Midnight tonight Wales ceases to be a free country

[Guest]

That may well be confined to your area. It is certainly not true in the UK where politeness always has held sway except in a minority of cases.

 

As I said it appears to be the smell you lot object to so just be honest.

 

What next then ban the cooking of curries and the chopping of garlic?

 

What about my wish to be free of the bo of others on the london underground?

 

It is th governemnts use of lies and propaganda when they have no interest either in your rights or your health but it is just an excuse to claim another area of your individual "sovereignty" if you like.

 

In the UK now as an architect you would be obliged to put up a government sticker in your car and that is intrusive. You would face a

[Guest]

Despite the defese for second hand smoke it is more than just obnoxious for its smell.

 

It causes many peoples eyes to smart and burn. It causes others to cough and have sore throats in its presence. Not to mention its oils and smell getting into our clothes as well. Not welcomed.

 

Unless you are in the kitchen when cayaenne is being fried it does not burn your eyes just being in its presence nor is it otherwise offensive except strictly for its smell if you are not particullary fond of it. Likewise with garlic.

 

I would agree that it is not the possition of governments to do these things but when one group has to fight for its rights to not have something present against their will and the perpertators refuse to modify their behavior the only recourse is government intervention or shoot the SOB's.

 

OFF

[Ravens8]

ToS your arguments are all over the place and many of them have little to do with the smoking ban. You cant possibly compare smoking curtailing in public places with homosexuals and jewish repression for example. One is a public nuisance factor, the other is pure evil.

 

I'm with Off on this one. Ever tried shovelling pig maure? or doing fish research in sewage lagoons? I've done both, but I wouldnt dream of walking straight into pub and causing distress and inconveniance to others in there because of the awfull stench, just because i wanted a drink for myself. My smell wouldnt worry me, I've been immersed in it all day, but why would I want to impose it on others. Why do smokers do it? Tell me. Is it Arrrogance? disrespect? Innocent thoughtlessness? I wont label it, but you tell me

 

I love enjoying a pint in an old english pub. Cant do it with my wife, her sinuses block up instanttly, and eyes run. A local pub near here went non smoking recently, it's quaint, beamy, traditional etc. Custom certainly hasnt dropped, more people are eating in there. And thankfully I've already been for a pint there more times than in the previous year.

 

I used to attend sales meetings in sealed window offices. Sometimes the smoke was so thick it was like holding meeting in a bonfire of wet leaves. Get home, suit needed to be hung outside to air, clothes straight into the wash before they made other clothes (and the house!) smell. And I'd open my case and work on papers that reeked of stale smoke and would quite frquently give me a sinus headache. Just one of the resons why I gave up that career direction.

 

You have every right not to be offended by the bo of neighbours on the underground. Tell the miscreant you are offended. Most people dont realise their own BO. Or move away a few feet, you wont smell it. Cant do that with smokers. Also, Another's BO doesnt get into your clothes.

 

It's a move to stop people being a public nuisance, not to stop them smoking. Loudmouths, flashers, aggressives, harrassers etc etc. all cause public nuisance and arent tolerated in public places. Smokers should have the self respect that comes from respecting others, to monitor their own behaviour. They dont, therefore legislationis brought in. We all hate legislation, it's not a good method of control. But when a group fail to regulate themselves, what is left.

 

and as for

smokers are far more likely to pull than non smokers in all tests

Come on ToS, get serious, what kind of argument is that?

[LordTheNightKnight]

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.

 

I didn't claim you wanted to control anything. Of course I should have expected you to not even read my posts right, considering your mixed up logic.

 

And pretending I'm calling names by those comments is just another way to avoid my points.

[Guest]

Your last point unlike the arguments against smoking can be tested and repeated.

If you have all variables equal and use two women or men on any group of people in a bar, the smokers will consistently have a higher rate of success. It is a common test among sociology students in the UK and consistently upsets non smokers. Obviously there is an excuse to approach the smokers to talk...it is quanifiably social despite claims to the contrary. "Smirting" has entered the English language since the smoking ban Also to deny it is the second largest fetis among bothw omen and me (millions of hits a day and dwarfs fur fetish) is also plain daft to deny.

 

Your denial of a link between a persecution of smokers and other groups on the grounds that unlike jews smokers are a public nuisance is also inaccurate and misses the point.

 

IF YOU HAVE ANY excuse for persecution then it will happen. It sets a precedent.

Yes you have every right to enjoy a pub atmosphere but then there are plenty of non smoking pubs; you also have the right to start one. You see IF you allow the idea that it is The STATE'S responsibility to intervene then you allow them to set a precednt for such behaviour:

So they could tehn for example ban the wearing of fur in public places on the ground it is inflammatory to large numbers of people. This is already being discussed at airports...the rumour being they are just waiting for a few attacks to take place. The implication is they will be staged to provide that excuse. You have no idea how governemnt works and I am lucky enough to have some experience and contacts within it and they are frightened.

 

Anyway ...the Nazis for example could NOT have implimented legisaltion on genetic engineering racial purity etc nd eventually the final solution WITHOUT first for example introducing legislation to provide abortion to women with suspected defective children; like Downs syndrome and eventaully actual euthansia of such people. They HAD to do it in legal stages. The lobster law which few objected to led to the hunting ban and the smoking science led to purity and health and strength legislation: ie the weak and sick wre a burdn an liability. THIS is how it works.

 

That is whymink farming was nanned.. Not bcause the goernment care a hoot about mink but but because they have stablished a precednt that the governemnt can act in the interestes of public morality. IF you accpet the right that they can coe in and tell youwaht to do in your business then yu set the sam kind of precedent. TAHT is whyit is such a big issue. If you have not stckers all over your car today in Wales and its a compnay vehicle you are liable to a

[Guest]

Lord you most certainly did accuse me of lying and call me nuts.

 

I have provided you with evidence Lord as requested that the nazis did introduce smoking bans and for the record ravens they did use those laws to establish that the state had complete ownership of the mind body and health of the infdividuals in it: to abuse your body was a crime. So what started with a ban which people accepted for the "nuisance" factor as you are, soon became much more sinister. Now there are threats of removing children from parens who smoke and then it will be parents who don't feed their children properly then pretty soon you wil have smokers forbidden to have children and so on.

 

The whole thing has been rpeated time and time again by repressive regimes and its particularly dangerous in the UK where we have no written rights just the law of precedent. The science used to back up these "specious" health claims are enturely without sound science and you have also yet to prove that either. Don't bother looking; there is none.

 

So it is you Lord who have not answered my claims. Once more:

1. find me irfutable evidence of a link between secondary smoke and cancer etc other than circumstantial

2.find me the evidence that the smoking legislation in Nazi germany is a lie.

 

I appreciate you rcircumstances Ravens but this is no the answer. if you gow ith it you go down a dark path allowing fror removal of all rights. IF a government in th UK now took a mind to it for example they could easily show a link between homosexality and AIDS and act with all that bad science to outlaw it: they now have the precedent to do it. Don't believe me? Ask a member of the House of Lords. You see the rason that governement do things is often to establish their right to do so so they can operate in areas previously forbidden to them For example the notion that there could have been a crime without a victim years ago would have been laughed at. Now it is accpted in the public consciousbness that the ideology of Prevtataive measures can be used to prosecute. S if you are speeding you may not have done anything but you can be prosecuted. Hence we have the idea now that the govenment can stop you using a mobile etc etc. even though it does not mean you are driving without due care., They will even stop you eating in cars or talking to people if you allow this notion. Last year a woman in the UK was prosecuted for eating an apple in a car.

Now with the smoking legislation. it has established a precednt that second hand smoking is a health risk. That means that if someone gets lung cancer they can get smokers prosecuted. With laws like that around we step a dangerous path.

the same with hunting. It is a victimless crime. Ah but now it is the FOX who is a victim. Well where does that leav us regarding furs? See what I mean. THAT is why we need a strong Libertarina movement and very quickly. The governmnets of teh US and UK eventually want cash phased out as they cannot keep an eye on us . Tax is their motive...with banks and corporations its your spending habits for loan viability and marketing. Its all about making ALL of us drones.

 

Read ben franklyn's quote once more and do a bit of reading on the "in the interest of public morality" law used to pass th banning of fur farming in the UK. THAT is the law they will probably use to ban fur altogether. I have been intrviewd at lengthby somone who works for th governemnt about all the claims I have posted here re the fur debate. the question he asked me is

"can you swear with your hand on your heart what you are telling me is true?" I did; particularly with regard to the native issue. This may lead to some Whitehall and legal opposition to th governemnt aganda but they do not want to be made fools of if I was making it up as pople like PETA claim. I have bn to fur farms and some people here know the depth of my connections with aboriginal peoples. They have alos told me how nervous peopl are within th security services and civil service of how far this governemnt are asking them to go by stretching the constitution and law. They are concerned about the promotion of yes men judges etc. I am not making this up....be afraid; you know what happend with the evidence for WMDs in the UK. Concerns about the liberty of UK citizens have been expressed in high corridors of power and worries about wher it can lead expresed.

 

You see if you allow this "preventative" ideology to prevail you can see how it could be used:

1. To be used against crime such as was suggested in the movie "Minority Report". That is identify and prosecute potential criminals.

2. To be used in Eugenics as is already being suggested by Tony Blair re single parent mothers on council setates.

 

It is fascism; pur and simple and senior civil servants know it. Brown is calling for a New World Order and has ben accused by senior aides of being a Stalinist. Do you think al this is make believe? Google "Blair eugenics"

 

Oh and btw a claim that a pub can be traditional without a smokey tmosphers is hardly true. What you have there is a centrparcs approach to nature lol! It isn't the real thing!

 

BTW I just took a stroll around my town and the pubs normally teeming at lunctime trade were utterly deserted. On the up side there were a lot of women in fur in the street smoking! Now they have to smoke outside they are dresed for it; so you can't accuse me of going with this for selfish fetish reasons lol!

Edited April 3, 2007 by Guest

[FrBrGr]

You see IF you allow the idea that it is The STATE'S responsibility to intervene then you allow them to set a precednt for such behaviour:

 

As a nation, the US has gotten weaker and weaker because of the acceptance by so many that it is the government's responsibility to do everything from raising our children to legislating our morals to providing for the general welfare of everyone - it and out of this country. A younger, leaner and meaner "America" would have never allowed some of the nonsense that goes on today in the name of fairness, equality and "civil rights." (Civil rights. Yeah, right. What a freaking joke. Call it what it is! Obliterate all defining lines. Homogenize the masses. Encourage mindless acceptance that government - the bigger, the better - is always right and therefore the solution to all problems.) Is it not our responsibility to preserve our liberties? If we abdicate those responsibilities, we surely will lose them.

 

As Ben Franklyn said: "those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little more security deserve neither and will lose both"

 

Ya gotta love ol' Ben! No wonder he was one of "America's" founding fathers!

[sta]

Here's a fact...... The majority of British people don't smoke, the majority of British people do not support foxhunting. Democracy triumphs.

 

I'm afraid you've lost the argument here. For most people in the UK it is not a health issue, more a 'stench' issue.

 

And just to put the whole Nazi thing in to perspective:

The Reich Hunting Law (Reichsjagdgesetz) was not brought in until 1934. It was an initiative of Goering, an avid hunter. Hitler also hunted.

 

It didn't ban hunting with hounds, exactly, but hunting from horseback. The main reason was that it was considered unsporting. You could use dogs to flush an animal but not to kill it. You have to shoot it instead. Hunting was a virtue for the Nazis, but you had to do it in a proper manly way.

[Guest]

Nothing of the sort.

If you had ever seen a German boar hunt you would know it is entirely unsporting. How else do you think a fat pig like Georing could hunt a wild boar? In fact I would go as far as sayinh like Bear baiting another german invention it is the ONLY hunting which is unacceptable because it is NOT fair; and some of the ways in which it was done were apalling. It is a good idea to find out about these things before you bring them up Sta.

The Prussian aristocracy were incensd by swine like Goering and they knew that his aim was to just to establish his authrority over their hunting lands.....the rest is nazi propafganda and shows you know little of hunting ethics. The Prussian aristicracy of course did hunt on horseback and killed boar correctly. They wre the only serious threat th Hitler as they wre some of the finest Wermacht officers and ofetn temperd some of the vil that came from the Nazis. Te allies continued to respct gentlemen officers of the Wermacht whose wjole code of values of fair play came (as it did for knights of old) from fair play with quarry species.

 

 

It is to do with the quarry animal being MEAT in the case of the boar, and Goering just used it as an excuse to excercise control over th sristocrats ehe envied. So that excuses that is very real cruelty the way the Nazis and some germans do it. France is different they do it with hounds and horses and give the boar a chance; Chantilly is beautiful and it is because of traditional horsback and hounds hunting that deer and boar are still in the middle of greater paris.

 

The Fox is not meat and so therefore it is considered bad to kill it as a pest through sport. SHAME THEY DIDN'T APPLY THE SAME TO JEWS.

 

650 vets gave vidence to the burns rport that fox control through hunting with hounds was the least cruel method of control and that was igmored by the governemnt just as it is by you. Npot only do you know nothing about animals but you ignore th advice of exprts who do. That is NOT a blueprint for democarcy. If it was we would still be burning witches. Within British law we are supposed to take expert opinion not prole prejudice.

 

As usual Sta you claims are without foundation. The Nazi objection to foxhunting was twofold;

 

firstly that the animal had rights and that came from neitsche and buddhism directly; and secondly because like smoking it was associated with britain.

 

As a result of the 1938 ban on smoking by the Luftwaafe British pilots took to posing in photos with a pipe or cigarette because it was one in the ye for german pilots who could not smoke. Why is that wonderful piec of information surpressed in Blairs britain? Start tampering with history and you are in a fascist state. The spitfire is the ultimate symbol of liberty as is his pilot with a pipe. In 1939 these pilots flew to prevent britain falling to a regime that would ban smoking ban foxhunting and subject the individula and minoroty groups to the state jackboot. Remember the nazis were also democratically elected.

 

 

Opression of minorties...whether its smokers foxhunters or burkha wearers....by the state in the interests of "majority rule" is NOT democracy it doictatorship of the proletariat. Once a government surpresses a significant minority on th excuse that it is what the majority want it ceass to be a vaild democracy.

 

You do know that a ban on the import and sale of furs in the UK is in the pipeline do you? Within the next term if Labour get in it is YOU who will be opressed. Yes the majority of proles are anti fur like they are anti hunting anti smoking anti abortion anti gay anti moslem anti black pro hanging etc ect. Of course they are just with the proles when it suits their prejudices and allows them to flex power ina reas where until now they have never been allowed. The banning of mink farming and reading of the Parliament act has meant them completely riding roughsod over constitution. By ANY political science analyst there is serious concern about this but oh no sa knows best.

 

And if you tolerate this; then your children will be next.

 

Someone should tell Balir 1984 was a warning not a f***** handbook:

 

http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/18/cctv-cams-in-uk-now-with-loudspeakers/

[Guest]

Come to Boston and have a tea party

[Guest]

Yes goldsable we value our tea and in the great tradition of the American Independence movement they knew exactly what would hurt us. It was a stroke of genius.

 

The American revolution has fine Libertarian traditions underpinning it and its with tha way in which the Americans conducted hemselves after that Britain decided to embark on a programme of colonial home rule without boodshed if possible ovr time With a few exceptions all the other colonies remained in the Commonwealth.

 

What Washington a foxhunting man and steeplechase jockey and Ben Franklyn a real Libertarian would have made of the world now would send shudders down their spines.

 

Very significant however that smoking is still at almost 40% in places like West Virginia and foxhunting with hounds is still tremendously popular. Obviously the Nazi war criminal doctors that escaped justice at Nuremberg didn't get to West Virginia.

 

In the meantime I would prefer Bush any day of the week to Blair. remeber they are at opposite ends of the traidtional spectrum. Blair was brought up on MArx and Brown a methodist; a dangerous mix. Of course in time the American libertarina Party will gld the ecesses of both democrats and republicans. Already they ahve gained concessons from democrats over the hunting issue. Hopefully when the republicans want re electing they will get them to drop their iopposition to sex industry and abortion tc or they will be unelectable too.

 

In the USA I can see you entring a new time of freedom. You will not ban hunting or foxhunting, you will continue to fight PETA and eventually ridicule them into obscurity, and smoking bans in some states are already up fro limied repeals (eg in california in prisosn etc). I despair of the UK and EEC.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Guest

[Guest]

Don't forget that prior to 1776 the inhabitants of the colonies were British

[Guest]

Yes indeed Goldsable; the British that truly valued Liberty. I agree. And they gave us a new direction too.

We banned slavery subsequently for humanitarian reasons not economic partly out of the result of the bloody nose we had in the US. Though I am also not entirely sure that the intention was not therefore to give the colonies a bloody nose back lol!

 

Despite al this that never anything is what it seems in politics I do believe that the founding fathers of the USA were truly Libertarian, and yes mostly British.

 

Well said Goldsable.

[Guest]

Just a reminder to you of what Labour did:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/news/112000/26/mink.shtml

 

I have been to that farm and can tell you the animals were far better looked after than any RSPCA kennel. And they lived a lot longer than the few weeks the RSPCA keep animals before execution.

 

Anyway, Sta , many Labour MPs acknowledge that banning foxhunting was a huge mistake. They are calling it the "F" word and know they have lost a huge amount of public support through it. Monmouthshire and Pembrokeshire the MPs stood solely on the Hunting issue and had the biggest swings in the country to the Conservatives (7.8%) enough to have won a majority if they had repeated that nation wide. The latest poll on what the nation thinks regarded as far les biased than other polls shows 57 to 42 % for hunting; the largest poll ever showed 59% in favour of hunting so your claims on that Sta are also not correct. Yes there is a high support for as moking ban in polls but there is for sending all immigrants back and bringing back hanging too; and for banning fur. So do you think that the sate has the right to act on the prejudices of an ill informed and brainwashed public? Or do you think its just the fur issue that the public are susceptible to propaganda on? Everyone belives smoking causes cancer yet there is no scientific proof of that whatsoever....so they are likely to believe they are at risk so welcome a ban. As I said doctors used to tell people that witches caused disease.

 

So I asked this Labour MP what about fur farming. He said there will certainly be no backtracking on that as though he has learned that there is another side to the hunting debate, fur is absolutely indefensible. He said that the inmports of seal and dog and cat fur were just the start and fur would be banned in the UK in 10 years is what they are talking about.

 

I said what will you do with people who continue to wear it.

 

"Seize them " he said, "as you would illegal drugs"

 

 

Judge for yourself when you want to join the barricades. If ours fall then you have no chance. There are 13/17 million smokers in the UK and 2 Million people who go foxhunting. How many fur lovers are there again?

 

The RSPCA will embark on a huge advertising campaign against fur shortly. What they ask for they get from this government.

 

btw this is the inspiring flag of the Mass. (don't ask me to spell it) Libertarian party:

 

http://www.lpmass.org/images/lx2.jpg

 

The British one will have a Spitfire on it; particularly apt in light of the smoking ban and the spitfire pilots teasing of the luftwaafe with their pipes.

 

The Libertarian movement is the only chance to keep fur except for the right wing but then we lose other liberties with them; such as the limits imposed on servers for forum like this.

 

But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want your rights to wear fur defended you must also rspect the rights of smokers (and non smokers so they need some segregation and seperate areas) and foxhunters and porn stars and the woman's right to choose and yes relaxing of drug laws. I hate marijuana and once kicked the crap out of a hippy for breaking my fags up to make a joint; but now I must repsect his rights if he is to respect mine.

 

The sate simply does not have the right to interfere with any of this stuff.

[Guest]

http://www.forestonline.org/output/page275.asp

 

Good for Lembit.

 

He has some sense. Remember he used to go out with Sian the weather girl who wears mink. He pioneered the idea of a third way over foxhunting which would have been acceptible.

 

Labour will get a bloody nose in Wales; 38% of the population still smoke.

There are still 60 Hunts operating and we haven't changed a thing. We cooperatd with th monitors and the RSPCA before but now they can sod off.

 

Just watch this space.

[FrBrGr]

Yes indeed Goldsable; the British that truly valued Liberty. I agree. And they gave us a new direction too.

We banned slavery subsequently for humanitarian reasons not economic partly out of the result of the bloody nose we had in the US. Though I am also not entirely sure that the intention was not therefore to give the colonies a bloody nose back lol!

 

Despite al this that never anything is what it seems in politics I do believe that the founding fathers of the USA were truly Libertarian, and yes mostly British.

 

Well said Goldsable.

 

John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon come to mind, and let's not forget John Locke. As for the colonies, well, founding father Benjamin Franklin is still revered by "American" Libertarians!

 

[Worker 11811]

You know, ToS, I agree with about 75% of the things you talk about but you often go way off the deep end when you talk about them.

 

Yes, there IS credible, scientific evidence that cigarette smoke makes you sick if you inhale too much of it. We both AGREED that cigarette smoke is about the same as car exhaust. The main difference is that you don't go sucking on the tailpipe of a BMW and you don't go running your car's engine in crowded bars. Too much smoke IS bad for you.

 

But, when it comes down to it, I DON'T CARE whether it's bad or not. It is the individual's right to choose whether or not to smoke. The problem is that huge corporations spend millions of dollars on advertising to teenagers to get them to smoke then they obscure the truth and spread deceptive information. Then the government pushes back by enacting more Draconian anti-smoking laws. Its a never-ending cycle.

 

One cigarette isn't going to kill hardly anybody who isn't sick already. Nor will 10 cigs or even a whole pack. But, smoke a pack a day for years and years, and you WILL get sick!

 

I've about heard enough government conspiracy talk. The government (of your country and mine) is just plain stupid. We talk about the stupid stuff they do all the time. How can a government that is THAT dumb, be smart enough to pull off a conspiracy? It's completely counterintuitive.

 

Yes, I DO believe that our governments are de-evolving but I DON'T believe it is a conspiracy. I believe it is simple stupidity. Wide-spread but stupidity, none the less.

 

I reiterate: I agree with most of the things you talk about IN PRINCIPLE. But the way you go off on tangents and rant on miniscule points is just way off-base. In fact, I would venture to say that there are times when you do more harm to your cause than good.

 

First, your sermonizing only stands to galvanize those who do not agree with you to stand against you even more fervently than they did before. They see somebody who fights with such passion and it only spurs them to fight even stronger.

 

Second, there are times when you come off as rather kooky. It tends to make people generalize that all people who are pro-fur or pro-hunting or pro-smoking are kooks as well. The next time an anti comes up against one of us they will tend to discount US as kooks too!

 

There are times when it is appropriate to fight for a cause but there are also times when it is more appropriate to operate quietly in the background. It is often better to lead by example, not by force.

 

If you are smoking and somebody says that smoke bothers them, move away or put the thing out. Then thank them for asking you politely.

 

If you are wearing your fur in public and somebody makes a negative comment about it, tell them that the cup of coffee in their hand has killed more animals than it took to make your coat but DON'T start a fight.

 

I think you've got the right substance in your arguments (mostly) but you REALLY need to work on your style.

[Guest]

Amen brother worker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[sta]

What's that old saying,,,,,,

 

"The empty can rattles the most"

 

No hard feelings TOS, I find it quite good fun, lively debate and all that!

[Guest]

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that smoking is bad for you. If you choose to believe statistical science that is up to you but do not call it proof. Stats science can prove ice cream causes summer. It was the invention of Nazi scientists eager to give Hitler a result for his hug personal financial investment. That it has permeated our culture so deeply yet is often claimed as evidence by both sides in any dispute is a concern; it is an accident not a conspiracy.

Scinece has to prove a point through testing and repeating the experiment. That cannot be done with smoking. Therefore it can not at present b scientifically proven. There was strong correlation with witchcraft and diease in the public consciousness in the 17th century but the correaltation just showed "laternative" science practised by pagans method because they were fightened of the epidemics.

 

I am like Mark Almond history trained. We will always point this out as scientists are rubbish at detective work whenthey start overstepping their brief and looking at stats evidence. Because there are too many variables and cause and effect are easily misinterpreted. As I said that is why nurses used to have to have o level history after the was such was the British academic institustions fear of what medical science could do if not checked.

 

Its not a conspiracy its an accident of circumstances that so many things have come together to produce the idea that we need to sacrifice liberties to preserve some liberty and security.

And Ben Franklyns word now are truer than they ever were.

 

If you think I am lying about the RSPCA and Governemnt plans to outlaw fur wait and see.

They will do it with the idea of prevention rather than cure to start with. they will ban fur from airports as a security risk: just like the smoker causing his own illness or the person leaving his winow open is an invitation to crime. so ii will be that people wearing fur will be seen as inflammatory. Or maybe the RSPCA will be able to establish that fur will be banned in the "interests of public morality".

MY point is that the governement no longer have to ask the electorate or the lord sore even establish precednt to introduce such things as banning fur, or eugenics, or the burkha.

We have allowed them to do it just as the people of Nazi Germany alowed Hitler the blueprint by early inccous legal measures.

 

I know people fighting theses ideas at high level in governemnt.

 

Believe what you want.

Any serious political analyst will tell you their concerns.

It is scientifically provable that hunting is not cruel.

It has not been scientifically proven smoking is bad for you.

It has been scientifically proven that fur farming is not ncessarily cruel.

 

Government using stats science to prove what they want and ignoring the real thing to back ideological prejudices is not a conspiracy its how it works.

 

Maybe Bush is dumb enoughh not to realise that but Blair with hiis marxist grounding and Brown with his methodist one are not.

 

And google "Blair eugenics bbc"

[wallee]

Worker:

 

ToS:

You go ahead and tell your kids smoking is fine.

 

I smoked for too many years. I know that now I don't smoke I feel healthier than I did when smoking.

 

I also now realize that the morning after a night at a bar, most of my "hungover" feelings were from the smoke not the booze. I know this from being in bars and not drinking and feeling just as crappy the next morning as I did when I was drinking.

 

I know that when I started smoking at 13, every time I had a smoke I got a headache and an upset stomache. This was from the cigarette, yet I stupidly persisted and ended up hooked for 15 years.

 

Try quitting smoking and then tell me cigarettes are not addictive.

Try quitting smoking for a year and then tell us whether you feel healthier or not.

Scientific and stats evidence aside, (equally suspect as far as I'm concerned) personal experience is more telling. Former smokers the world over will tell you similar stories to mine and THAT "proves" your theories of smoking not being unhealthy wrong.

 

wallee:

[White Fox]

Wallee...

WC Fields said...

"It's easy to quit smoking! I've done it hundreds of times!"

 

W

[wallee]

Three times for me. Last time was 10 years ago.

[Guest]

Actually it was mark Twain that said that Whitfox well before WC Fields!

 

Wallee...I am not disputing that. Alcohol gives me a headache and makes me sick if I drink too much of it! My knob gets real sore when I have sex too much and I end up with infections! If yo have anything to do with horses then you are likey to get broken bones and horrible bites a lot!

 

Maybe we should all avoid everything like that and allow the nanny state to tell us what to do as they know best!

There is no gain without pain. What makes me angry is the lie that smoking is ugly.

The Art world does not agree:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c9/luluhere/newton.jpg

 

Tell helmut Newton or catherine Deneuve that smoking and fur are not sexy. Apparently Catherine laughs when anyone even suggests it!

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6md7g/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/deneuve.jpg

http://culo.blog.kataweb.it/culo/images/catherine_deneuve_04.jpg

 

tell Jack Vettriano:

http://static.flickr.com/63/199140155_a1d144a5ba_o.jpg

 

Ask a T girl. Ask any of the photographers and models in the world of high fashion. Explain to them why their images are edited from US and UK magazines (fur AND smoking).

 

Now see not everyone finds smoking attractive; some are repulsed by it. Some are replused by fur. Now IF we had a government that said right we have to do something to protct non smokers...lets have segregation...then fine if voluntary segragtion didn't work. BUT to have such an extreme ban is just not right and you have to question a governments motivs when even the most anto person I know (who is genuinley revolted by smoking) says we should have SOME areas for our filthy habit lol!

 

But to also issue propaganda to say smoking makes you ugly is pathetic; just like PETA's propaganda aginst fur. It will fool some; but only real drones. Now if the propganda of PETA said:

"be very careful where you buy your fur as though we now accept some furs ar famred and trapped humanely, Chiese frur my be dog or cat and may have ben ill treated" then that would be acceptable and tru.

If the anti smoking stuff said;

Okay we accept that smoking may be considered glamorous but it may damage your health, and isn;'t very nice for non smokers" then fine too.

 

But they don't do they? The gag packet procalims "smoking kills" which is a lie

PETA says all fur is cruel which is a lie.

 

NEITHER are issues the state should be getting involved with, because if you allow that in Law, then you allow them to do anything they want. In addition state propaganda diverts mony desperately needed in other areas into areas of social control; engineering.

 

Smoking and fur are part of our sexual display in our culture.

Its not tobacco companies that made smoking really overtly sexy; it is ironically the propaganda. The same is repsonsible for the revival of fur.

 

As Mark Twain also said;

 

 

"The more things are forbidden, the more popular they become"

 

 

 

Now not everyone thinks it is sexy agreed; not everyone thinks fur is sexy...but ENOUGH people do to make it quatifibly objectively so. Both have been culturally associated with female...and before male...sexuality to make that reasonable. But to issue propaganda saying smoking makes you ugly and fur makes you look fat is just plain laughable and anyone with a brain...not just fetishsists..can see through it. In fact the very fact both are illicit has driven the thing to the hollowed halls of fetishist defence.

 

Wallee. Have you seen Sharon Stone and what she said to Micheal Douglas in Basic Instinct? Guess what........ she said it from the heart. If you smoked you know how good it feels too. If it were not so it would be easy to give up. And we all know how difficult it is for women to give up and those of us who do like smoking know why too. let us not be dishonest here in trying to build up your admirable resolve to quit. My argument is it is NOT the sates job to dictate that to us is all...especially based on dreadful science. Yes there was a high correlation between witchcraft and disease.

"How do you know she is a witch" the enlightened scince trained knight says to John Clees

"Well she turned me into a newt" he replies.

Everyone stares at him.

"It got better" he replies sheepishly.

 

Howver then the knight decress if she is a witch she will float because she is made of wwood. And there lies the danger of poor scientific thinking.

And saying that you were metaphoricaly turned into a newt by smoking is the same thing too!

 

You know why I like smoking? Because its sensual, the caress of nicotine is deeply erotic...particualarlt so in women...and because the use of it in society by women has long been established as illicit, depicts sexual power, elegance and ritual "dance" . EVEN if smoking IS bad for your health (which it may well be) , to the smokers this pleasure far outweighs the bad effects. The same with cocaine. I avoid that but I am not going to kid myself with all the moral or health propaganda. I avoid coke because it absolutely fantastic and it makes me and women debauched monsters lol!

 

No doubt the nanny state will eventually dictate that too much time spent on the net will make you a sex fiend which will also be bad for your health so sites like this will be shut down or nannied. Of course that will not be the real reason.............

 

And finally another word fom Twain:

 

It is not best that we should all think alike; it is a difference of opinion that makes horse races.

BUT

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

[wallee]

So who should decide what is a non smoking place?

 

If your favorite pub decided to become a non smoking establishment on it's own accord, you'd still be bitching and screaming that someone is forcing you to give up what you enjoy.

You certainly have the right to enjoy your smokes, but you're not willing to recognize the rights of non smokers. Why should we have to put up with smelling worse than an armpit at our favorite pubs?

No, the government shouldn't have to enforce it, but smokers have had thier way for so long there's no room for compromise so the government has to force the issue.