Was this the real reason all along?

Pointed out by Email and in comments is the news that the Hippocratic Oafs have decided they want tobacco sales banned to anyone born after 2000.

Then they just wait for us all to die. Final solution.

Anyone born in 2000 turns 14 this year. They are, under current law, still four years away from being able to legally get hold of any cigarettes. Therefore the empty suits of the BMA believe that no 14-year-olds smoke while simultaneously wailing that more children are smoking. And to think, I once imagined that it was just the general public who were irredeemably stupid.

(Updated to add) – Cocaine used to be legal. So, we just have to wait until the last old coke-head dies and there’ll be no more cocaine use, right?

I don’t think children should smoke. Or drink too much booze. Or get involved with drugs and many other things. Not for moral or aesthetic reasons but for biological ones. A developing body is at far higher risk of damage than one that’s finished growing and is now just maintaining itself. Get through childhood alive and well and you can then survive pretty much anything as an adult.

At the same time, all this ‘Thou must not’ is a red rag to a bull as far as children are concerned. Always has been and always will be. Tell a child over and over that they can’t have something and they will just want it all the more.

Well, apart from the easily indoctrinated. The Aberdeen Press and Journal (no link, they are pay to view, but the Mail will pick up on this in a day or so when a bored hack notices it) today ran another antismoker hate campaign devised by Dr. Simple. Here he is in all his high-health appearance. I wish his parents had named him Simon. They did do the right thing with his initials, at least. Must have been foresight.

He now has another batch of made-up numbers proving that smoke indoors, in a modern double-glazed hermetically sealed house with no chimney,  doesn’t go away as fast as smoke outdoors. Gosh. Cutting edge or what? Wait till you get to the bottom of that link and see how much the lottery paid him to do it. You think you did well with that little win last week? These buggers win every time you buy a ticket.

So he wants to indoctrinate your children to make you leave your own house (the one you, not your children, are paying for) to smoke.

In cases where there is a smoker and nonsmoker living together, married or otherwise, they have had no problem up to now. That is changing. More and more smokers are complaining that their non-smoking partner is suddenly an antismoker. Add in the cheeldren’s school-indoctrinated whines and there can be only one result.

The breakup of marriages and relationships and the destruction of the family. That sounds familiar. Could that have been the long term plan all along?

Then the fat/thin relationships, the ‘I like booze’/’I prefer tea’ ones and right on down to the ones where the chips come with salt or without. Every relationship has two people in it and somewhere, every relationship has a difference between those two people that can be exploited to drive them apart.

If only the Marx Brothers had let the fifth one, Karl, be in the films, none of this would have happened. It’s all Groucho’s fault. He was jealous of Karl’s facial hair.

It might also have been because Karl just wasn’t funny at all. He still isn’t and never will be.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Was this the real reason all along?

  1. “So he wants to indoctrinate your children to make you leave your own house (the one you, not your children, are paying for) to smoke.”

    Sorry. Leaving the house to smoke does NOT win you a cigar! :

    From page 251 of TobakkoNacht:

    “On October 28, 2011, headlines broke on NBC and other national outlets based on a press release – from the respected Center for Health Policy Research of UCLA – that sent chills down spines throughout the country: “2.5M California Children Plagued By Secondhand Smoke.”
    It’s not until you hit the fifth paragraph of the story that you’ll discover that the qualification for over three quarters of those Plague Children is simply having a parent who smokes at all – even if only outside, with no nasty touching necessarily involved at all! Although the TV networks somehow seem to have missed covering the story, it appears that there must be traffic jams of body carts being pulled down the streets of Haight-Ashbury by gaunt men dressed in tattered rags, ringing bells and chanting “Bring Out Yer Dead!” for the millions of stricken children.”

    Of course, as is usual with Antismokers, the initial figures turned out to have as slight “error” because they’d counted some of the children three times over (No, I’m not kidding.) The final figure clocked in at 742,000 children suffering from the plague of having a parent who smoked outside in the garden sometimes.

    The only solution will be to take the children away from the smoky parents and have them raised in proper indoctrination schools away from bad influences, pollution, and role-modeling. Keep them there under lock and key to make sure they don’t smoke, and then, when they’re 16 or 18 or so, give them a gun and send them off to Afghanistan, Iran, or the Crimea.

    Problem solved.

    – MJM

    Like

    • That’s exactly it, MJM. The government pretends it cares soooo much about the cheeeeldren, but as soon as they/we turn into adults, the gloves are off. Then, you’re handing over about half your earnings in tax and could be cannon fodder in one of their manufactured wars.

      They care so much about me that I have recently been denied simple medical treatment and for nearly two years (ages ago) was deprived of sickness benefits despite having sick notes and letters from doctors. This was all under New Labour, who care soooo much about the poooor.

      And I was brought up in a house where both parents smoked. Give me that any day to this system of enslaving the adult straight after mollycoddling the cheeeld. Of course, that’s the point! A spoiled brat who’s had everything done for him won’t know how to fight back as an adult and with dumbed down education and media, won’t even know hoe to talk back to ‘authority’.

      While still trying to discover THE reason for the smoker discrimination, it seems that maybe there isn’t a single biggie, but lots of smaller benefits for the elites – to gain total control.

      The Fabians have known for well over a century that to destroy the family is instrumental in achieving their aim of total socialist control, so it might well be a small part of their thinking.

      But depending on country, between 20-50%+ of the adult population become even more infantilised by standing outside. At my primary school, naughty children (not naughty enough for the belt, but naughty enough) were made to stand out in the corridor.

      And of course there’s the immense damage done to the pub and club trade and therefore socialising has been reduced, with the bonus that people spend even more time in front of the idiot box picking up the subconscious cues on how they should think and behave.

      Basically, they can kick around a large number of people and smokers possibly tend to be bigger rebels by and large, so best to tame ’em.

      Then there’s the massive boost for the Pharmers and their ‘cessation’ products.

      And one I favour is my belief that smoking increases intelligence. Is it a coincidence that the most insightful blogs are written by smokers?

      And who knows, maybe smoking really does help prevent more diseases than it cures and the elites want depopulation. I don’t watch a lot of telly – just DVDs – but mainly oldies, most recently some of the Hitchcock films from the 40s to 60s. Afterwards I check on imdb.com to see who’s still alive and when the others died and in those heavy smoking days, it amazes me how many lived well into old age.

      Actor Norman Lloyd, who played the saboteur in ‘Saboteur’ (1942) will be 100 if he is still alive on 8th November. Even the obese, cigar-chomping Hitch lived to be 80 (died of kidney failure).

      I’ve just worked out the average age of death of the top ten cast as listed on imdb for ‘Saboteur’ and it comes out at 84 yrs and 8 months and Norman Lloyd is pushing up the average all the time! The only one who died ‘young’ was Alan Baxter, aged 67.

      It’s not a scientific study, but a lot of these old films have many of the main actors and actresses becoming octogenarians or older. Jimmy Stewart was one of Hitchcock’s favourites (4 films?) and lived to be 89 and Leo G. Carroll was also in several of his films and lived to be 85.

      Maybe you just had to be in a Hitchcock film to aid longevity?

      The dastardly deeds and destruction at the hands of the Antismokers could match the intrigue and horror of any Hitchcock film.

      Like

      • I think Audrey Silk may be keeping a list of some of the elderly smokers in the news, though I don’t know if she’s got it formally set up. Paying attention to old smokers was something several of us started doing back ‘roun’ the “turn of the century” because the Antis kept making noises about “Famous dead smokers” that mainly focused on ones who died in their forties through sixties. Forces has a page that hasn’t been updated for quite a while that lists some well-known older smokers: http://www.forces.org/static_page/oldest.php

        When the Queen Mother died at 101 (102?) did you notice the almost total absence of any reference to her smoking in the news stories? The funny thing was that they almost ALL noted that she had a daughter who’d smoked and died in her forties!

        – MJM
        P.S. And while I’m not sure of this and can’t find my copy at the moment in Mikey’s Morass, I believe Rich White may have included a good selection in his “SmokeScreens: The Truth About Tobacco.”

        Like

  2. Aha the “celebrity researcher”, (front for TC and financed by big lottery) Sean Semple

    I took a while to look into this pillock’s claims and concluded:

    “This is not science, nor research. This is farcical propaganda, all tarted up as a vulgar parody of the real thing to impress the gullible”.

    However Legs may be get a hoot at how he did some of of his initial “research”.

    That’s at link numbered (8).

    http://www.tichtich.com/fake-research-supporting-smoke-free-homes.html

    By the by, I posted it last night.

    Like

    • Well done Scot! You put together a helluva nice resource there!

      I noticed the use of waffle-wording on the linked in question site: Angelica S seemed quite fond of saying that “readings CAN BE … (such and so high numbers)”

      Repace (the US “Health Physicist” who loves the nice jingling of coins from being a “Secondhand Smoke Consultant” and “Expert Witness” in trials) likes to talk about “Peak Concentrations” or “microplumes.”

      The trick there is simple, and I looked at it in TobakkoNacht with this example:

      ===
      Another trick favored and featured by antismoking researchers in this area is similar to the one used in the outdoor smoke studies: focusing on the momentary conditions of what they call “peak concentrations” (i.e., the “microplumes” mentioned a little earlier), while deliberately confusing those exposures with ones that last continuously over 24-hour or 365-day EPA guideline periods.
      Think back to the last time you were in a car or a social situation with a smoker sitting right next to you. Occasionally, the air will waft the wrong way and, for a moment, a concentrated plume of smoke will blow right into your face (or into a researcher’s “sniffer monitor”) from the burning tip of the cigarette. It doesn’t happen often in a moving car with the windows cracked even moderately open, but even then, such moments occasionally exist.
      That is what is meant when researchers cite figures for peak concentrations. Such figures are completely meaningless when compared with the EPA outdoor air standards for contaminants inhaled and exhaled with every breath, for 24 hours a day / 365 days a year, but that is exactly the comparison Antismokers make when presenting these “smoking in cars pollution studies” to the public. For individual tiny discrete moments, the air quality in a particular few cubic centimeters of space in these cars could indeed be far worse than the EPA’s level for 24-hour constant and inescapable exposure. Actually, if that were all the air one had to breathe, it’s unlikely even the hardiest adult would survive for a single hour. But in terms of a moment of exposure, it’s kind of like having a cup of coffee at 160 degrees and taking a tiny little sip from it – you’ll enjoy it and your health won’t be damaged at all. But if I immersed you in a cannibal’s kettle at 160 degrees for 24 hours, you’d be soup. Heck, you’d be deader than a hard-boiled egg in 24 minutes! That’s why you should ignore the “peak readings” in stories about studies like these: they’re nothing but a propaganda tool used to frighten innocent people.
      ===

      Think how nasty a stew made from Antismokers would be! Ewww… not even Leggy would write a horror story about THAT!

      :>
      MJM

      Like

  3. For the Home Brewers among us and totally O/T: A few weeks ago I bought 100g of Simcoe hops for something I was playing around with. They came vacuumed packed and have since opening been in a ziplock bag. I only used a teaspoon full or so and it seems a shame to bin them. If anyone would like them -free and gratis P&P then email me on jacquesketchATgmail.

    Like

  4. Pingback: Was This the Real Reason All Along? Tobacco Con...

  5. This is all very well, but wouldn’t this raise a fairly important principle of law once those people turned 18? Surely the whole point of the law is that it is the law and it applies (or should apply) equally to everyone. So, everyone has to wait until they are 17 to drive; until they are 18 to drink in a pub; until they are 16 to marry (with parents’ consent); and no-one of any age is allowed to sell/use illegal substances etc etc. How can any law be applied to one group of people because of the year they were born (rather than their specific age), but not to others?

    Like

    • Hmmm… junican, you bring up an interesting possibility! Maybe we could solve the overpopulation problem with a law sayign that no one born after 2000 would be allowed to have sex! Voila! Population problem solved!

      And after twenty years or so, when population levels have dropped nicely the law can be changed!

      🙂
      MJM

      Like

    • The law makes no sense anyway, so that won’t be an issue.

      However, it does mean that, as MJM says, there is an interesting principle here. If they get away with this one there is no limit.

      Nobody born after 2000 will be eligible to drive . Nobody born after 2000 will be allowed to claim benefits. Nobody born after 2000 will be allowed to buy alcohol. Nobody born after today will be allowed to eat meat.

      None of it will work, as none of it does now. All it will do is hugely increase the number of people being fined for silly things and… give whichever band of morons is in charge more money to waste.

      That last bit is the reason they will try to do it. They have no other purpose in life.

      Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s