Nappy-Headed Ho's

[LordTheNightKnight]

Shut up about the fox hunting. I haven't said more than a sentence or two about it, so I'm not debating it. It's a red herring in this right now.

 

And stop acting like science against smoking is discredited because it incidentally tied into eugenics. They did it ONLY to benefit the "aryan" race. People today are against smoking because they want it to benefit EVERYONE.

 

Now you may not want the benefit. If you just came out and said that, I would accept it because it would be honest.

 

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's been proven heavy smoking can directly cause death. The fact that you won't admit it hurts your credibility. And if you actually intend to make a difference, rather than complain, then credibility is paramount, over what you believe, and truth in general. You want there to be fewer smoking restrictions, then don't deny the danger (even if you have to say something you don't believe, admit there is a danger from heavy smoking, as your claims are mainly accepted by fringe elements, not the mainstream*). Instead point out that people have been aware of the danger, thank you very much, and that encouraging responsibility with that danger can often work better than banning it outright.

 

Some people in Wales and Scotland have been getting real headway with such arguments against a general ban of smoking in enclosed spaces. Designated smoking areas have shown to be just as effective in terms of public health as general bans. That way people who don't smoke aren't in danger of secondhand smoke, and people who do would get the results as they would anyway.

 

So enough of these statements that basically say "There is no problem. I'm right and you're wrong." Try statements such as "Yes, there is a problem. On the other hand, there are other ways to solve it than what you are insisting, and I'll tell you some alternatives." The former looks like denial. The latter looks like helping, and puts those, insisting on the one way, in the wrong.

 

*And denying that won't make it not true. Throw away your views, at least in public. You're living in a democracy, so compromise works better than a political tug of war (of course those in power sometimes refuse to compromise, but that's when they tend to lose power, due to corruption and scandal). So acting in ways that make people question your judgment will hurt your efforts.

[Guest]

Nine yards of bull##3t does not make a first down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[Guest]

QUOTE: Frankly, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's been proven heavy smoking can directly cause death. The fact that you won't admit it hurts your credibility. And if you actually intend to make a difference, rather than complain, then credibility is paramount, over what you believe, and truth in general END QUOTE

 

SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE FOR BELIEVING THIS BECAUSE YOU MAY ASWELL BE SAYING THE EARTH IS FLAT*. At least when I argue with doctors they attempt to produce some evidence. If you haven't got any I suggest you study carefully what you download and post. because as far as anyone knows there is NONE. Just indications there may be a small corrlation; but no study takes into acount other factors as I keep telling you. It is like arguing with a jehovas witness! I acually KNOW how bad smoking is for you; I am just claiming that it has only a small efect on lung cancer. Of course it weakens the immune system, thickens the blood therefore contirbuting to heart disease etc. BUT the risks are way over exagerated as you saw from that US army poster, and the NHS ads in the UK are ludicrous. It is THEY who have weakened their credibility in trying to finsd xcuses to control us; wage war, ban hunting and fur etc.

 

That is why they are going to get hammered at the next election; only now are people starting to realise what they have been up to: that they will deceive and lie to justify their agenda. They are being prosecuted for corruption FFS.

 

TRUTH is more important than scientific political or ideoligical delusion and diplomacy. What if the Spartans or those that died at the Alamo or the Battle of britain thought that diplomacy was the better part of valour? Okay it isn't that serious yet; but it is for those that Hunt and 300 (a significant number) DEFY the Law. At some point the Governemnt is going to have to enforce it or look stupid; and either is a catastrophe for the Government. THAT is why I keep mentioning it; because it shows defiance works.

 

THERE IS NO RESULT AS YET IN REDUCING THE STRICT ANTI SMOKING LAWS YET in Wales or Scoland; just talk because

1.The latest BMA evidecne embarassingly shows that the echemicals they keep on about are massively within safe limits

2.A huge amount of jobs have been lost in Scotland and the pubs and restaurants are screaming.; and their "statistics" showing it hasn't affected trade have been shown up for the lies they are.

 

My ,ocal paper told me btw that they were NOT allowed to put the anti ban point of view because the Welsh Assembly had warned of "repercussions". They are the biggest advertiser btw.

 

Lord WHAT don't you believe is true exactly? Everything I have told you is backed up to the hilt I assure you.

There is NO COMPROMISE possible on issues like hunting or fur or the burkha. There may be some on smoking acknowledged, as non smokers do have the right not to be affected agreed. However that is NOT the purpose of the ban or the general movement in health against smoking. It is about keeping PREVENTATIVE method and blaming aptienst for their own weaknesses. The same as nazi germany's focus. It isn't just limited to medicine either. If you get attacked or robbed now the Police look at YOU as responsible...for leaving a car unlocked, dressing in away likely to be provocative etc. In Education too the failure of the british education system can be laid at the door of working class culture and poverty rather than uselsss schools. PREVENTION is a concept born out of Nazi social engineering; as is eugenics.

 

And IF a democracy uses its power to subject a minority to the opression by the majority, then it negates its value. Don't you get it? that is why it will NEVER work in Iraq.

Also remeber the Nazis were democratically elected. And we didn't compromise with them either.

 

And again you talk as though I am citing fringe beliefs. Remember I am quoting medical and historical sources themselves, and given you the testimony of Marc Almond. THAT is mainstream academic; though it isn't common knowlege doesn't mean it isn't accepted as true.

 

And censorship of Art is a disgrace; and that is where Artists will come in and do something about it. Like Mel Smith for example; and also the many fashion photographer who are now producing masses of smoking imagery in defiance (which won't see magazines in the UK incidentally but the net is a wonderful thing while we keep it out of th cluthces of governemnt control).

 

 

*also a mainstream belief once upon a time.

[Guest]

I have just been takking to a research scinetist online.

He points out that the reearch done on cell damage in the body by nicotine was conducted on single cells, and also wound healing etc.

He is condcuting his own research, smelling an opportunity.

Some damage at cellular level to a multi celled organism of billions, isn't good.

BUT IT IS DEVASTATING FOR SINGLE CELLED ANIMALS.

 

He believes that smoking KILLS some viruses; including possibly the common cold.

He has looked at people who stop smoking when they get sick with colds and flu, and those who continue.

 

Guess who recovers first?

 

 

If that is proven, you will have to acknowledge me one touchdown OFF. He says he is a month from publication and is excited.

 

Anyway he could be a nutty boffin but you never know.

[LordTheNightKnight]

I have just been takking to a research scinetist online.

He points out that the reearch done on cell damage in the body by nicotine was conducted on single cells, and also wound healing etc.

He is condcuting his own research, smelling an opportunity.

Some damage at cellular level to a multi celled organism of billions, isn't good.

BUT IT IS DEVASTATING FOR SINGLE CELLED ANIMALS.

 

He believes that smoking KILLS some viruses; including possibly the common cold.

He has looked at people who stop smoking when they get sick with colds and flu, and those who continue.

 

Guess who recovers first?

 

 

If that is proven, you will have to acknowledge me one touchdown OFF. He says he is a month from publication and is excited.

 

Anyway he could be a nutty boffin but you never know.

 

Well it would still have to be administered properly, or else it's like popping pills.

 

I just want to make it clear I don't want to ban smoking. I just want ways to curb heavy smoking. And in terms of glamor, a few cigarettes are fine, but smoking nonstop would just look sad. There's no glamor at all.

[Guest]

Well I am inclined to agree with you in terms of what I would call the "functional" smoker.

 

People are all different. They experience sensuality in a profund way, or they simply do not.

 

This may have something to do with genetic variation for reasons of survival, or the same in terms of social specialisation.

 

SO some people may wear fur for example, but the touch of it may not do anything to them.

This has nothing to do with sex. You can witness children who are fascinated by touch. Others are less interested in tactile sensation.

 

 

What has this to do withh smoking?

 

Well smoking can be just a nicotine hit to some, and they may respond to it very much like a coffee or tea addict.

I however, cannot drink coffee. I am too sensitive to caffeine's effect. It makes me anxious and tremble in coffee. Tea is okay; less powerful.

 

So, nicotine; well that is different. It reduces anxiety while at the same time sharpening reflexes. And for most, that is the addiction. There is NO physical addiction to nicotine; it is just pleasant. Ther will be no cold turkey if you give up that is not in the head. They just feel sharper and more relaxed after a smoke; and just want the hit; very much like most people want a coffee hit. That is not glamorous; conceded.

 

Now there is the sensitive, sensual person. This person...and it includes many women, has far greater experience of addiction. Theirs is a sensuality addcition.

The woman who is addcited on this level...well if she is attractive, then it is likely that she will demonstrate that in her body language.

The closing of eyes as she gets her icotine hit; the soft exhale , the gntle playing with the cigarette. The thing is, when you actually talk to these women, they will confirm that they are stimulated by what they call the "caress" of nicotine. It is powerful yet gentle, and arousing sexually to them. They enjoy the "invasive "violation" of their body on a metaphoric level.

THIS woman IS often very sexy when she smokes; there is nothing unaatractive abot her addiction ad nothinng purely functional about her smoking. She is overtly sexual in her relationship with it, because it MAKES her feel sexy. She is a natural at elgant smoking, and her addcition is part of that.

Very like the woman who is a "natural" at wearing fur, and doesn't have to "learn" it.

 

Nobody talks about this any more. It isn't pc to mention the aphrodisiac qualities of the drug; but it is also worth mentioning that nictoine produces increased sexual behaviour in most rats...though not all of them. nnobody will EVER get to the real issues with smoking unless it is acknowledged that such an efect is subjectively at least sexy.

 

So the woman who when she lights a cigarette, looks like she s experiencing orgasm, well she isn't far of it actually. Thereore she is likely to look sexy too. The woman who just puffs for n9icotien hit when on a work break and furiously puffs to get it over with...well no that is a turn off.

 

Fur can be the same right? The lady who wears a fur because it is cold, or merely fashionable...she is different to the woman who feels its power and sensuality on a deeper level.

 

Anyway, if scinece was honest, they would acknowledge that this is the rel reason many women find it difficult to be without a cigarette. Doctors are caling it the Saharon Stone syndrome btw (Basic Instinct is one movie that features the reality of sensual addiction). And there is nothing unglamorous about her smoking despite being addicted.

 

But yes purely functional smoking without that is not at all glamorous. Only SOME women are therefore likely to be able to smoke in this way in any case. Evn the Odd one in the hnads of a woman who doesn't get it is also not glamorous; even though she may try to mimic it.

 

I will have to show you some of the things women like Audrey Hepburn Lauren Bacall Melanie Griffiths and Fenella Felding among others have said about smoking if you doubt what I am saying.

http://www.smokingcelebs.com/g/mel31.jpg

http://www.smokingcelebs.com/g/mel30.jpg

 

Her addiction is glamorous; and she is likely to be genetically disposed to that. The smoking scene with her mother in the Birds, Tippi in mink should leave no one in doubt of the difference between a glamorous addcit and a functional addict; Hitchcock made a play on it. Then now Melanie's daughter smokes too; ecncouraged by her? Probably...who in an honest world would want to deny their offspring such deep pleasures when they are old enough?

 

Many smokers themselves do not experience this. They are immune to its sensory effects as some are immune to coffee's or fur!

 

Also there is a key here to the real issue behind all this stuff...smoking, fur, hunting...anything which invloves individual liberty.

You say :

"...I want ways to curb heavy smoking..."

 

??????!!!!!!

 

Well who appointed you Healthfinder General?

 

I have posted a story in the private area of the den to illustrate the glamour of addcition. Lots of fur in it of course

 

 

And now of course, there is an added effect that smoking now has a defiant posture; a woman who continues to smoke in spit of all the propaganda is now saying

"It is worth it honey; and nothing is ganna stop me"

and that is also sexy and glamorous; as is most risk taking; it gains the mystique and glamour of skydiving or riding a Harley or a horse woithout a hlmet. And that is the result of prohibtion in smoking's case. Apparently there was huge demand for pictures of women drinking cocktails in dmand among men for example during America's prohibition. Ban something and it can become more sexy...that simple.