« France now. China next? | Main | Saturday Bright »

September 26, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Johnny Boy

Paul,

You think E harmless but smoking a sureity as a death certificate. Madame Jean Claument, oldest person that's ever lived, was a smoker. A non-smoking mate was riddled with cancer and died at 23. I've just spent 5 days on E in Ibiza, great fun, but I've spent 5 days with side-effects (dizziness, neusea, vivid dreams) yet the 50-60 fags I smoked (up from 36 a day) while partying has no side-effect whatsoever.

Grass makes me paranoid. Legal E's (herbal highs) also make me paranoid. Smoking makes me cough, occasionally. Passive smoking has no health issues either short or long term.

Your judgement is so flawed and so scewed you should have gone to Specsavers to get a clear view of the chip on your shoulder.

You butt into banning people from under private roofs even when all adults consent to such behaviour but think another activity should be freed. Frankly all Govt bans are acts of futility no matter what the issue (smoking, speeding, drugs, murder). They don't work, they don't deter, they don't change anything for positive, they just define a legal line for prosecution.

Why don't you just grow up?

patrick

Frank
So much for "educational measures."

Trying to educate addicts with pictures they choose not to see is a bit like trying to extract urine from a wooden horse.
The point is Frank that in a civilized society it's a good idea to point out the dangers even if self harmers choose to disregard them.

Frank Davis

The link above doesn't work. The right one is:

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=23460

Meanwhile the BBC asked "Will graphic images on cigarette packets work?" Resounding No from the many respondents, and the comments were closed within 24 hours.

http://tinyurl.com/45w2l9

"vote out this bunch of evil fascists" wrote one. "the campaign against smoking is obsessional and devoid of credibility," wrote another. "public health fascism." said another. So much for "educational measures."

Frank Davis

http://www.freedom2choose.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=359&start=750

Government-imposed smoking bans have been spreading across the United States and around the world in the past two decades... Most news accounts regarding smoking ban proposals make it seem as though this phenomenon is fresh, new, and progressive, and that once passed, smoking bans are likely to remain on the books and be enforced forever. However, history shows the reality is quite different.

Many smoking bans have been adopted in the past, often for reasons that appear ridiculous in hindsight, and they were repealed when cooler heads prevailed.

Huw O'Sullivan

Frank, is it that you are incapable of grasping that tobacco is at one and the same time, severely damaging to health. particularly to the people who choose to smoke it but also to others who they might inflict their smoke upon and is also to anyone who does not smoke an incredibly unpleasant smell.
Neither makes it attractive, both make it something to avoid.
Really Frank it is time you address your addiction although judging by the nature of your self serving spurious arguments and your desire to place all blame on everyone and everything except you and your habits, I personally believe you have more than one.
It is also a classic symptom for you to take your behaviour and assign it to others.

You are not forbidden from smoking, you are merely prohibited from doing so in public places, there are many other things that you would also be prohibited from doing in such circumstances, most of which are healthier for yourself and everyone else than smoking.

Frank Davis

"For myself I have not reached that stage and smoke anywhere that it is legal to do so, other than in my own home, as I have friends who are not smokers who would otherwise find visiting damned unpleasant and who knows might perhaps be concerned by the effect it could have on their own health." - Huw O'Sullivan

Are you another self-hating smoker like Paul Flynn? If so, you can look forward to sharing his Damascus road experience, when he learned to stop hating himself, and to start hating other smokers instead. It must be a most liberating experience, to shift blame from one's own shoulders onto those of others. All the more so, if you can become an MP and pursue your vendetta with the full force of the law behind you.

And which is it? Do your friends worry for their health when they catch a whiff of tobacco smoke, or is it that they just don't like the "stink"? If the latter - and from the way you put it, it sounds like it's the latter -, what else might they not like, and also refuse to tolerate any longer? The smell of frying bacon? Or boiling cabbage? Or cheap perfume? Why not have your friends make up a list of all the various odours they don't like, for you to dutifully excise from your life? Perhaps they could also advise you on which TV programmes you may watch, and what clothes you may wear, and what political opinions you may espouse? The sky's the limit. Your friends could run your entire life for you. Perhaps they already do.

Frank Davis

"I was filled with self-loathing because I was enslaved by a poisonous weed." - Paul Flynn

And now you poisonously project that self-loathing onto all other smokers, who you see as lacking your virtuous self-control, and are beneath contempt for it.

"Forest, aka Bring the stink back to Pubs" - Paul Flynn

There it is again. "Stink." It simply goes to show that you simply don't like the smell of tobacco smoke, and wish to impose (nay, already have succeeded in imposing) your personal preference on everybody else.

"Public opinion is increasingly turning against them."

According to organisations like ASH, there already was a very powerful antismoking public opinion. So how could it get any stronger?

"More measures are on the way to make the dangers of smoking better understood."

I'm sure there are. But pictures of diseased non-smokers' lungs on cigarette packets won't make the dangers of smoking any 'better understood' than they are now.

Frank Davis

"All I can do is reassure Paul that not all smokers are as irrational and incapable of taking on board the difference between a ban on smoking in public places and outright prohibition."

What is the practical difference between prohibiting the sale and transportation of some drug (alcohol, tobacco, ecstacy, whatever) and prohibiting its consumption? The net effect is exactly the same.

The advance of smoking bans is a form of creeping prohibition, in which the consumption of tobacco is progressively banned in one location after another. The extension of smoking bans to all indoor public areas represented a vast step in this process. Moves are now afoot to extend that to outdoor public areas and private cars. Smokers will be restricted to smoking in their own homes. And then there have been suggestions that they should be prohibited from smoking in their own homes if there are children present, or if there are visitors to their homes on any sort of business (e.g. doing repairs). At that point it will still be perfectly legal to buy cigarettes. It just won't be legal to smoke them.

It is a plain and simple deceit to pretend that such a process does not amount to prohibition, because it will remain legal to buy tobacco, and so "isn't the same as US prohibition". In the USA prohibition simply worked the other way round: it was illegal to sell alcohol, but legal to consume it. Here it is legal to sell tobacco, but increasingly illegal to consume it.

Paul Flynn is a tobacco prohibitionist. He simply hides behind a very narrow definition of "prohibition" as being the US 1930s prohibition of the transportation and sale of tobacco, and not the prohibition of the consumption of tobacco.

If he were to do the same with ecstacy, it would be perfectly legal to buy and possess ecstacy, but illegal to consume it. People would be able to walk around with suitcases full of ecstacy, but would be busted the moment they were found popping a single tablet into their mouths. But he would say that this wasn't prohibition, because it remained perfectly legal to buy it.

Paul Flynn

Patrick I think the Landlords assocation F2C (aka Friends of Forest, aka Bring the stink back to Pubs) are deluding themselves again. Public opinion is increasingly turning against them. More measures are on the way to make the dangers of smoking better understood.

Paul Flynn

Thanks Huw, it's good to get the vew of an intelligent smoker. I smoked for about 15 years. I was certainly addicted and found it very difficult to give up. I was filled with self-loathing because I was enslaved by a poisonous weed.

Perhaps I would have welcomed having someone else to blame as Frank does. Much easier to blame the Government (it was a free vote by a large majority of MPs) that to blame tobacco and o blame yourself.

patrick

Frank

Have you had a look at the new fag packets?

The photographs are of self harmers that have inflicted this damage to themselves.
You are at liberty to continue to poison yourself away from enclosed places.If you had any respect for others that do not wish to inhale your stinking toxins then this debate would not be happening.

Huw O'Sullivan

All I can do is reassure Paul that not all smokers are as irrational and incapable of taking on board the difference between a ban on smoking in public places and outright prohibition.
Some smokers are actually quite intelligent and able to distinguish between discomfort caused by an addiction to a cocktail of poisons that is officially discouraged and discrimination against people for what or who they happen to be.
As his addiction is ruining so much of his life perhaps Frank should give some serious thought to taking up the government's help in quitting.
For myself I have not reached that stage and smoke anywhere that it is legal to do so, other than in my own home, as I have friends who are not smokers who would otherwise find visiting damned unpleasant and who knows might perhaps be concerned by the effect it could have on their own health.

In terms of currently classified drugs, keep on chipping away Paul, someday hopefully people will grasp the facts of these matters as opposed to the false hysteria whipped up by those who appeal to the ignorance of those who are "concerned" but unwilling to deal with the concept of changing the policies that not only do not work, but create far worse problems than they are supposedly there to prevent.

Paul Flynn

Prohibition means making the use of a substance illegal in common parlance. The main example is alcohol for 13 years in the USA. It did not work in the same way that prohibition here in 1971 of a few drugs does not work.

The smoking ban is not prohibition.

Frank Davis

"Of course I would oppse prohibition of tobacco."

You have, as an MP, voted for the prohibition of smoking in public places, and most notably in pubs. That is a form of prohibition. When smoking is prohibited in the open air, and in private cars, as some people are advocating, it will amount to a total prohibition on smoking anywhere, except in one's own home. And then the prohibition will be extended there too, if there are children present, visitors, etc.

I get it perfectly well. You won't prohibit tobacco. You'll just prohibit smoking.

"I have just been to a rugby club dinner in my constituency. Everyone respected the ban."

It's not "respect". It's against the law.

"The air was sweet smelling."

That is the whole point for you, isn't it? Nothing to do with health. You just don't like the smell of tobacco smoke. (Except that tobacco smoke actually DOES have a sweet smell, much as cannabis does.)

"A good time was had by all smokers and non-smokers."

How do you know? Did you go round and ask them all? And how did you know who was a smoker and a non-smoker if none of them was smoking?

"The ban is here to stay."

Are you quite sure? Among your many impressive abilities, is an ability to foresee the future yet another? Would you care to say the same about any other law that has been enacted in Parliament? That they will never be repealed or amended either?

This is a law that is deeply hated by many smokers (and by quite a few non-smokers as well). It's one that has destroyed many of their social lives (e.g. mine). It's a law that has divided communities. It's a law that has set family and friends against each other. It is a law which marginalises and persecutes smokers. Any sensible and even-handed legislator, who was interested in the whole of the community rather than his preferred part (non-smokers), would seek to accommodate as many people as possible.

I look forward to the day when such even-handed legislators again grace our parliament, and amend or relax this ban, as they will. But it certainly won't be while this bastard Labour government remains in power.

Paul Flynn

Frank Davis, you still don't get it.
Of course I would oppse prohibition of tobacco. the addict would get their supplies from an illegal market. Cities would be divided up into areas that would create turf wars. Crime would multiply several fold.
The smoking ban is not prohibition.
I have just been to a rugby club dinner in my constituency. Everyone respected the ban. The air was sweet smelling. A good time was had by all smokers and non-smokers. The ban is here to stay.

Frank Davis

"This is the wrong debate. It should on the abject failure of prohibition since it was introduced in the UK in 1971. Previously addicts had their heroin from the NHS. There were few deaths, no drug crime no empire of criminals exploiting addicts. About half the callers to the programme understood the problem. That’s quite an improvement."

Look who's talking! An MP who voted to prohibit smoking in our pubs.

This is the wrong debate. It should be on the abject failure of prohibition since it was introduced in the UK in 2007. Previously smokers could smoke in their pubs. There were no deaths, no division, and no empire of snoopers persecuting them. Anyone who loved the old pubs knew this. That's quite an improvement, to have destroyed a cultural institution, and marginalised and 'denormalised' a quarter of the population.

The comments to this entry are closed.