Donald Duck her in her ear hole (saturday)

Adolf Hitler was the first person to introduce a public smoking ban.

I was in Cafe Rouge today. There was an ashtray on the table so, once we'd finished our meal, some of the people I was with sparked up*. Now I've never minded people smoking, it's not a problem. Even if you're eating I can't see the problem. Maybe that's because my mother smoked all the way through my childhood. Maybe it's because I used to be a smoker. Or, maybe it's because I'm just a more tolerant and all round better person than everybody else. Actually, partly, it's because The Nazi's were the first people to introduce anti-smoking laws and in light of their political position I can see why that was.

Left wing, right wing, goodies, baddies, black and white.


There are two categories into which you can fit most political ideology as far as I'm concerned. However I'm loathe to use the heavily loaded phraseology of "left wing" and "right wing" which we were fed at school. I don't see as how those terms are of any use in a sensible political discussion. They're terms designed for terminally thick people who want to know which team to support.

Political debate for me is a lot simpler. There's two different types of people, those who want to tell everyone what to do and those who don't. That's it. You fit somewhere in between the extremes of those two perspectives. Adolf Hitler and fascism is about controlling people, who they are and what they do. So is socialism. And communism. And Islamism. And pretty much any "ism" you can think of.

If you subscribe to an "ism" I suggest you wipe that muck out of your eyes, off your face and drop the hanky you did it with into the bin. Then think about who is telling you what to do and why.

The origin of left and right?

I've been told that the phrase left wing and right wing comes from the old style parliament where on the left side you'd have the party who opposed the King, the industrialists and traders. And then on the right you'd have those that supported him, the nobility and so forth. That way in the event of an actual fight the King's sword arm, his right, would be free to attack with the support of those on that side of the house while his shield could automatically be ready on his left hand side to defend himself.

It was in some politics lecture or something that I learned that.

If it's true then the left-right paradigm was originally based upon the ideas I'm putting forward earlier on in this post and at some point it's been subverted. Left would be those who looked for the King to have less power and right would be for those who wanted more.

Still in Cafe Rouge... the Nazis were also "civilised" on the surface.

It was amazing to sense the tension in the whole Cafe as people's backs started to arch up and collectively the room realised there was something wrong. One of the sheep was causing a mess, how would the rest of the flock react? I'm not joking when I say I felt as though, literally the whole room, was livid that someone had dared to smoke in their presence. But they weren't livid in the same way you might be if someone did you a genuine wrong; like you might attack a bloke running out of your house with one of your kids in a cloth sack. No, they were not livid from the heart. They were "livid" because they'd been told to be by the powers that be. The media debates which they'd indignantly listened to on the radio and TV were the cause of their timid rage. The whispering and the looks were a consequence of powerful mind control carried out by primary definers** via the mainstream media.

Surely there's a danger to their lives though?

The dangers of passive smoking has never been proven. Sorry if that upsets you but it's a fact. They've never proven it. There's a report which came out in America some time ago which implied a link between the health risks which are associated with smoking and simple passive smoking but it was never proven. Even the most ardent defender of the dangers of passive smoking will be forced to admit that the risks they're proposing must be, by simple deduction, even smaller than those which would come with say, actually smoking a fag yourself. Now the risks of that causing problems are small. Imagine how much smaller any proven link for passive smoking must be.

If you think I'm talking out of my ars#hole look at this study by the British Medical Journal.

Life isn't played out in black and white. There's no goodies and baddies and I don't know about you but I personally ain't got no wings.

Lovely bit of tension rising...

The table next to us, their faces like thunder, were chatting to each other and they hastily called over a member of staff, who went to get the manager, who apologetically explained it was a non-smoking establishment. The ashtray was there in error. How odd.

It was amazing to see the unashamedly self satisfied and smug looks on the faces of the people sat on the table next to us. They were truly loving it. I couldn't believe it. Weren't they at least a bit embarrassed for themselves? I imagine they'd be thinking the same thing about our table.

I obviously didn't mention it to the people with me until we left, I didn't want to cause a scene either.

Ban farting in public!

I enjoyed the odd feeling of middle class disgust and tension in the Cafe Rouge though and wondered to myself why people were getting so het up. The emotion of self preservation couldn't be fueling it, no one really thinks death is on the door when they inhale a bit of passive smoke. The emotion they must be connecting with must be nasal discomfort mainly, followed by other minor physical discomforts and inconveniences. To that end I don't understand why they shouldn't go ahead and ban the following people from public places:

Smelly people.
Fat people.
People who fart a lot.
People who are old.
Poor people.

What would be wrong with that? They're all minor discomforts. I'm serious when I say that the above will be next.

What is a VIP room if not a bar which is aspiring to move in that direction? What is our society's obsession in popular culture with the concept of "The VIP room" if not us slowly moving generation by generation towards an acceptance of such a concept? The slave state beckons us at every turn.

Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.


Beware of the alpha males, the boorish oafs, the fat-headed fools, the nosy old busybodies, the ones who are always right and the organ grinder's monkey. If you see a smoker judge not, lest ye be judged and remember that criticism will always tell us more about the critic than the criticised. Live your own life well and let others do the same. Free Nelson Mandella and Down With Thatcher. Support The Miners. Yak yak.

NM

*I don't smoke anymore. Bad for you. F#cking kill you them things will.

**"Primary definers" are people who have access to, and hold sway over, the news agenda. Ever wondered why newspapers all seem to carry the same stories? That's as a direct consequence of these guys.

Comments

Lloydd said…
You sound like my Dad, who recently said "it's my human right to call someone a Paki".
Nicholarse said…
In what way?
Lloydd said…
I think you are playing devil's advocate, you are being contrary for the sake of it. I can't believe you can be genuinely passionate about arguing in favour of the right to smoke in a coffee shop.
jodester said…
smoking is evil.
it causes cancer. my grandad died of cancer from smoking. i miss him.
if tobacco was a new product it wouldn't get on the shelves. banning in it public places helps people with ridiculous habits like smoking after every meal - smoking when driving - smoking with a beer - smoking after nookie etc get on the right track to stopping.
the money they lose in cigarette sales tax they'll save on nhs treatment for smoking related illnesess.
i hate smokers.
they make me smell of their filthy habit when i happen to share a space with them.
if i respect their right to smoke they should respect my right not to smell of their cr*p!
humph. nobody had brainwashed me into this point of view. i smelled my coat after a bar this weekend and pulled a face.
i was out at a comedy club and the girl at the next table 'saved' her friend next to her the 'smoke in the face' by holding her cigarette in my face instead. nice!
roll on July!
advise everyone you love to stop smoking - it's the real evil weed!
fat people should be banned too.
and poor people. the current financial practice in the western world means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer which just sucks. i read last week that 3% of americans account for 50% of the country's wealth or something disgusting... that's insane.
and inhumane.
i hope they all smoke. haha
Nicholarse said…
Blimey. It's all kicking off. Someone smoking in the same room as you doesn't do any actual harm.

It's just a discomfort.

Ban farting?

No, not going to work.

The idea of forcing people not to smoke is silly as well. If they want to it's upto them. It's fun. Let 'em get on with it.

NM
Ruby Doubidoux said…
I think you're generalising for the sake of the argument. "Someone smoking in the same room as you" - Now that's really not a problem if it's a big room and there are windows open. What about a small, enclosed bar with low ceilings, packed to the gunnels. Say a third of the 200 people in there are smoking. 60 ciggies on the go. No ventilation. I've been for nights out in places like this and have come out with a tight chest, and wheezing. Not good for the Asthma at all.
On the other hand, a couple of people smoking in a well ventilated room about 20 yards from my table? Fine, no problems.

But how can you create an environment where every bar is well ventilated, and the people who spend time in there are not subjected to a dense thick smog? You can't - it's not practical. Ban it. Job Done.

I think, as Lloyd said, you're being contrary for the sake of it. Smoking in public and inflicting it on others in rude, foul smelling and unpleasant. It's nothing like someone who'se eaten too many Brussel Sprouts.


Smoke, fine, well done, just don't make me breathe it.

Roll on July.


In Ten years time we'll look back and say how uncivilised we were allowing people to smoke in public. While we carry our ID cards in our wallets and our chips in our heads and we all conform to the prison state which is closing around us as we speak.

Oh dear. I think I should get some sleep.
Nicholarse said…
See, this is the point for me. It's not about you and your human rights, it's about telling other people what to do. There's a straight question in politics, do you want to give people more or less freedom? This smoking ban is about cutting down on people's freedom. It's also about ostricising others and making people feel like they don't belong. Dividing society up and then conquering us as individuals rather than as a collective.

I do not smoke but I don't like that my mates have to go outside to do so in a pub where the landlord and all the staff smoke as well. Insane. Nothing to do with anyone's human rights or anything like that.

NM
Leather Face said…
I feel the same thing happening towards dog owners. It amazes me the dirty stares I can recieve whilst walking my very friendly and well behaved dogs, especially if adults are with their kids.

I tell you it's all media control. There's the odd dog attack and the media jump straight on it.

You want to know what maims more children than any animal or human? Cars!!! Now what can they do, ban cars???

The choice is yours, whoops!!! No the choice of your freedom appears to be theirs. I'm with Nick on this one and I'm a none smoker too.
Nicholarse said…
Interesting you should mention dog attacks. I once went to a conference which was all about how to do good breakfast radio shows. One of the things they taught us about was how to "read the zeitgeist". It's something I used to do on the phone in show, you take a load of papers and then you write down briefly what each of those stories is about. The final list might look something like this:

Terrorism,
Kylie Minogue,
Gun crime,
Dangerous dogs,
etc.

Just keep to snappy titles when you write them out. Put them in order, going from the front page in to the middle. So in this example "terrorism" would be on the front page.

Get a load together and treat it as a top ten list.

Do it every day and you'll notice differne tnews subjects move up and down the agenda.

The bloke who was telling us about it looked at the lists we'd written out and accurately predicted a rise in stories about dangerous dogs over the next few months.

Now, this was a few years ago but, sure enough over those next few months stories about dangerous dogs became more prominent and went up the agenda.

As a consequence I am always suspicious when I see dangerous dog stories in the news agenda.

I'm not suggesting the attacks which the stories highlight didn't happen, I'm just asking why at certain times they're given prominence? Surely someone is attacked by a dog somewhere in this country reasonably frequently? Not always in the news though.

It's like knife attacks, the Government brings out new laws and just before they go through the papers start giving knife stories loads of coverage.

NM
cockneyreject said…
It's quite simple really if the bar is not well ventillated then go to a bar up the road were it is or better still find a no smoking bar. Oh yeah, there wasn't any until that lovely 'nanny state' made them all like that. I seem to remember bars plodding along quite nicely for years full of smokers, now I'm one of the unclean. Hmmmm? Maybe I should get a bell to ring.

Popular Posts