Midnight tonight Wales ceases to be a free country

[Guest]

We are just going out to dinner where all smoking restrictions have been suspended by the restaurant proprietors who are livid and worried about their business. At least 50% of the regulars smoke. My girlfriend and others will be wearing furs, and any anti fur or anti smoking person just better stay shtum or they will get a gobful.

 

At midnight tonight the smoke police start their rounds. Can you beleive all the social problems and crime in Wales but the government can find resources to police this nonsense?

 

It is a profound intrusion into personal Liberty. It won't last and will be bitterly fought here. We are not california. We fought a war against this kind of crap. Foxhunting is illegal and three hundred Hunts still defy the ban. Somehow we will get arond this and start a libertarian movement devoted to the overthrow of state intrusion into personal freedom. If it doesn't happen you can kiss goodbye to fur to within a few years.

 

Get the Spitfires ready. The Fascists will face their nemesis shortly.

 

We may be small in number but if just 300 want to stay free men then the

fight is winnable.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Guest

[LordTheNightKnight]

Yes, not smoking=no common law rights. And are you still sticking with that lie that Nazis banned smoking?

 

EDIT: Unless this is an April Fools joke, in which case, I don't care.

[wallee]

There are places in Canada that have outlawed all smoking inside public buildings, including prisons.

 

People did not die in revolts and the country continues to function.

[Guest]

Yes, not smoking=no common law rights. And are you still sticking with that lie that Nazis banned smoking?

 

EDIT: Unless this is an April Fools joke, in which case, I don't care.

 

 

A lie that the nazis banned smoking? If you need it drawn out for you:

 

http://www.forces.org/articles/art-fcan/nazi2.htm

 

And if you think that is pro smoking propaganda I have this from a medical paper:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450

 

Worth remebering if you actually read that that medical science actually BACKED the nazis and used all sorts of dodgy science to prove racial superiority too. What the hell happened to all those doctors and scientists after the war? Oh yeah they went to california.

 

A good little article:

http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html

 

 

Again the message form the UK's top lecturer in history at Oxford University:

http://www.editrixoffice.com/sport_hitler.htm

 

The frightening thing people do not realise was summarised tonight by a cab driver.

"This is my cab until tomorrow. Then the government take it over"

 

Anyway Lord....so what is this about smoking bans in nazi germany being a lie? Where is YOUR evidence for that?

 

Anyway the good thing is now on tonights news the Welsh Assembly Labour party is quaking. They expect a backlash in the elections especially in the light of revelation that in Scotland a THIRD of the Scottish workforce in the pub and restaurant trade have been laid off; pouring scorn on the way that the government have lied re the statistics.

The Labour spokesman defendd doing it before the election because it will save thousands of lives rather than delaying the ban for a few months. What UTTER crap. Where is the evidence for such an absurd claim?

 

As I said this is Britain. We will NOT accept it....and beware the MP who backs it for his political career will be short.

Hitler described us as a nation of shopkeepers which meant he saw us as being against central government visions and more for our own . He saw the Englishman as a pipe smoking unhealthy foxhunting man and Germans as more enlightened and healthy. And THAT is what we fought the war in 1939 about. So we are not having it.

[Guest]

ps Wallee love the "this is Sparta" emoticon!

 

Nobody has died in revolts in britain yet with the hunting ban we just get around it and it will be overturned democtartically. The goverenment and polic do not have the resources to police it. We have a terrible habit in Britain of not liking it when we are told what to do.

 

Perhaps you can explain to these folks who never smoked why their drugs have ben withdrwan while the government spend millions on propaganda and smoke police:

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1259389.mostviewed.cancer_sufferers_back_drug_petition.php

 

So if it isn't really about saving lives then what is it about?

[LordTheNightKnight]

This is from that link you posted.

 

"Yesterday as it is today: since science cannot prove the real dangers"

 

how has it not proven? This article simply slaps loosely related historical facts to draw a false conclusion, and fills the holes with outright lies. That's the techniques the Nazis used.

 

You have lost all credibility here. You sound like those nuts posting about the dangers to the white race.

[wallee]

Lord, debate and even low level arguements WILL be tolerated.

 

Attacks and or name calling WILL NOT.

 

If you dislike what ToS has to say that strongly don't read his posts and don't respond to them.

[Guest]

This is from that link you posted.

 

"Yesterday as it is today: since science cannot prove the real dangers"

 

how has it not proven? This article simply slaps loosely related historical facts to draw a false conclusion, and fills the holes with outright lies. That's the techniques the Nazis used.

 

You have lost all credibility here. You sound like those nuts posting about the dangers to the white race.

 

the absolute opposite lordthenightnight.

 

I am a bullshit detector here. I understand academic discipline you clearly have some misunderstanding of it. I have an honours degree in it. Science is ONE way of looking at an issue. It is focussed on proving and testing a hypothesis. As soon as it draws a conclusion you must use other disciplines to analyse it. For example; a scientist finding Miss scarlett in the room with the dagger and dead body assumes that she is the muderer. Especially when he has been paid a huge some of money to conclude that. A classic real life example is the testing of blood spatter pattern by a forensics team "pointed" in that direction when actually the murder victim was strangled. Science is a notorious one track discipline and its why until recently nurses in the UK used to have too have history as an o level at least.

 

So while the scientist tests if two and two CAN make four he sometimes ignores other factors.

 

The detective trained mind of the historian will say:

"Who else was in the room? Maybe there was another involved; maybe the dagger was not the instrument taht caused death, maybe she was set up...and look ate EVERY other possibility. The scientist does not. Hence his results are often only partially correct or circumstantial. Nazi scientists and doctors (the finest scientific minds in the world at the time) "PROVED" racial superiority of the Aryan race. Of course their findings were utter crap as jesse owens demonstrated and the scientists had to backtrack.

 

In the case of smoking; BILLIONS of dollars of research has come up with zero evidence. yet aanobody questions them. The fact that socail class and thnicity seems to be a far larger factor; the fact that in statistics everyone who ever had a couple of cigarettes is classed as a smoker; the fact that chemicals found in smoke are found in far higher carcinogenic quantities in other houshold goods and foods (turps and burning candles for example); geographical location climate race and social class differentials, and teh massively underated imapct of virus and bacteia in cancers (as now PROVEN to cause almost exclusively cervical and stomach cancers) etc means the results do NOT stand up to close inspection. Miss Scarlett may have been involved in the murder; but there is reasonable doubt...it is NOT proven and there are other suspects being ignored.

 

ONLY laboaratory repeatable experiments can actually prove a link and so far this has NOT happened. Make a rat or beagle smoke and it does NOT get cancer automatically therefore two and two does NOT make four.

 

The law of reasonable doubt appears to be out of the window and if normal scientists operated like that they would be ridiculed. Billions of dollars invested to prove the link huh? FOLLOW THE MONEY.

 

Anyway about this lie of a Nazi smoking ban. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? While you are about it maybe you can come up with ONE shred of correct scientific proof that smoking causes cancer. I am NOT saying it doesn't; but that other factors appear to be far more important.

 

Provide evidence as I have done on both counts. And DON'T post any scientific research that isn't based on statistics which do not take into account all variables. You will be stuck because NONE of it does until very recent research that will blow the lid off everything you believe when it is published.

You are the one who has believed propaganda not I.

Anyway...your evidence please that the Nazis did not ban smoking in public.

 

I cannot believe modern society puts so much faith in quacks. Did Conan Doyle and Basil Rathbone's Holmes mean nothing to you? It's elementary DOCTOR Watson.....

[Guest]

Sticks and stones wallee. Water off a ducks back. Thanks anyway.

 

I need that Sparta emoticon.

[LordTheNightKnight]

Lord, debate and even low level arguements WILL be tolerated.

 

Attacks and or name calling WILL NOT.

 

If you dislike what ToS has to say that strongly don't read his posts and don't respond to them.

 

I said he sounds LIKE those nuts. And there IS a difference.

 

And it doesn't matter what is typed here about him. He doesn't admit things he typed before, when we call him out on them. So why would he care if he's called names? He seems (repeat, seems) to be convinced any law he doesn't like is fascism (in that have you seen him post about a law or movement he doesn't agree with and NOT treat it like his civil rights are being violated).

[Guest]

Fascism has a simple definition. It is the idea that the State controls the engineering of society and the destiny morality and health etc of the individual; this can be achieved by brutal methods but not necessarily. All is the vision of greater health prosperity of the nation by subjegation of individual will to the state. Some fascist....like Franco...were able to surpress many things like pornography and homosexuality without recourse to thuggery just through law enforcement.

 

There was no plan to exterminate Jews in Nazi germany until economic presure brought on by war was forced the final solution. We have concentration camps in the UK at the moment for immigrants and they are being treated appallingly. See the movie "Children of Men" if you want to see where that could lead.

The UK have police acting as death squads now they have got away with the murder of that brazilian and the newspapers and magazines seldom provide an oppportunity for criticism of the state.

 

You need to research how legally the fascists state emerged to allow them to do what they wantd to and it is almst a perfect mirror for Blair's britain.

 

The way in which the cooking of lobsters were banned in the interest of "public morality" has a clear parallel with the banning of fur farming.

 

Then foxhunting and smoking bans were passed in exactly the same way with exactly the same mickey mouse science.

 

It is the principle that the state has the right to interfere and engineer society to their moulding that is Pure Fascism. Since it works with big business it is clearly distinct from normal socialism; though like the Nazis is against small private enterprise as potentially weak and exploitative of workers so buries them under a mountain of legislation only large businesses can afford to impliment. Just like in Nazi germany large corporations have thrived.

 

There are racist elements too particularly against Islam, and the expression of their cultural identity in the workplace.

 

The smoking ban has been launched the same day as free prescriptions to link with a clear propaganda message; the same type of tactics the nazis used.

Okay o far it has fallen short of forbidding women under 25 to smoke and arresting preganant women for smoking but give them time.

 

Oh and yes of course the Nazis invaded other countries. We aren't doing that are we?

 

The use of lobby groups like animal rights organisations (some of which fund the labour party) has a direct parallel as historian Mark Almond suggests with the brownshirts. Like the Nazis Blair had a night of the long knives shwen he sold them out after their thuggery had served its intimidatory purpose and he sold them out on vivisection.

 

Now this is not just me saying this its many historians and social analysts that are drawing alarming parallels between the two regimes. And these are mainstram academics who are concerned.

 

When you have Gordon Brown now talking about a "New World Order" it should set alarm bells ringing.

 

Despite the press propaganda (not a word of criticsm in the welsh press today...the Govrnemnt ar huge advertisers) there is real concern and everyone ...even non smokers..are worried. There is only one topic of converstaion today and there is real concern.

The fact that EVERYONE with a works car has to display signs in their cars saying smoking prohibited or face massive fines (

[FrBrGr]

I don't have the time nor the patience to write a tome here, a la my good friend and fellow Libertarian (with a capital L - !) ToS. Suffice it to say that somewhere, sometime - someone (or a group - or body - of someones) has to put an end to the madness. First, cigarettes. (Just wait until the smoke police start dragging people from their homes!) And many would oulaw fur. Now, in the US, there's talk of outlawing calorie-laden, fatty foods that are commonly bought in fast-food restaurants. And (let's please not forget this!) the falacy-laden arguments of certain special interest groups and their legions of the unthinking and uninformed about "global warming." The Al Gores of the world (in their 30 room mansions and $32,000/year electricity bills) and the John Travoltas of the world (with their five jet planes) want us to curtail everything from driving our cars to using lights in our homes.

 

People over here in the colonies got pissed off about something as simple (yet symbolic) as the taxes on tea and threw it all (the tea) in the harbor. There are many of us over here in the modern age who have had just about enough, too. More than one thing can cause revolution . . .

 

[FurLoverinFL]

This is one topic where it simply doesn't matter what you say, ToS... when I can go to a club and see a band, then get home and do not have to stip naked in my garage and run to my nearest shower to wash off the smell from cigarettes, I'm in heaven.

 

Bars and casinos in New York, New Jersey and even here in Florida have cried that their business would be ruined if smoking was banned. Guess what, nothing happened...

 

FLinFL

[wallee]

This is one topic where it simply doesn't matter what you say, ToS... when I can go to a club and see a band, then get home and do not have to stip naked in my garage and run to my nearest shower to wash off the smell from cigarettes, I'm in heaven.

 

Bars and casinos in New York, New Jersey and even here in Florida have cried that their business would be ruined if smoking was banned. Guess what, nothing happened...

 

FLinFL

 

Same thing happened around here when they banned smoking in bars and theaters.

Everyone screamed they would go out of business. None did. People adapt. All the non smokers go out to drink and the smokers stay home.

 

Doesn't necassarily mean I'm in comlete agreement. They are now trying to ban smoking in cars with kids in them and even in your own home if you have kids.

[FrBrGr]

That's not the point, FL - The point is that the freedom to smoke was arbitrarily taken away by a governing body. And don't tell me, "But there are those of us who don't smoke, who don't appreciate . . . " I don't smoke either, and I could give a rat's ass about those of you who don't smoke who don't like the smell, or whatever reason you have on Tuesday. If I objected so much about the smell or if I paid attention to the spotty arguments about "second-hand" smoke, I just wouldn't go places where people smoked. I do, though - or did, and would still do it if someone hadn't removed the option for me!

 

So a message to all who are reveling in the fact that smoking is being systematically banned from just about everywhere (a smoker can't even go to a Pittsburgh Pirates baseball game and light up in the stadium anymore - and that's outdoors!) just remember this - It's that same mentality that will systematically remove your other freedoms, too. All it takes is people in power who want things their way - even if it's the wrong way - and you can conceivably kiss any freedom you have good-bye! Smoking is only the tip of the iceberg. Like we used to say down south - "You ain't seen nuthin' yet!"

 

[Guest]

Wellsiad Frbrgr thankyou for saying exactly what I am trying to warn people of. The UK is not America, and the way in which this governemnt have ignored and treated our constitution without respect is dangerous: we have no written rights like you except what is established in precedent. Now there is a precedent for a government to do ANYTHING in the interests of "public morality" and ignore the House of Lords by reading the parliament Act which was only supposed to be used in times of war and national emergency. Already if there was a vote in the Commons the retailing and import oof furs would be banned. The only thing stopping them is the Fashion business...they are already applying pressure on the likes of Gucci so that such a law would go smoothly without them looking bad. Simply if they can use their power to get the large fashion houses to drop fur from collections then they will ban it. The ONLY thing stopping them doing this is fear of the attack on the fashion industry will backfire. To get the fascist bastards out through the ballot box is the only way of stopping them.

 

And THAT starts not in 5 years time when they decide to ban fur but NOW on the smoking issue; through legal challenges to the hunting ban and through civil rightsgroups objections to the removal of the right of cultural and religious identity in the workplace etc.

 

As I have said before furlovin' , when they come knocking at your door don't tell you I didn't warn you. Because UNLESS the Libertarian movement establishes itself to tie down the democrats from growing the tentacles of the state in th US it will happen there too. I am hopful; already it has forced some democrats to drop their opposition to hunting and gun laws.

 

So you don't care because you can go to a gig and your clothes not smell of smoke. Fine. Don't expect the smokers to rally to your defence when they come knocking at your door for you and your furs.

Because they will come.

Its like that german poet who wrote about when they came for the trade unionists I did not complain for I was not a trade unionist, when they came for the jews etc tc.

 

I am a member of a smoking forum with thousands of members and some have put aside their objections to fur and see the libertarian argument as the best method of defence for all of us against the growing octopus of the state with its tentacles strangling us. IF all of us unite....gun boys, Hunters, ethnic communities, fur wearers and fashion designers, aboriginal rights groups and businesses who are fed up of absurd employee legislation and health and safety crap, then we can work together to get some sanity back to this world.

 

Every single foxhunter and smoker in the UK has now been criminalised. 17 million people. As I said before the battleground will be the UK because we waill NOT accept it. 2 million people continue to Hunt in dfince of the Law. Smokers will find a way to defy the smoke police too. Because if we do then what do they do with 17 million criminals?

[FrBrGr]

And lest ye forget, good citizens . . . A government that is big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away - !

[wallee]

Lord, debate and even low level arguements WILL be tolerated.

 

Attacks and or name calling WILL NOT.

 

If you dislike what ToS has to say that strongly don't read his posts and don't respond to them.

 

I said he sounds LIKE those nuts. And there IS a difference.

 

Not really. Intent makes the difference. Don't let it get personal, it's a discussion not an arguement.

[Guest]

I don't mind the name calling as that is clearly desperate. Everyone here knows I am passionate about Liberty. I certainly have NO desire to have control over anyone else or stop them doing what they want so Lord's comments are without foundation.

 

However he called me a liar by my assertion that the Nazis banned smoking. I have now supplied evidence of what they did from a number of sources and my claim is fully supported. My spcialist Honours year was spent studying Nazi culture so I know what I am talking about. I would therefore for the record like him to withdraw that remark and as he has failed miserably to provide evidence for the claim that I told lies then it is clear that there is only one person here who has stated an untruth. What I want to know is how and why he would say or believe that what I was saying was a lie..

 

Just lack of knowledge or something he hasn't stated yet. You have the floor Lord.

 

Feel free to explain the science of smoking being bad for you too but make sure you don't go for the she is a witch therefore she is made of wood therefore she will float kind of science as I will tear it apart.

 

Medical Science has always worked this way. From the Spanish Inquisition use of medical science (at the height of enlightened new Renaissance Science) to the absurdity of phrenology to the claims of 50% of the medical profession who backed the Nazis racial superiority claims.

 

There is no solid evidence that smoking causes cancer whatsoever; it is all circumstantial . And the passive smoking argment hasn't even got that. Ther is NO evidence whatsoever that bar staff in pubs clubs and restaurants for example are at any higher risk of lung cancer than anyone else. NONE. So what is going on that we keep getting bombardd ith this lie?

 

It is a mere justification of state interference with personal liberty. A control issue. And also a desperate attempt to back the ideology of Preventativ measures before cure in all aspects of society; an ideology that has always been used to prop up fascist regimes and justify their actions. This one is just disguised that is all.

 

Well I guarantee you this my friends. Wales wasn't the first country to introduce a smoking ban but it will be the first to repeal it; and as the new evidence of corruption, alternative pharmacutical interests, false science and real scientific evidence that viruses and bacteria are the prime culprits emerge then the whole anti smoking movement will fall apart (70% of lung cancer patients have suffered recently from severe adeno viruses) I just hope that happens sooner rather than later before the state has us all plugged into the hive.

 

We will repeal The Hunting ban and the smoking ban and hopefully the socialist controlling scum will be consigned to history:

 

http://www.atlasgeo.net/fotw/images/g/gb}fca.gif COPY AND PASTE

 

And that my friends will include the freedom to wear fur.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Guest

[Guest]

I find it appaling that a five year old [me] had to harrass, taUnt and ridiclule his parents to humiliiation to get them to stop smoking around me and set up our house so I could have a safe haven from the awful smoking crap that made my eyes water and caused me to have a constant cough.

 

I would snatch the cig from their mouths or from the ashtray where they put it down and toss it in the toilet. Roll down the windows when we went on trips in the dead of winter. Scream in the midst of a conversation in public untill they put out their smokes if I had to be with them.

 

Mind you, I was in every other respect a model, well behaved child that many of my parents friends complimented them on how well I was raised. It was just on this one issue that I was totally out of control.

 

Other family members and friends would deliberately blow smoke in my face just to taunt me and these were otherwise fine and wonderful people whom I love(d) dearly.

 

It's not like they didn't understant since my mother quit smoking while she was pregnant with me for fear of birth defects. This was 1936!!!

 

They finally relented and set up the house so I could have a smoke free space for myself.

 

The unfortunate aspect at the time was there was no where else to go smoke free. It wasn't until I was well into school that they banned smoking in theaters. It was everywhere

 

When a smoker has a smoke in their hand all civility and considerations for others vanish from ther consciosness and they become the most inconsiderate and uncaring persons imaginable.

 

I'm sorry folks if you think the smoking bans are evil, unconstitutional, precursor to a Nazi state or whatever excuse you want to come up with but YOU BROUGHT IT ON YORUSELF FOR BEING SO DAMN INCONSIDERATE OF NON-SMOKERS

 

I'm totally deaf to your excuses and whining loss of your so-called right to smoke wherever you damn well please. Smokers were never considerate nor were they ever willing to compromise on not smoking around those who don't nor want smoke around them.

 

YOU BROUGHT IT ON YOURSELVES FOR YOUR TOLLAY INCONSIDERATE BEHAVIOR

 

OFF

[Worker 11811]

...the way in which this governemnt have ignored and treated our constitution without respect is dangerous: we have no written rights like you except what is established in precedent. Now there is a precedent for a government to do ANYTHING in the interests of "public morality" and ignore the House of Lords...

 

That kind of crap has been going on in England for hundreds of years. That is why we left.

 

[Guest]

Sadly OFF I am sorry to hear about your rough experience but find it amazing you didn't end up with a smoking fetish having women blowing smoke in your face at that age!

 

Anyway that is similar to the argument used by the public to excuse them from defending Unioinsts homosexuals and jews; all accused of corruption inconsiderate and parasitic and debauched behaviour: "They brought it on themselves" cropps up all the time in writings in newspapers of the priod.

 

 

Quote:

It's not like they didn't understand since my mother quit smoking while she was pregnant with me for fear of birth defects. This was 1936!!!

 

End quote.

 

yes ; the height of the Nazi fuelled medical propaganda hysteria (not lost on th rest of th world especially US doctors) of master race health contamination of the unborn . Pregnant women were imprisoned for smoking and that will happen soon here too.

 

And then evntually they will knock on your door bcause they will say that the way we allod the Chinese Or canadian seal hunters to butcher animals for fur "we brought it on ourselves" through our sefishness.

[Guest]

ToS;

 

That's exactly what I mean by the arrogance and insensitivty of a smoker ant their total inconsiderate behavior toward non-smokers.

 

The political possition of arrogance is "I am right and you are wrong" without mediation or compromise.

 

This is why ordinances like these become necessary for the well being of those that don't.

 

The arrogant don't realize their arrogance.

 

Your political arguments are broadly specious on this subject.

 

 

 

OFF

[Guest]

They are based on mutual respect. Yes the non smoker needs their space too but don't spend millons on making up mickey mouse science to justify the fact that you don't like the smell and don't get so much sexual attention (smokers are far more likely to pull than non smokers in all tests).

 

Because when the focus of attention has been on prevention and virolisgists not funded we betray patients ...especially non smokers with lung cancer which is a fraction off 50% of them.

Don't belive me?

Explain why medical science denied the existence of helicobactor pylori; respsonsible for 70% of stomach ulcers and cancers for over 100 years?

They blamed lifestyle, smoking coffee stress even Indian food (based purely out of nazi racist doctors propaganda) because they were desperate to establish the cause of diease was with the patient to get them off the hook of cure.

 

Broadly speciuos political argument? tell Mark Almond senior lcturer in political modern history at Oxfords dreamy academic spires that.

 

Your argument against smoking is based on smelliness not health and if you tolerate that then you let people die for nothing. Smoking only causes a fraction of cancer if that; and STILL they don't treat helicobactor and lie throught their teeth abot cervicla cancer being related to smoking. All it proved is that smoking women got to shag more guys therefore increasing their chances of pailloma virus.

 

Smoking causing cancer is the only specious argument here. And one which a witchunt has been based on.

[Guest]

I'm not arguing about your "Right" to smoke or that you shouldn't smoke in this debate anyway.

 

I'm arguing the arrogance of smoker's imposing their obnoxious habbit on those around them in situations where they have no choice but to be there or to not have access to what any "Free" person should be able to access freely without undue imposition of anothers "nasty" habit.

 

ie. the smokers arrogance of his habit not shared by all.

 

If you want to ruin yourself in whatever way smoking will or does that is your perrogative but not in the publics face with no options.

 

Smokers for way too long have excercised this arrogant imposition on others to the point of total insensitivity to others and they are so frigging arrogant as to not see that. Blind to this within your own arguments.

 

OFF