing, Timbone, is whether or not bar owners in Spain comply. If they refuse to comply, then that is the end of the prohibition. It really is as simple as that.
Looking back, it is a reasonable question to ask as to why Irish bar owners did not 'refuse to comply'. Did the UK gov follow the Irish example when it banned smoking in the UK? When MPs in the UK voted for the ban, did they know that they were merely being USED by the hidden controllers (the 'engineers' in tobacco control)?
Eventually,grown up people must and will say to MPs, "Stop telling me what to do!"
The consequence of this will be that MPs will be held to account INDIVIDUALLY. In due course, people will realise that they it is of the greatest importance that they know whom they are appointing as their MP. The mere nomination by a group of zealots (whether they be Tory, Liberal or Labour) will not be seen as acceptable. For example, the nomination and acceptance of this person Quereshi as MP for our area MAKES NO SENSE! She is a 'criminal' (in a vague way) and consistently fails to reply to her constituents' letters.
Hard though it may seem to be, the internet must reveal the shortcomings of MPs. But we must be aware that it is in the interests of MPs to censor the internet. What is important her is that THERE IS NO WAY in which people who are not 'on line' can dictate to people who use the internet. In other words, there is no way in which the ignorant masses can be allowed to interrupt the movement of information, whether the ignorant masses are in the majority or not.
But this idea is some time in the future. But I am convinced that it will happen. I think that the internet will ensure that it will happen sooner or later. Sooner or later, people will begin to understand that the ACTUAL PERSON that they elect to represent them is more important than the affiliation of that person to a particular political party. the reason for this is that political parties are no longer able to represent the variations of opinion that exist within their membership.
@Martin V and Junican
Thanks for your kind comments on my radio performance.
"Eventually,grown up people must and will say to MPs, "Stop telling me what to do!"..."
Amen to that, Sweet Powers !
Sadly, Junican, once I got past Fifty, I found myself rapidly coming to the conclusion that most people are NOT Grown-Ups - in the sense that they've never really weaned themselves off the need for some sort of Authority to justify/direct/approve their actions.
If the Government - acting upon some recent radical piece of research - told people they HAD to smoke for their health ('Ten A Day'), there'd be a stampede for the tobacco counter at Tesco !
Isn't it obvious that 99% of the thugs running our poor planet are simply Playground Bullies (some of them with Silver Stars, too) with powerful toys which they should never have been given in the first place ?
And isn't it equally obvious that most of the 'children' are perfectly happy with that arrangement ?
Or, have been up to now..........................................
I agree Martin, the people want to believe they are being looked after and think the bans will protect them becase they have got into the habit of not thinking past today.
I think that the New World Order started to show its presence with the physical experiment of the introduction of the smoking ban in Ireland in 2004 and that the psychological aspect of the experiment had been infiltrating peoples minds for the previous 30 years since the EU was formed.
We all know that Ireland, governed by a corrupt gombeen party of cronyism and self interest had no problem giving away its country's resources for the filthy lucre, was a sitting target for the EU smoking ban to get its foothold in Europe to extend the dumbing down and control process.
And now, to quote Ireland's Finance Minister, who has been awarded the title of being the worst Finance Minister in europe, 'we are where we are'.
Just think of all the bans that have since been implemented since that sorry day, not to mention the Health and Safety brigade, that would have been considered a joke those so many years ago.
The smoking ban opened the floodgates!
What is the hidden agenda behind the smoking ban? Governments don't care about our health generally, ( treatment for obesity, diabetes, and nutrition advice from your GP is non existant). Just why do those in control fear smokers? Is it because we are less likely to follow their domination plans like mindless sheep? Any ideas out there?