Sir, put down that fag

How dare you use that word if you're not homosexual!?

Oh wait, sorry. Due to some basic research I found out that the word didn't originate from the gay advocates, it was just co-opted by them.

Paul, proud knuckle-dragger

Draconian laws. We're heading for a Clockwork Orange-like future dystopian society. What's next? If someone known to have children is seen through the ground floor window of their home smoking a cig, will police be at the door?

http://opti-grab.ca/images/tobacco_photo_id.jpg

This is not a faked photo.

The Btits are getting exactly what they voted for and deserve.

If they had any brains left, they would all start driving their vehicles with fake cigarettes and cigars in their mouths just to drive the cops crazy.

Although, I have not doubt they would quickly come up with a new more draconian law about faking out the cops with phony smokes.

And Britain used to be so great.

Now the reason for disarming the Brits becomes more clear; laws like this don't go over very well in societies where people are allowed to carry guns.

The government is probably the financial loser here. I'm sure the driver of the van was breaking down his vehicle expenses into work related and private for tax purposes (as all of us who deduct vehicles used for work do), but now that the government has decreed that the vehicle is a "place of work" at all times, he should deduct 100% of vehicle and fuel expenses from his tax. I'm sure that the idiots who came up with this anti-smoking law didn't consider the tax implications of their meddlesome behavior.

That ticket goes in the 'crime solved' column, so it's a win for the cops.
It all counts towards the stats.
Why solve the tough stuff when you can pad your stats with BS like this?

Wow. Britain used to be a great nation, a wonderful place to visit, with all of its pomp and pageantry, beautiful churches and church music, love of tradition, love of life, really: think of the Pearly Kings and Queens, the music halls, the hustle and bustle of street life, the pubs, and all of the beautiful squares just around any corner...Covent Garden, Portobello Road, etc.

It sounds like it's more of a Deranged Dominion than Canada. Anthony Burgess was prophetic when he wrote A Clockwork Orange.

My take on it is that present-day England is the result of the spiritual torpor of the upper classes, the so-called "leaders" of British society. They dropped the ball a long time ago, they took the line of least resistance, they didn't lift a finger of protest when their nation was overridden by immigrants from countries with no appreciation of British traditions of fair play and more than their fair share of eccentricities.

England is a mess now. Sad.

The act of smoking is now akin to being afflicted with leprosy during the 19th century. Timid politicians are harassed by anti-tobacco zealots into enacting silly legislation. Anti-smoking organizations feed ravenously at the public trough without a word of protest from the beleaguered taxpayers. The media runs wild with any unsubstantiated claim involving the evils of tobacco. Smokers are bullied and demonized at will with the blessing of the state. Any outrage perpetrated upon smokers is acceptable .... nay .... encouraged.

The anti-smoking business is very lucrative and so long as the public purse remains open, further acts of foolishness are sure to follow.

Stay tuned for new and innovative developments as the anti-smoking cabel explores new frontiers.

Read this article from Ace of Spades HQ (the funny looking link is Ace's comment server, which is different than his main server):

Britain To Design Streets to Be Safer... For Drunks
http://minx.cc/?post=269351

nothing new about that gawd we have had smoking banments from business vehicles here in Socialist Grey/Bruce ont. for sometime now.
Employers are turning a blind eye & have advised employees that if your fined you pay. EG: Construction Equipment.
In fact when our Commie city council struck down a smoking law(before Ontario Gov't) they had it No smoking so many metres in from of a store downtown It turned out that you would have to be standing on the dividing line in the middle of the street.

biff, you are correct concerning all the anti-smoking hysteria. What the ones who allow this do not understand is that once the war on smoking tobacco is considered won, new targets will be chosen. The end result will be the total lose of freedom for all.

An inevitability of socialized medicine. The state is on the hook to treat your body, it needs control over what goes into it. Instead of addressing this squarely, Nanny State sneaks up, trying to take the cake a crumb at a time in the dark of the night. Keep the tax revenue, dodge the political backlash of addicted smokers suddenly cut off - but inexorably grind away.

When tobacco is finally banned, the next cost-inducing agent or behavior will be targeted, in much the same manner, and then the next, and the next.

Makes the words "security of the person" ring rather hollow. Unless one defines "the person" as the protoplasm that is wrapped around the respiratory and alimentary systems, and the state thus claiming ownership and control of the vacant space within.

Nanny State never knows when to stop. That's the reason blogs such as this one thrive. Nanny State came off the factory floor without any brakes - blogs like this are aftermarket retrofits.

Well said, Biff.

Anti-smoking zealots are the tolerance test to check how much oppression the general population is willing to put up with. And as you mention, it'll only get worse.

It's kind of sad that some people devote their lives to this (paid from the public pocket, of course) rather than doing something constructive. But I guess it's an "environmental issue" and therefore has to be pounded in to the brains of everyone, day after day.

I've been to restaurants that have effective ventilation and cigarette smoke was not noticeable. But that doesn't/wouldn't satisfy the zealots, they're on a crusade (conveniently ignoring all the other, more important issues facing society).

There's a little bit too much tsk-tsking in Jolly Old England. You get the impression that those who aren't soft are disenfranchised from the decision-making processes.

PiperPaul, even though I disagree with some of their tactics and feel a person should be able to light up a fag in their car, home, or walking down the street...

... anti-smoking activists have caused the smoking rate to fall precipitously and have made it uncool whereas before it was expected.

This, my friend, is tremendous progress and far from not doing something constructive, did something that will save hundreds of thousands of Canadian lives, and tens of millions of Canadians' hours of pain, misery, and the fearful feelings of being addicted to a nasty drug.

Brits = Twits

Christoph, in a way, I agree with you.

I don't want my son to smoke, but the tactics are getting heavy-handed, preaching to the choir, so to speak.

Bars/pubs now forbid smoking, so customers have to loiter outside, which attracts "street people"* bumming for money or smokes. This phenomenon also generates negative attitudes from passers-by, who have to walk through smoke clouds and butts on the ground. I've seen more than one street fight happen outside a pub in daylight ("street people" settling accounts) due to the fact that smokers are forced to go outside.

This problem could have been solved with proper HVAC but the zealots aren't interested in that. They're on a mission.

Next I suppose you'll claim that eradicating smokers will lower the cost of our wonderful health care system.

* Then again, zealots seem to want to marginalize smokers to the level of "street people'.

Morontario is every bit as bad as UN-Merry Old England.
The Gov here is sticking it's nose into every facet of our lives, treating us all like the Morons who put them in power.

Yeah, but if it saves one child... /sarc

Get with it people, it was a "part of a multi-agency operation", or as we say it in Canada, the end of month revenue generator. I'm just surprised at the fact that in security camera happy Britain, they just didn't take his picture and mail him the summons.

Shaken - I am opposed also to socialised health care, but the anti-smoking nazis are also operating in the United States where socialised health care does not exist. I would say that where it does exist, it is most often the excuse used to justify their actions.

Christoph - and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The worst sort of oppression in my opinion is done with the best of intentions. Save others from themselves or from whatever.

"Britain's ruling Labour Party lost one of its safest parliamentary seats yesterday, deepening doubts in its own ranks about Prime Minister Gordon Brown's ability to win the next election."

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=b543ca56-4338-40b0-b9d5-bdc5d0e010fe

What? selling the country to Islam not a winner? It might be too late to wise up though.

Now, if he'd been shooting heroin instead of smoking, the state would look at him as a victim.

Welcome to bizarro world.

Right you are A. Cooper. Also most likely if he had been a member of a "visible minority", especially Muslim, the cops would have ignored him smoking.

This is just about revenue and keeping the bureaucratic state funded. Always with the cover story of protecting citizens from harm. This society is just protecting legions of unproductive government jobs, generous pensions, and perks unavailable to the majority of taxpayers.

Eventually, this will all end in a taxpayer revolt. Who knows how far in the future, but the end game is inevitable.

Thanks, PiperPaul, for agreeing with me in a way.

"Next I suppose you'll claim..."

I'm not sure who "you" is referring to. If it's anti-smoking activists, you're probably right. If it's me, you're only partially right.

Yes, it probably will save some money for the health care system and this is a good thing. But I'm not a socialist; I'm a believer in freedom. And I'm the guy who said a guy should be able to walk down the street smoking a fag -- something I used to myself -- or for that matter, behind closed doors doing a fag -- something I haven't done.

Sorry for the bad joke and I mean no disrespect to anyone, including homosexuals. A close reading of the above will show I support "gay rights" as a matter of basic freedom.

I'm pretty much a libertarian. I don't believe a person should be forced to wear a seatbelt or a helmut. Prostitution is stupid, but if it's between adults, I don't believe it should be illegal. I'm really torn on hard drugs because I see them as so powerful and destructive and have lost friends to them. By and large, I support drug dealers, honey, tight ropes, and anthills becoming intimately acquainted with each other.

But, in theory, I believe person owns themselves and has a right to be self-destructive.

Smoking kills huge amounts of people and I'm opposed to it. I still think it should be legal, but not necessarily in a closed in space where other members of the public are exposed. On private property? Yes, I support it. There should probably be a prominent mandatory warning sign for patrons, but that's about the extent of it.

On the other hand... employees. Sometimes a person just needs money. And they may go in an unsafe work environment as a result. Smoking used to be common at workplaces and now isn't.

I think a smoke-free workplace and smokers ALLOWED to smoke outside is a suitable compromise.

Where I agree with you is a man being fined for smoking in his own private van is wrong. Britain is casting aside its freedoms even faster than we are and it's scary.

On an amusing note, read the link I gave to Ace of Spades's post.

P.S. My parents smoked when I was a kid. It made my breathing problems as a result of an allergy to a dust mite worse and I didn't like it. Should smoking in the home be legal? Yes. Are parents who expose their kids to second hand smoke knowing as we do now the health problems it causes, the bad odour, and the discomfort, the best parents? No, frankly, they aren't. I know a lot of smoker parents who smoke outside and this is commendable. Why would a parent want to expose their children to their own addictive behaviour -- any addictive behaviour -- more than necessary?

Thanks, PiperPaul, for agreeing with me in a way.

"Next I suppose you'll claim..."

I'm not sure who "you" is referring to. If it's anti-smoking activists, you're probably right. If it's me, you're only partially right.

Yes, it probably will save some money for the health care system and this is a good thing. But I'm not a socialist; I'm a believer in freedom. And I'm the guy who said a guy should be able to walk down the street smoking a fag -- something I used to myself -- or for that matter, behind closed doors doing a fag -- something I haven't done.

Sorry for the bad joke and I mean no disrespect to anyone, including homosexuals. A close reading of the above will show I support "gay rights" as a matter of basic freedom.

I'm pretty much a libertarian. I don't believe a person should be forced to wear a seatbelt or a helmut. Prostitution is stupid, but if it's between adults, I don't believe it should be illegal. I'm really torn on hard drugs because I see them as so powerful and destructive and have lost friends to them. By and large, I support drug dealers, honey, tight ropes, and anthills becoming intimately acquainted with each other.

But, in theory, I believe person owns themselves and has a right to be self-destructive.

Smoking kills huge amounts of people and I'm opposed to it. I still think it should be legal, but not necessarily in a closed in space where other members of the public are exposed. On private property? Yes, I support it. There should probably be a prominent mandatory warning sign for patrons, but that's about the extent of it.

On the other hand... employees. Sometimes a person just needs money. And they may go in an unsafe work environment as a result. Smoking used to be common at workplaces and now isn't.

I think a smoke-free workplace and smokers ALLOWED to smoke outside is a suitable compromise.

Where I agree with you is a man being fined for smoking in his own private van is wrong. Britain is casting aside its freedoms even faster than we are and it's scary.

On an amusing note, read the link I gave above to Ace of Spades's post.

P.S. My parents smoked when I was a kid. It made my breathing problems as a result of an allergy to a dust mite worse and I didn't like it. Should smoking in the home be legal? Yes. Are parents who expose their kids to second hand smoke knowing as we do now the health problems it causes, the bad odour, and the discomfort, the best parents? No, frankly, they aren't. I know a lot of smoker parents who smoke outside and this is commendable. Why would a parent want to expose their children to their own addictive behaviour -- any addictive behaviour -- more than necessary?

The smoking bans, now hysterical statutes that defies reason.
These smoking bans where the first inroads used by the totalitarians to begin social control. Later ending in HRC's ,with the pressure of PC multiculturalism behind it. The rest is history. We should have stopped it then as an infringement of civil rights. When it became mandatory law instead of personnel manners.
As the laws become harsher being increased ,so has other nuttiness like cat police, Aspirins as drugs in school, Peanut bans, food choice in schools, or forcing sick people to smoke outside a hospital instead of a fanned room in -20 . Not out of necessity for other patients, just pure maliciousness by fanatics who want to see smokers suffer.

You watch it won't be long before what you eat is made illegal with food police. The Carbon tax is basically an air tax already.

One has to wonder at the mentalities if sane at all, that actually enforce these sin taxes. I do know one thing, its all about people control by power mongers not health, that’s just the excuse. These social addicts for oppression have taken over being so self righteous if not above us all. It makes one want to puke with there personel self satisfied fascism.

In Dalton McGuinty's Ontario I am not allowed to smoke in my truck even though I am the only occupant. Because the truck is a company truck I cannot smoke in it. Thank you squinty McGuinty!

However, I do see the occasional fox capering near my place of employment.

Toronto and Vancouver are not far behind on this issue.

Victoria is probably ahead of both, stephen.

"Yes, it probably will save some money for the health care system and this is a good thing."

The only study regarding this that I've seen indicated the exact opposite. Smokers tend to die a little younger and in the end, result in less costs to the health care system. More of the anti-smoking propaganda rather than factual information.

For those who are fortunate enough to not live in "morontario", all tobacco products in convenience stores are now concealed behind pathetic little roll-up doors. It makes the store look like a grim lock-down in a bad seventies B-movie.

Prices are way up, and let's face it, this product is highly addictive, so many who are still hooked feel helpless, or are unwilling to go through the withdrawal symptoms. The government is happy to collect their taxes, despite all the preventative measures they have taken. The double standard is appalling.

And Christoph, everyone dies. Everyone. Even non-smokers. No one gets out alive. This is about choice, yes even the bad choices we need to be able to make at times. Who wants the government to interfere any more in our lives?

I refuse to take lessons in morality from a politician. I also refuse to take climate science lessons from a politician. Or from Dr. fruit fly, for that matter.

mike said...

The only study regarding this that I've seen indicated the exact opposite. Smokers tend to die a little younger and in the end, result in less costs to the health care system. More of the anti-smoking propaganda rather than factual information.

I agree
As a smoker I pay around 7 dollars a day in taxes that non-smokers DON'T pay, thats over twenty five hundred dollars a year, my taxes more than cover any cost I might be to the system.
In fact we smokers are paying the lions share of socialised healthcare.

Ps...I'am a drinker to, and pay more there as well.

Kevin F., did you miss the part where I believe you should have the right to smoke?

Likewise, as a believer in freedom, I believe anti-smoking activists should have the right to make their case and convince others smoking is harmful, which it surely is.

I DON'T support laws banning a person from smoking in an environment where they are not likely to harm others. I DO believe laws stating you can't expose members of the public to deadly environmental toxins in a closed in environment are sensible.

As far as I'm concerned, in theory at least, a person should have the right to inject heroin. But a person should not have the right to leave their heroin encrusted hepatitis infected needle for others to be injured.

Similarly, smoking.

The entire anti-smoking debacle is not about health ... and never was, as evidenced by the ever-increasing restrictions on outdoor smoking.

Rather, it is all about greedy, bottom-feeding anti-smoking leeches making a fine living at the expense of the taxpayer, craven politicians and health officials attempting to appear "progressive" and busybodies occupying their vacant lives with minding the business of others.

Make no mistake ... when the smokers are bludgeoned into extinction, the obese are next.

Natives allowed to buy fags tax free why not alcohol?

The entire anti-smoking debacle is not about health ... etc. etc. etc.

Biff, I take from your rant that you don't suffer from asthma? Nor have a child who does?

Christoph, we do agree in principle, and like you, I grew up with parents who smoked everywhere as well. I hated it, and I was embarassed around parents of friends who didn't smoke.

If anti-smoking activists want to make their case, fine, but not on the taxpayer's dime. If these special interest groups have enough interest they can fund their own cause. I'm tired of seeing my tax dollars going to every nagging cause and their relentless propaganda. Government needs to stop funding special interest groups, and get out of the morality business entirely. They have no credibility whatsoever.

They totally lose credibility as they fund the anti-smoking activists and collect sky-high taxes on tobacco simultaneously.

The hypocrisy makes me crazy on this issue. If tobacco was banned, we all know the underground would start to supply it immediately, so that's another dead end. The solution will come in time, but somehow there will always be a group of people who will choose to smoke. Should we be able to take away that or any other right?

In answer to your last, probably rhetorical question, Kevin F., I'm pretty much a libertarian so again I agree with you.

At the same time, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins," as Oliver Wendell Holmes said.

By the way, I feel the same way as you do about government hypocrisy making billions off gambling while spending a few million on gambling prevention.

I don't believe government should do a heck of a lot, frankly, but to the degree that they do, I DO NOT think they should be running any activity which hurts and addicts their citizens.

Regulate, sure. Even tax, to both reduce the incidence of and just because taxing things is what government does, how it funds itself. But not actually running.

The government's hypocrisy on gambling is even worse than on cigarettes.

Government punishes smokers, or perhaps has more serious by-laws and fines against smoking than any other vice except prostitution. A gambler may be encouraged not to gamble but he isn't fined if he chooses to do so. Smokers seem to be an easy, soft target, yet they are the sorriest of all victims, physically and/or chemically addicted.

The other trend which I can barely understand is how smoking marijuana is being seen as "safer" than smoking a cigarette. Marijuana can come from anywhere, can be cut with anything, has no filter, and is not exhaled normally as tobacco smoke would. But the perception remains that smoking drugs is okay, safe and more socially acceptable than smoking an eeevil cigarette.

Safe to say though, that the government is well-versed in hypocrisy when it comes to gambling, taxes, smoking or any other issue.

"The other trend which I can barely understand is how smoking marijuana is being seen as "safer" than smoking a cigarette."

I TOTALLY agree.

I believe marijuana should be legal. However.

I've talked to doctors who clearly believe it is dangerous to the lungs, and studies support this. It suppresses the immune system. And for certain illnesses, it even has some benefits.

But for the marijuana advocates to claim it's some kind of health tonic makes me hold such self-deceived or other-deceiving morons in contempt.

Revnant Dream; your post:

"One has to wonder at the mentalities if sane at all, that actually enforce these sin taxes. I do know one thing, its all about people control by power mongers not health, that’s just the excuse. These social addicts for oppression have taken over being so self righteous if not above us all. It makes one want to puke with there personal self satisfied fascism."

is a very accurate assessment of the motives and the hyper, fanatical overreaction to a habit that harms no one but the tobacco smoker. The second hand smoke is as harmless as wood smoke -irritating but not lethal. Fumes from gas, diesel, factories, chemical/drug factories, settling ponds etc. are very harmful. Exercise in the fresh air is the key to curing asthma - a lot of people have asthma (especially day care kids) because they never walk and run outside, in the fresh air - winter and summer. My brothers and I grew up in a house where lots of people smoked (my parents were WWII vets) and they smoked in the car too - with the windows closed. All kids I knew lived in similar circumstances but non of us had asthma! We went outside all the time and we ran and climbed and skated - outside all the time. Some city kids who lived in apts had asthma, and one of those kids was cured of her asthma after she spent six months with us. Children of today are treated poorly by their parents and the social system - they are not allowed to get dirty or to LEARN anything about life outside a hot house plant bubble. I feel sorry for them and a feel sorry for all young people today who know nothing of fun or really living. They are afraid of their own shadows and swallow hook, line and sinker everything the so called experts tell them - without questioning motives or facts.

I fondly remember the great times of my life before nanny state outraged me every day. Sorry for you who spend your whole lives monitoring others to ensure that their lives are miserable, you are missing your own and do not ever believe that you can have some fun when you get old - it will be too late because you will not have any idea of how to enjoy yourselves! You have to learn that when you are young.

How many of you youngsters here have ever jumped off a cliff into a swimming hole (or swung out on a rope and let go when you were over the water), ridden a motor bike without a helmet (or a two wheeled bike, for that matter) ridden a horse at a gallop across a field without a saddle, jumped on a train for a free ride and jumped off when you were where you wanted to be, climbed on a barn and jumped off into the hay 20 feet below, ...the hackles of hair on your backs are likely raising so I will save you from premature heart attacks by signing off - and save Kate's bandwidth too.

england is long past the time for a revolution. all socialists must be put out of their misery.

There is no point in knocking the Brits, the same thing is happening over here, Miller's Toronto is an example, and let's not forget Vancouver out there in the progressive west.
It should be noted also that in Britain the press is far more diverse, in opinions than our PC press.

keep your nose out of my face and you will not experience my fist jamming it back in your face.

Working in the cancer care field I see first hand what smoking can do. This does not mean that I believe it should be banned however. it is like every other habit: there is a time and a place for it and sometimes that means Joe or Jane have to go out to smoke instead of subjecting their co-workers to potentially harmful toxins then so be it. On the personal level, I can now once again enjoy a brew or few at the numerous pubs that I couldn't before when they were smoking. BTW, my younger years bartending in those same establishments probably didn't do me any good either(cough).

To re-interate what I said in a previous post, British Big Brother are more interested in your money than health.

Landing at Heathrow could make one wonder if they'd been rerouted to the ME. Their stint with a Leftist government has changed the face that place and rendered it a non-cohesive and dangerous society.

Biff, I take from your rant that you don't suffer from asthma? Nor have a child who does?

Fortunately, I do not suffer from asthma although I have a granddaughter who has the condition. I do not smoke anywhere near my granddaughter ... or any children for that matter. However, when discussing smoking bans, we are dealing with adults .... adults who are quite able to make decisions and can very easily avoid being exposed to smoke.

One of the favourite tactics of the anti-smoking zealots is to portray those opposed to smoking bans as uncaring neanderthals, demanding the right to smoke anywhere, anytime. This is not the goal of smoking ban opponents and never was.

Any rational person knows this to be true.

Gordon Brown's Britain (see "Update").

Mark
Ottawa

This post is a perfect counterpoint to the one about the kid dying from the taser.

On the one hand, officials gone insane with power going after an innocent bystander. On the other, officials acting with extreme restraint while arresting a known dirtbag who was armed and dangerous, and the POS goes and dies on them anyway despite everything. Those racist b@stards!

The lesson? It is GOOD to be a dirtbag!

Biff,

You opinion is valid. But, I still have to hold my breath walking by smokers outside. I can avoid them indoors now, thanks to the new laws.
For years I was forced to inhale second-hand smoke in every area of my life except in my own home. I grew up when smoking was allowed in theatres and I got a bigger high than my friends who were smoking.

'Course, I could also die walking by perfumed candles and cosmetics, which the drug stores put near their entrance. I cover my mouth and sprint.

Personally, I feel sorry for people with an addiction to nicotine, having seen the devastation in family and friends. Worse than the cancer is emphysema. You don't have an enemy you would wish that on.

Biff, your point is valid.
But, smokers controlled the universe long enough and we all know without the laws in place, none of us could sit in a theatre without inhaling someone's smoke, or have a meal in a restaurant without the air poisoning us.
Unfortunately no laws (yet) prevent drug stores and department stores from having scented candles and perfumes at the entrances. But, thankfully, intelligent people are now providing us with fragrance-free areas.
There is an alternative, of course. I (and other sufferers) could live in bubbles.

Sorry for the double post - took 15 min., unusual length of time.

How many laws are just enforced as "revenue tools" ?

A few weeks on CBC.ca there was an article about smog in Beijing.

In the comments section a lively debate ensued, and one wacko tried to tell me that smoking 3 cigarettes in 30 minutes was more polluting than 6 diesel engines idling for the same amount of time.

I challenged him on it, saying I was quite willing to go into a closed garage and smoke 3 cigarettes in 30 minutes if he was willing to stand in another garage with 6 diesel engines idling for the same amount of time.

He didn't take me up on my challenge.