For Whom the Bell Tolls

The 1st July 2007 sounded the death knell for adulthood in this country.

It was the day that businesses were forced to adhere to a law that harmed them and put a staggering percentage of them out of business. They were no longer allowed to make choices that suited them but rather they had to do what the government said.

It was the day that nannying do-gooders won their fight to have civil freedoms stripped from everyone who didn't agree with them. It started with smoking, it now threatens every aspect of our lives -- proposed minimum pricing on alcohol, a briefly mentioned "fat tax" which I'm sure will be revisited, the government snooping into our emails and Internet use, Nadine Dorries working tirelessly behind the scenes to change abortion laws by the back door, politicians like Andrew Lansley and Stephen Williams having no compunction about trying to ruin an industry simply because they don't like its product and believe that they have the right to dictate to us all ...

He'll be round to wipe your arse and check that your nappy is nice and tight

Tobacco is a legal product.  It probably isn't particularly good for you but then, neither are a lot of things and the only certainty in life... is death. The hypocrisy of denormalising smokers is sickening because of the massive amount of revenue tobacco generates. Government is happy to take our money and then use it club us over the heads with insane policies to get us to stop.

What next?

I would like to designate the next Bank Holiday as National Adults Day. Maybe we could have a parade through the street of every town, converge on Parliament and demand that our rights as adults are returned to us because it's not the government's fucking job to tell us how to live our lives.

Image Source: Daily Mash

Mourn, people, mourn for the death of adulthood. By allowing this appalling, draconian piece of legislation to be enforced, they will make us all children by imposing more and more idiotic laws upon us all.

That bell? It tolls for thee.

Non-Smokers Die Every Day

The tobacco control dickheads would like you to think that you're going to live forever.  You will hear them cry about premature deaths, preventable deaths, smoking-related deaths, and more deaths attributed to tobacco use so often that you would think that only smokers are capable of dying.  It's not true.  I know that.  You know that. Hell, even ASH knows it, but they'll still try to convince you otherwise. 

Let's consider the case of the late David Taylor MP, former chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health.  If you missed the word "late" in the previous sentence, let me tell you now that David Taylor is dead.  He died in 2009 of a heart attack at only age 63, which is a far cry from living forever, but to be fair 63 isn't all that young either, in the sense that it's not really an "early death."  It's almost the average life-expectancy figure for men in the entire world, which is 65.  I can't find any evidence that Taylor was a former smoker, an ex-smoker, or a reformed smoker.  By all the accounts I've read, he led an active life, even exercised and stuff.  Maybe it was anti-smoking stuff that killed him...?  Is it possible?  I don't know.

So Taylor died suddenly while out for a walk.  He had a heart attack.  Tragic.  He was only 63!  How could this happen?  Better yet, how could the BHF let this happen? 

It happened because shit happens to non-smokers like shit happens to smokers.  Bill Hicks once said, "Non-smokers die every day."   Non-smokers die every day of the same diseases that smokers get. More non-smokers die each day than smokers. 

Naturally, people are always looking to blame someone or something for unexpected and expected deaths.  You've heard the mantra of the anti-smokers: "You're killing me with your smoking."   You could be trapped inside a burning building, with no chance to escape at all and only a few minutes before the flames and smoke will overcome you, and if you then decided to light up one last fag as your parting salute to this fucked-up planet, you can bet that the anti-smoker trapped with you is going to complain about it.  "You're killing me!"

And now, after years and years of anti-smoker hysteria provided by the likes of ASH and Simon Chapman, people actually believe that if they don't live to be 100, it's because at some point in their life, they were around a smoker.  Never mind ovens, grills, cars, factories, your work environment, your genetic predisposition to certain diseases, household cleaners, insect bites (yes, they can lead to immune deficiencies, which will open the door to a host of "preventable" diseases), STIs... I mean, the list goes on and on.  But no, it's smokers that are causing millions of deaths of non-smokers.

It's not true, no matter what you've been told or read. 

So, what's really happening here?  It's social-engineering and brainwashing by activist hate groups.  If you say something often enough, if you hear something often enough, it becomes true for you.  Because, hey, you're smart and intelligent. You read the papers, watch the news.  You don't need actual scientific proof to know when something is true.  You just know it, because someone told it to you.  Someone you trust to be reliable. Like the media!   Yeah, OK.  I know...

Pay attention:  They are playing on your natural fear of death to convince you to live a lifestyle that won't guarantee you any more time on this planet.  They are playing you, just like the global warming alarmists, and just like all of the politicians who enact stupid laws that restrict our liberties under the guises of protecting children or protecting us from terrorists.  And just an aside here, who is going to protect me from your children?  That's what I thought.

Did you know that the Dreadful used be a smoker?  She smoked Silk Cut.  She quit in 2003.  I don't know why.  But I can guess as to why she's an evil cow:  Self-loathing.  She probably hates herself more than she hates other smokers.  I wouldn't be surprised if she still sneaks a crafty one now and then.  And then she hates herself even more, and the cycle repeats and to atone for her sins of self-loathing, she attacks the tobacco industry, smokers, and anyone who would dare to speak out against her.  She should hate herself, not because she's a reformed smoker, but because she's a cunt.

I guess since we're talking about her and we're on the business of plain packs, we may as well extract this quote from that Guardian article I found when researching this post; an article where Dreadful explains why young kids start smoking.  Ready?  OK, here it is (emphasis mine):

"That's because [smoking is] still something that's attractive to young people, because it's still cool. If you talk to 8-, 9- or 10- year-olds, they'll be very anti-smoking. Puberty is when it happens: you're independent, you want to be cool, and you're not sure what do with your hands when you're talking to people of the opposite sex."

That's her words, in February 2010.  Nothing to do with pack designs there, it's all about what do with your hands. I'm pretty sure that pack designs didn't magically change into marketing monstrosities since then.  Let's repeat what she said:  "You're independent, you want to be cool.  You're independent and you want to be cool.  You're independent and you want to be cool.  You're--"

Wow. I feel independent and cool.  Time for a smoke, I guess.

Misinformation - It's How They Roll

ASH likes to consider itself to be "pressure" charity, but it's anything but charitable.  I like to think of ASH as a cult, the Jim Jones's drinking Kool-Aid Flavor Aid kind.  ASH is a cult of hate, and it feeds its supporters lies and misinformation to further its agenda of ridding the world of evil smokers.  The kind of people who support ASH hate it when their worldview is challenged by freedom-loving people, or even popular films for that matter.  For example, let's look at this exchange on the ASH Australia Facebook page:

The text of that exchange reads:

Q: Quick question, went to see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo the other night and in the movie the main character goes in to a shop and asks for a pack of cigarettes by name of brand and is given the packet clearly showing the brand on the packet. Does this constitute advertising and if so isn't that illegal in Australia?

A: ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) Australia - Product placement is common practice and nothing much can be done about it when movies are made overseas unless regulated in country of origin. The author of the books sadly died in his 40s form (sic) smoking so pity that his heroes in the trilogy do so much smoking. 

OK, I've blacked-out the questioner's name because he's a complete fucking moron, and no doubt a smokerphobe.  And, um... OH NOES! There was someone asking for a pack of cigarettes in a film!  The horror!

Right. Before I break this thing down (it won't take long, I promise), I don't expect everyone to get all the details right all of the time.  It would be good if you got at least ONE of the details right.  But ASH couldn't even manage that when answering the question.

First problem.  The author, Stieg Larrson, did not die in his 40s.  He was 50.

Second problem.  The author did not die from smoking. Granted, he smoked a lot according to reports, perhaps as many as 60 per day. But he did not light a cigarette and suddenly die from it.  No, he died from a heart attack after he had climbed seven flights of stairs because the lift was broken at his office.  Was his heart attack caused by excessive smoking, or was it caused from a complete lack of exercise?  Maybe it was both.  He could have been killed by neo-Nazis!  In any case, he did not die from smoking or only smoking. It was a combination of health issues (or a neo-Nazi conspiracy, maybe, but I'm not buying it) and, for him, at 50-years-old, an arduous stair climb.  Like any good cult, you distort the facts to suit your agenda. Well done, ASH. Liars.

It's not a pity that his heroes "do so much smoking" either. But that's your opinion, and I'll let you have that one.

It's pretty sad that the guy who asked ASH that question thought that asking for a pack of smokes in a film constitutes advertising.  It's a film, fuckface!  It's fiction!  It's not real!

So now you can see the mentality of people who support ASH, and you can see that ASH can't help but misinform their own supporters  - don't worry about fact checking.  Of course, we're not dealing with rocket scientists here, just the fake kind of science ASH believes in.

Stieg Larsson - Probably not an ASH supporter

The CDC Pretty Much Destroys the Argument for Plain Packs

Look, I'm not making of light of anyone who has become ill, whether their illness was from smoking or tobacco use or from any other factor.  The truth is, all of us can become inflicted by some illness regardless if we are lifelong non-smokers or a habitual smoker.  It's called life. Diseases were rampant long before we started smoking.  And while people do genuinely get ill from tobacco use, just like people can get ill from peanuts or anything on this planet, the truth is that cigarette pack designs have fuck all to do with taking up smoking.

Consider, if you will, the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) website chock full of ex-smoker testimonials; all of them suffering from some horrible affliction you wouldn't even wish on your neighbour that invites screaming tranny hookers over to his flat four times a week while playing Lady Gaga's songs at 140 decibels.  No.

Still, not one of the biographies mentions that someone was attracted to smoking by the pack design.  Not one. You would think there is at least one that said, "I started smoking because of that pack design.  I was hypnotised and enthralled by its relentless allure, like I was watching David Hasselhoff in Baywatch, or that weird guy in The Mask."


This the CDC we're talking about. You would expect them to be just a little more scientific than, say, you're typical hater like Simon Chapman or Dreadful Arnott.

And to be fair to the CDC, they are not kind at all on smoking or tobacco use. They don't advocate it.  But let's read teaser text of each of these testimonies on their site, and then you'll see that packaging has sweet FA to do with taking up smoking.  (Of course, by posting this, I expect the fASHists to make a call to the CDC to have them remove/change the proof, because that is how the hate rolls.)

Annette's Story 

Annette experimented with cigarettes as a teenager, smoking occasionally. But by the time she turned 20, Annette was a regular smoker.

Beatrice's Story 

Beatrice, age 40, is the mother of two boys and lives in New York. She tried her first cigarette at age 7, her second at 11, and then began smoking regularly when she was 13. She had friends who smoked, and she wanted to be “cool” like them. 

Brandon's Story 

Thirty-one-year-old Brandon started smoking in his mid-teens, and by 18, he was diagnosed with Buerger’s disease, a disorder linked to tobacco use that causes blood vessels in the hands and feet to become blocked and can result in infection or gangrene. 

Christine's Story 

During high school, Christine wanted to fit in, so she began smoking at age 16. She became addicted and continued smoking for 28 years. 

James's Story 

James started smoking at age 14 in an attempt to be like his father. Thirty years later he decided to quit and adopt a much healthier lifestyle. 

Jessica's Story 

It’s not easy being a single parent, and for Jessica, it’s especially challenging. Not only is she a student, a bank employee, and a handball player who competes nationally, this 28-year-old also is the mother of a child with severe asthma. 

Marie's Story 

Marie lives in New York and began smoking in high school with her friends. They would congregate regularly to smoke the cigarettes they took from family members.

Roosevelt's Story 

Like many smokers, Roosevelt started experimenting with cigarettes in his teens. But his addiction became entrenched during his time in the military. 

Shane's Story 

Shane began smoking at age 18 and was only 34 when the damage to his body from smoking became evident. 

Sharon's Story 

Growing up in the seventies, it seemed to Sharon like everyone smoked cigarettes. She was only 13 when she took her first puff. In no time, her casual smoking would turn into a full-blown and expensive addiction. 

Shawn's Story 

Fourteen-year-old Shawn was only trying to make friends and fit in at a new school when he started taking cigarettes from his father. 

Suzy's Story 

Suzy, age 62, came from a family of smokers, so it wasn’t unusual when she began sneaking cigarettes at age 15. Suzy grew up and married; she and her husband were exemplary entrepreneurs. 

Terrie's Story 

In high school, Terrie was a pretty cheerleader who competed on the cheer circuit. Her father was a smoker, and with more and more of her friends smoking, Terrie soon found herself lighting up in social settings. 

Wilma's Story 

Wilma can’t point to a specific reason she started smoking cigarettes. Her siblings smoked, and by her early teens she was sneaking cigarettes from her sister — beginning an addiction that would last 30 years. 

Look, I know you're intelligent enough to see the overarching theme above.  I'm not going to spell it out of you.  But if you need to make a limited case against plain packs, why not start with the CDC's own site?

(apologies for any grammatical errors or typos -- we've absolutely caned two nice bottles of wine and now we're having a nightcap, as it were.  While the booze is still cheap, of course.)

Simon Chapman is a Petty, Hateful Bastard

Like a vicious herpes infection, or a stinking, floating turd that just won't be flushed, Simon Chapman won't go away.  To say Simon Chapman is a petty, hateful bastard is being way too kind.  This man is quite possibly the root of all evil in modern society.  He is the father of the plain packs campaign -- a hateful, spiteful, tyrannical ploy designed to torment tobacco companies and smokers equally.  Rest assured, Simon Chapman hates you.

When he's not sucking on the government money-teat, Simon Chapman likes to use Twitter to promote his vile, hateful views.  What passes for hilarious japes in the anti-smoker circles these days?  Let's see:

Simon says, "what pro-smoking group members buy their kids"
What a fucking twat!

I suppose Simon Chapman thinks being a hateful cunt is funny.  It isn't.

We will revisit Simon's hate campaigns another time.  For now, let it be known that the tobacco control group, every single last one of them -- yes, all of those nannying motherfuckers from hell -- they probably think you pro-smokers are all child abusers and paedophiles and murderers.  Which is kind of odd, the paedo thing, because it ain't us pro-smokers who are out there working with children every chance we get, using those "gullible" children to protest at rallies and so on.

Hmm...  time for a little investigating, methinks.

Mad Men

Since time immemorial, man has sought dominance over his fellow man, and of course woman over woman.  When we look back at history, we see that leaders have always sought to dictate how people should live their lives.  The Nanny State is nothing new; it was just called a dictatorship, or a monarchy, or a democratically-elected government before some British MP [possibly] coined the term.  Modern-day pols want to be seen as doing something to protect women and children from every imaginable harm in the world, instead of being seen for what they are truly doing: taking your money and doing whatever the fuck they want with it.  Sometimes these leaders just make shit up from out of the ether.  The lesson we need to take home is that "anyone who would want to run a country is not someone who should ever be allowed to run a country."

It's an ego thing.  Politicians typically have over-inflated egos the size of Australia, and some have bellies almost as a large as well.  Politicians believe that they alone can save the world, or perhaps more aptly that they can save you from the world.  So, naturally, I come back to my little pet, Stephen Williams MP, the UK's slovenly chairman of the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health.  When I read what he says in Parliamentary debates, I just want to bash baby seals in the face with a giant redwood tree.  Here are some of things he said during the Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales debate on 27 March 2012 - emphasis mine in all cases.

[I] want to make it absolutely clear that my group is against smoking [...]

The next necessary stage in tobacco control is introducing what has been called plain packaging for cigarettes, although that is to some extent a misnomer. The design of plain packs shows that they are anything but plain, but they would be of a standardised design in order to remove what is essentially the last opportunity available to tobacco companies to promote their products: the design of packs, of packaging within the cardboard pack and of cigarettes, which now come in many shapes, sizes and colours to attract the next generation of gullible young people attracted by glitzy products that they think it is cool to consume. Of course, it is anything but.

I doubt whether the introduction of plain packaging will increase the opportunity for counterfeiting. If it does, it will only do so because the tobacco industry inflicts that problem on itself.

It could be argued that standardised packaging will limit the opportunities for people to import van loads of material supposedly for their own personal consumption [...].

[I] have been an evangelist for localism for a long time, and I am pleased that our coalition Government are pressing ahead with it—but we must make it clear as part of the Government’s national public health strategy that local authorities have a duty to use Government public protection officers more effectively in areas of tobacco control.

Driving down the smoking rate is good for public health outcomes in our country, and driving down illicit cigarette smoking while a legal trade still exists will be good for the public finances.

If [Ian Paisley] thinks that the introduction of plain, standardised packs is pointless, why does he think that the tobacco industry is going to fight it with all the resources at its disposal, and why does it put so much effort into providing attractive packs, colourful cigarettes, gold wrapping and all the other paraphernalia that goes with the marketing of cigarettes? Surely, it is wasting its money if that has no effect.

Wow.  That last one sounds familiar. Where have I heard that argument before?  I wonder...

Sadly, it will probably work to convince all of the morons in government.

OK, people, go read the whole thing to see what kind of mad men we're dealing with. All of it.  It will take you about 10 to 15 minutes, maybe fewer if you can read like the wind.  It even covers alcohol and minimum pricing and all of that happy horseshit.

Gotta give huge props to Ian Paisley MP for at least debating the issue with some common sense:

Ian Paisley: The tobacco industry is able to speak for itself, but one of the reasons why it is annoyed is that this is an infringement on its trading rights, its branding and all the things in which it has invested over the years. It would be wrong to turn around and say that we can just remove those things overnight.

The industry argues that it would damage the actual trade, so let us look at that and what it costs. In my constituency, more than 1,000 people are directly employed in the tobacco industry. In Manchester, another 800 people are directly employed in the manufacturing of cigarettes. If we are not careful, those jobs will go to eastern bloc countries and to Europe—they will move out of this country. Will that affect the number of people who smoke cigarettes? Not one jot. The same number of people will continue to smoke cigarettes, but they will be manufactured elsewhere. We will be the biggest losers, because we will have lost the jobs, the tax and the pay-as-you-earn tax.

Goddess Christina Hendricks needs protection from glitzy cigarette packs, so let me save this one, please!
Photo Credit: NY Post/Liz Sullivan

Change

'Nuff said, really.

NHS South Essex Hates Little Old Ladies

In the "OMFG! What has this world come to?" category comes this Telegraph article about an old-age pensioner who is clearly responsible for pretty much all of the carbon emissions in South Essex.  Is no one safe from these tyrants?  How much does the NHS hate their fucking patients?  So much that they'll make up whatever they like to justify not treating you.   While the NHS is pretending it gives a fuck about climate change (and really, is that part of their fucking charter?), the real reason for this atrocity could be:

"Mrs Mulcahy, a grandmother, believes the decision was made because she complained about a doctor."

That seems likely.  Hateful fuckers.

So, if you go to the West Road Surgery in Westcliff-on-Sea, give the Practice Team two fingers for me.  Then smack them in the face with your cane or something.  Because these people are hateful assholes, and they don't deserve to be called human beings. 

In the meantime, maybe we ought to fill in their patient survey and let them know how we feel about them.

You hate us, we hate you, NHS!  (Image source: Bolgernow.com)

H/T:  Anthony Watts

Display Ban Day

So, it's the 6th of April, 2012.  Good Friday it be, but what's so good about it?  If you're a fASHist or nannying tyrant, it's a great day because your dream of your fucked-up "perfect" world is one step closer to reality. That would be a totalitarian nanny state where you pretend you are free but in fact the government controls every little thing you do, drink, eat, see and buy.   They want to control what you see and hear, tell you what to think, how to think.

Pop quiz.  Who just said this (emphasis mine)?:

"So, if we can, literally, arrive at a place where young people just don't think about smoking and they don't see tobacco and they don't see cigarettes - then I hope we can make a big difference."

And this:

"We want to arrive at a place where we no longer see smoking as a normal part of life."

Don't know?  Answer: It's your pal, your buddy, your socialist in a hurry, Mr Fascism himself, it is:  Health Secretary Andrew Lansley. 

Today, big shops must hide their evil wares from the gullible children and women.  It's funny, when you think about it.  The antis always want to protect children and women from Big Tobacco.  What about adult men?  Are we not worth protecting in their world?  You never hear, "Men are easily-swayed by the lure of a cigarette packaging, so we must have plain packs."  No, what you hear is we need to protect women from smoking slim cigarettes.  What you hear is that children are stupid and gullible and will confuse a packet of Skittles with a packet of Dunhill International.

And this bitch is to blame for a lot of it:

Look how happy she is.  Happy Display Ban Day.  What a cunt.

So when we are all standing in a queue for toilet paper and a few scraps of bread, you will know it's because we allowed these nannies to dictate their lifestyles upon us.  Maybe someday we'll rise, or maybe we'll just quietly grumble and have a cup of tea -- unless they ban that, too.  Of course, first they will tax it to death.

Super Twat of the Month - April 2012

Introduction

Each month this blog will choose one person or an organisation to be our Super Twat of the Month.  Our STOTM will normally be a public figure who is an anti-smoker activist and/or someone who is trashing (or attempting to trash) our civil liberties in support of a Nanny or Surveillance State.  If this blog had to have only one motto, it would be "Educate, Don't Legislate."  STOTMs want to legislate your lifestyles away. The people we choose to be STOTMs often claim to be in support of civil liberties, but in reality they only want liberties to be applied to the causes or groups of people they identify with.  Here we call them out for their hypocrisy.  We are not so naive that we believe this blog will have any impact on their decisions, but we can hope. 

Super Twat of the Month - April 2012

April's STOTM is Stephen Williams MP, representing Bristol West in Parliament.

The Good

When I look over Williams's curriculum vitae and key issues, at first glance it seems to me that he and I would get along famously.  We agree on enough things that, under different circumstances, I would not hesitate to invite him over for dinner, a drink and have a chat about life and the latest PS3 games.  Let's break it down:

• Parliamentary Reform - check!
• Pro-Immigration - check!
• Anti-violence (against women, particularly, but I'm anti-violence against anyone... unless they are attacking me of course) - check!
• Same-sex Marriage - check! Because honestly, who you love and want to marry is your business and no one else's.
• The  Right to Protest - check!
• Against Capital Punishment - check!
• Libel Reform - check!
• Abolition of Council Tax - check!
• Against ID cards - check!

And there are a few others, but the point is that I can find some common ground with this man.  I don't agree with all of his views, and I doubt anyone does.  But I can imagine a spirited, friendly, robust debate on our disagreements over the course of an evening with a few glasses of wine or beer, and maybe a nice brandy for a nightcap.  If it were to happen at my home, he would be quite safe from our smoking habits, since we do not smoke in most of the house -- we have a designated smoking conservatory.  (Back in the Georgian and Victorian eras, people had "smoking rooms" sometimes called drawing rooms, or what have you.)  It's our "sin bin" if you will.

The Bad

• Anti-Smoker and Anti-Tobacco, supports Plain Packaging
• Wants Government to Protect Your Children
• Believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change
• Wants Government to Interfere in Private Business and Schools

Of course there is more, but I'm worried I'm going to lose your attention, so I'll just keep the bad to the list above.  So if we did have Williams over for dinner, I would like to challenge him on the above.  I don't know if I would win or even persuade him to change his views.  I think it unlikely.  If I could do one thing, however, it would be to help him see a different perspective.

Hypocrisy

I didn't know that Stephen Williams is gay until a couple of days ago when I read it on Wikipedia.  His sexuality is his business, and like racism I don't truck with homophobic viewpoints -- neither will be tolerated on this blog.  Bigotry is hate, plain and simple, regardless of whether it is against race, gender, sexuality, and nationality.  It's good to know that the Williams is championing equality for the GLBT crowd.  Even in central London, that bastion of acceptance and tolerance (ahem), I have witnessed some truly vile people attacking my gay, lesbian and transgendered friends simply for being gay.  I agree with Williams in that we need to better educate people that hating gay people is uncivilised and moronic.  So, Williams is gay.  Big deal.

And yet, here's the thing, Stephen.  Gay people have been an oppressed group of people for a really long time.  I'm quite certain you've experienced it.  It's awful.  It should never happen, but people are stupid and ignorant and they always will be.  Progress is indeed being made, as even you have said, but there's a long way to go still.  So why am I going to make an issue of your sexuality here and call you out as a hypocrite?  Because -- and I know you're going to think it's a stretch given your views -- but smokers are the new oppressed people, we are the new gay and lesbian targets.  That's right. Smokers (as well as fat people and drinkers) are being demonised by those who think their viewpoints are more important than ours.  And you, sir, are one of those people.  I know what you're thinking, but please bear with me, I'm still making my point.

Here, I'll put it another way for you.  Whenever an oppressed people rise up and gain power of their oppressors, the formerly-oppressed exact their own oppression against those who had oppressed them.  It's retaliatory, sure.  Iraq - Sunnis vs Shiites, etc.  An endless list of revenge I could write.  This happens all the time.  It doesn't make it right.  So, you, Stephen, you know exactly what it feels like to be hated by people for doing nothing more than living your life the way you believe you should, for being who you are.  Why then, knowing this as intimately as you do, would you do the very same thing to people who smoke?

Hate is Hate is Hate is Hate, Regardless

Do you not see it for what it is, this thing you're doing?  It's hate.  It's oppression. You are using your hatred of smoking, of tobacco, of smokers to oppress smokers, by making it more difficult for adults to consume a legal product.  It is no different than hating people simply because they are gay.

Ah, I wrote that I knew what you were thinking, so I'll address that here.  You're thinking that smokers can choose whether to smoke, but gay people cannot choose to be gay.  Indeed, some people are born gay.  Maybe we all are, because just about every "straight guy" I know has been with another guy at some point in their life, or if they haven't then they have definitely thought about it.  A quick visit to the M4M personal ads on Craigslist can confirm that.  You and I know both know that people can choose their sexuality, if they want to.  Sexuality can be very fluid, given the right circumstances.  Everyone has a choice.  It's called free will.  We can all choose who our sexual partners will be.

What we cannot choose is who we will fall in love with (well, we can choose that, too, I suppose, but I consider myself a romantic, you see). Let me tell you something, I fell in love with smoking. I love watching people smoke, seeing the smoke tendrils curl in the air.  It's not even about nicotine most of the time.  I just love smoking.  It's how I was born, I guess.  I love smoking a cigarette, having the occasional expensive cigar with a brandy, and I love the smell of pipe tobacco, although I don't smoke a pipe.  Nobody convinced me to start smoking, it was a decision I made. Nobody forced me to do it.  I wasn't gullible.  I knew the risks of smoking before I ever smoked one cigarette.  The pack design didn't matter.  It was the act of smoking.  I have quit a few times in the past, and I missed it so much that it made me miserable and hateful.  My friends, who didn't smoke, asked me to start smoking again. Can you believe that?  They said, please start smoking again or we will kill you.  I wasn't happy.  Smoking makes me happy.  Seriously, it does.

And who the fuck are you to deny anyone of being happy?  Would you like it if someone kept you from being happy?  You don't like smoking?  Great. Good for you. Don't smoke.  You don't like being around smokers?  Fine, done be around them.  You want to protect the children? Fine, go have some kids and protect them, but stop having the government do the job of parents.  And stop bullshitting us with this "plain packs protect children" crap when you know it's complete bollocks.  It's petty revenge against tobacco companies and smokers, because you hate them.  Just like homophobes hate you.  You wouldn't tolerate racism or homophobia, would you?

Oh, but smoking kills, you say.   "It's the only product--"  No it isn't. Not even by a long shot, but if you want to justify your position with that then fine, I'll come up with list of products that kill. Whatever.  Lots of things will kill us.  But here it is, Stephen.  You ready? Hey, hey... wake up!  Stephen, life kills.  All of us.  We are all going to die.  All of us.  No exceptions. All of us will die.  (They're all dead, Dave.  Kochanski?  Yes, Dave.)  It will be tragic for each and every one of us when we do depart, no matter how we die.  That's the point of life.  This entire planet will die in the future.  The entire universe will die.  Why fear it?  Why pretend it won't happen?  It's going to happen. It's unavoidable.  No one and nothing will life forever.

What? Do you think that dying of liver disease, or viral pneumonia because your body is too old to fight it off, is somehow more acceptable than lung cancer?  It's still death.  The really sad thing is that we as a society in the UK refuse to let people choose the manner of their deaths when they do get ill.  No one has to "die from cancer."  We could let those people end their lives with a little dignity if we were truly humane beings.  Dignity.

In Closing

So, you think about that.  Dignity.  Hypocrisy.  I would propose that you consider that smokers are people; that parents are capable of protecting and teaching their own children; that any laws on tobacco are just as illiberal as ID cards, and everything else you believe in -- we will deal with AGW some other day.  Because until you realise that to be a true civil libertarian means that you don't get to pick and choose who gets liberties and who doesn't, then you're a twat.

You are our Super Twat of the Month.  Congratulations.

The Truth

The Truth

It's Called Misdirection

Penn and Teller are two of my favourite entertainers of all time.  They make me laugh, which is so desperately needed these days, and they are incredibly good magicians to boot.  In the below video (I apologise for the quality, if anyone has a better version, please post it in the comments), Penn and Teller explain the art of sleight of hand, particularly misdirection.

So, while you're watching this video, consider how our elected politicians use these very same techniques, albeit a little differently, to deceive us on a daily basis.  It's called misdirection -- look over here, so that you fail to notice what is happening right in front of your eyes.  Magicians know that people can only focus on one thing at a time, so they exploit our visual fallibility to entertain.  Politicians exploit us by using the same techniques as magicians.  Think about it, and come to your own conclusions.  Don't believe it just because I'm saying it.  Look for yourself.  You don't need me to tell you this.

Penn and Teller Explain Sleight of Hand UPDATE: I've changed the video to a different one because the other would play automatically. If you want to see the original video, click the link above.

Reproducibility Not Required

Reason's Ronald Bailey asks,  Can most cancer research be trusted? 

Here's a telling quote from his article (emphasis mine):

"We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure," said Begley to Reuters. "I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they'd done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It's very disillusioning." Sadly, Begley explains in an email that they cannot reveal which studies are flawed due to the insistence by many researchers on confidentiality agreements before they would work with the Amgen scientists. So much for transparency. 

And there's this:

Over 10 years, Amgen researchers could reproduce the results from only six out of 53 landmark papers.

And this (emphasis mine, again):

So what is going wrong? Neither study suggests that the main problem is fraud. Instead they conclude that the scramble for funding and fame (which are inextricably linked) has resulted in increasingly lax standards for reporting research results.

It's a fantastic article, so do read the whole thing when you have a few free moments -- if you're into this sort of thing that is.

If you're wondering whether the studies and research performed by our favourite hate groups can be similarly classified, the answer is a resounding "YES!"  Tip: Scroll down to the very end and read the "Safeguarding the Future" bit.

Sainsbury's, Waterloo, and Don't Get Sick in Devon

Sainsbury's Are Dumb

In respect of the tobacco display ban nonsense, Chris Snowdon points out a comment from the Telegraph which indicates that Sainsbury's are taking the display ban to extremes by not even letting customers know which products they have.  Sorry, sir, we cannot confirm nor deny that we sell tobacco.  Fuck off, Sainsbury's.  My advice to everyone who shops there is to ask them for brands that do not exist.  Screw with them.  Here's a happy scenario:

A customer walks into a Sainsbury's Local and says, "Hi, I'd like a pack of Roxons, please?"

The Sainsbury's clerk opens the shutter of tobacco display case, and searches for a pack of Roxons.  Not finding this brand, the clerk closes the shutter and says, "Uh... we don't have that brand."

"Could you check again, please?"

Shutter opens.  Shutter closes.  "No, sorry, I'm not seeing any of these Rock-ons."

"Oh.  That's all right.  I'll have a pack of Chapmans."

Shutter opens. Shutter closes.  "Chapmans?"

"Yes, Chapmans.  Surely you carry them."

Shutter opens.  Shutter closes.  "No.  I guess we don't..."

"Fine. Well, I guess I'll have... Oh, I don't know... Perhaps you've got some Deb Arnotts?"

Shutter opens...

Anyway, the display ban doesn't prevent retailers from letting you look at tobacco. They are allowed to open it up upon request.  Read the guidelines here (PDF).

Waterloo Hates You

Have you ever been to Waterloo Station?  If you have, you might have noticed that they don't like smokers at all.  They are some seriously hateful motherfuckers.  The smoking area is across Station Road in an uncovered area.  It's a busy road -- taxis and buses drive through this area all of the time. They don't stop for smokers.  There are signs that say it's a no smoking area on the pavement beside the building.  People ignore it all the time.  I once had some huge bald guy twice my size come racing at me for lighting up when I left the concourse area.  I was outside.  He pointed to the sign and he said I had to cross the street.  I looked at him, inhaled, and said, "I'm not going that way." And I walked down the hill and got on with my business.  Now I always ignore that sign.  So do others. 

It's kind of ironic, though.  That area is the taxi rank, and there are dozens of taxis all churning out exhaust under the roof.  I guess National Rail thinks its perfectly fine to breathe car exhaust while you're waiting in the queue to get a taxi.  Here are some pics to illustrate my point:

The guy in the striped shirt don't give a fuck! My hero!

Image source: National Rail (nationalrail.co.uk)

Smokers' area to the left by the blue crane.  Good luck crossing Station Road, though.

 Image source: geograph.org.uk

NDDH Really Fucking Hates You (and their employees)

Finally, speaking of hateful motherfuckers, North Devon District Hospital hates you. They also hate their own staff.  Read that article from thisisdevon.co.uk and you'll see what I mean.  Here's a quote:

"We now find ourselves having to wheel the patient out by the main road for them to have a cigarette, which is not only degrading for them to be on full view of every passer-by, but it also takes nursing staff from the ward."

Wow.  But that's completely unacceptable for the assholes at North Devon District Hospital.  Want to know what they think about that?

An NDDH spokesman said the Trust would take disciplinary action against any staff member escorting patients off the site for a cigarette as this could "seriously compromise the care of the patient".

Emphasis mine.  So, um, yeah.  Don't get sick in North Devon. But if you do, make sure you light in up your room, where it's safer. That way the staff won't get in any trouble.   Follow up article here.

So... About That Acronym

I'd like to take a moment to thank all of you who have linked to this blog, its posts, and added the blog to their blogrolls.  I truly do appreciate it.  I understand it may not be an easy choice to do so, given the tone used here is ... shall we say, confrontational and angry.  But that's because I'm fucking angry.

Anyway, Bill Sticker notes fairly on his blog that the acronym chosen for this site is "unfortunate."  (I apologise, Bill, I wanted to reply to that on your blog, but your comments are locked down so that only certain accounts can comment, accounts I am not using.)  Right.  This is not directed at you, Bill, it's a general statement for all who come here:

I am acutely aware that some people will find the word "cunt" unacceptable.  Most of us, myself included, were taught which words in the English language were acceptable for polite conversation amongst the intellectuals and decent folk, and which words were reserved for use by the thuggish, despicable criminal class.

But they are only words.  A word, all by itself, has no power.  It is nothing more than a sequence of letters to represent the sounds we make when we speak. The power of a word, written or spoken, comes from the intent of the person using that word.  In this regard, many benign words can be wielded as awesome weapons. Stringing together a collection of these awesome weapons sometimes may result in mass destruction of ideas, changes to culture, happiness, sadness, love and hate.  It's about intent.  It is never about the actual word itself.  A word all by itself has no power unless you decide to give it power.  And if you do give a word super powers, then it's your problem, not mine.

Likewise, only you can decide to be offended by something.  If you are offended by something someone has said or written, it's your problem.  I know this flies in the face of everything the politically-correct fuckfaces have been saying since the late 1970s, but only you have the power to choose whether to be offended.  I don't have this power over you.  Perhaps you think I do, but it's your free will at play here.  You have chosen your morals and beliefs.  It's your problem if I don't fit into that neat little box you've created for your perfect society.  You don't have to like what I say or write.  You are free to tell me exactly what you think about what I've said, or what you think about me.  I'm not stopping you. Let it rip.  It is definitely not my job to make sure your world is free from things you might find offensive.

So, I chose this blog name to make a point, but truth be told it was sort of organically created out of the ether one night after a few glasses of wine.  There were a few other choices I had considered.  For example:  PUNT - People United... blah, blah... but that was dull.  I vacillated on the word Tyrant for a while.  Should I use Technocrat instead?  But CUNT was funny to me, and I knew some would embrace it and others would cringe. It wasn't until Stumpy Bear (who will be contributing to this blog sometime this decade) came up with the tag line "Because we are all being fucked" that I thought, fuck it, let's do this thing.

I know some people won't add me to their blogrolls, as they need to maintain a certain level of "decency" as it were.  I'm OK with that.  I'm certainly not offended by your choices.  The only things I take offence to are people who try to tell me how I should live my life, and those who would then legislate it.  These are, of course, my problems.

Activist Doctors Are Not Really Doctors

No doubt you've already seen Dick Puddlecote's latest on government lobbying government.  Simon Clark covers it here, Chris Snowdon also has a piece about it, and the indomitable Pat Nurse weighs in and relates a personal anecdote, too.  It is absolutely maddening that taxpayers' money is being used by the NHS to lobby for plain packs, under the false pretense that it will somehow protect children.  It's complete fucking bollocks, is what it is.  If you haven't already done so, be sure to sign up for the Hands Off Our Packs campaign.  It's important that we stop the hate, lies and tell these nannies that we're not going to take it any longer.  Get angry!

Now, I want to take it all one step further.  Here's the thing:  Activist doctors are not really doctors.  Not in the truest sense of the meaning of doctor.

Real doctors care about treating and curing their patients' illnesses.  Real doctors accept that people can make their own health and lifestyle choices, for better or worse.  Real doctors will diagnose your illnesses and advise you how to be healthier, and then leave it to you to decide.  Real doctors do not waste time lobbying government.  Real doctors do not want to spend taxpayer money on lobbying government.  They want to spend that money on you.

Activist doctors don't want to treat you.  Activist doctors do not want to cure your diseases.  Activist doctors despise you and your lifestyle.  Activist doctors are lazy, technocratic busybody cunts, who are weary of seeing patients because they would rather be playing golf or having tea at the Ritz with the likes of smokerphobes such as Simon Chapman and their buddies at Big Pharma.  Activist doctors are not real doctors.  Some of them have never seen a patient.  Some have spent their entire careers as "educators" and professors, so that they can brainwash each generation of students into believing that doctors shouldn't have to treat people that they don't like.  Activist doctors have no morals -- they will lie to further their agendas of hate.  They will use your money to lie to you.  Do not trust these people. They are evil motherfuckers, all of them..

One last point.  Healthcare should not be reduced to how much it costs to treat one group of people over the other.  Anyone who does this is an awful, hateful asshole.  Period.  The NHS needs to treat all people equally, regardless of their lifestyle choices.  Now we could and should make an argument that maybe the NHS is trying to do too much -- perhaps it needs to lay off on IVF treatments and other things that it was never designed to do, let alone cope with.  But to not treat people who are ill -- that's just evil.

Really fucking evil.

Britain's On-Line Surveillance State

According to this Telegraph readers' poll, at the time of this writing 92.79% of readers do not want the government to monitor their Internet and e-mail activity.

What this ultimately means is that the government will go forward nevertheless with their proposals to intrude on our private lives.  Because, you know, if the public doesn't want it (like the smoking ban), then the government just does what it wants anyway.  Like the honey badger, government just takes what it wants:

Smoke Drift Petition Down Under

Know thy enemy.

It's interesting what you can learn from trawling the hateful bastards' sites.  For instance, on the ASH Australia Facebook page, a woman utterly duped-by-the-fASHists cries out for help attention (note, see UPDATE at the end of this post):

"Any guidance on who is lobbying (Vic) Government for smoke free housing laws - we have neighbours (2 adults) smoking immediately over the fence which fills our home with smoke drift. Have sent them a letter by registered post, they are still smoking, we fear this smoke is affecting our health and our children's - is there anything more we can do ?"

Yes, Melissa.  In order to completely protect yourself from those dangerous toxins in the air, you will first need to block all automobile traffic from your community.  You also need to turn off your BBQ, your oven, your home heating and air-conditioning, and just to be safe, buy some of these lovely bubbles and put those little tykes in them.  Oh, and send as many registered letters as you like, because your neighbours really don't give a fuck about you believing in that second-hand smoke kills myth.  I'm sorry, what?  You started a petition, too?  Well, let's have a look then.

The Petition:

Right to breathe fresh air free from neighbours (sic) second hand smoke" by loveurlungs (is this you Melissa? Did you write this?)

"We all have a right to breathe clean air but families and children throughout Australia currently dont (sic) have this right..."

OK, Melissa, I don't know if you wrote that petition, but if you did here is a Pro Tip:  Learn to fucking punctuate.  See all of those buttons on your keyboard with the fancy characters and symbols just there beneath your fingers... yeah, right there.  Fucking use them.   So anyway, if "we all have a right" but "...Australia currently don't have this right" (ed. note: I fixed that for you) then how can "we all" possibly be correct?  Which is it?  All or everyone but Australians?  You're not making sense, darlin'.  If you want more than the 4 signatures you've got, you need to be at least semi-literate. 

 "Second hand cigarette smoke from neighbours is impacting on the health of families and children in many ways. With urbanisation we are all living closer together with only walls, fences or small yard spaces that separate us."

Is smoke drift or even second-hand smoke impacting your health?  Truly?  It's never been proven.  It's a lie created by people who are incredibly hateful and intolerant. And you believed them.  Let me guess, right now your children are coughing their lungs out because of that smoke drift.  They are crying themselves to sleep because your evil neighbours are killing them with each whiff of smoke drift. Because of this your kids will never go to college!  Oh, noes, Melissa!  Their precious, little lives are ruined by smokers! The horror!

You know, I can't even bother with the rest of the petition.  It's ludicrous.  You are ludicrous, Melissa.  But for now the Aussie government is more or less on your side.  Once they lose that general election in 2013, and that evil slag Nicola Roxon goes away, they won't be so much on your side any more.  Or maybe they will, because here in the UK we thought the Tories would help us.  They didn't.  The Tories are just making it worse.

So, good luck to you, Melissa.  I hope you live forever.

Yours truly,
Jay

UPDATE:   The comments noted above on ASH Australia's Facebook page have since been removed.  I don't know why yet, I've only just noticed it.  I sincerely hope that no one tried to contact her directly, because if you did then that is not cool and I do not condone it at all.  We can and should challenge people's public comments in public forums, where everyone has a chance to argue their side.  Perhaps she deleted her own comments after seeing this blog...?  Who knows?  If I find out why, I'll let you know.

UPDATE 2:  It seems the "LoveURlungs" has a brand new Facebook page.  Woo-hoo!  Someone ought to explain to LoveURlungs that this image makes absolutely no sense.

What is Freedom?

Freedom is sure the hell NOT this!

"The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism..."

Bullshit.  It's about control.  It's about controlling every aspect of your life, keeping you down, preventing you from speaking freely.

"'It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public,' a spokesman said."

Whom, exactly, are you protecting?  You aren't protecting the public, you are protecting yourselves.  Because you know that the public is really fucking tired of your shit.  Their anger is building, slowly, steadily, a wave of discontent that will crash upon the gates of Parliament.  You know it's coming, so what do you do?

You propose this.  You intrude into our lives under false pretenses of protecting the public.  Liars.

Fuck you, David Cameron and your coalition government. 

We need to stop them.

Sunday Silliness

April Fools