Saturday, May 28, 2011


Source of photo

A few years ago, just before NuLabour legalised hate, discrimination and inequality, and the Department of Health was not corrupt, our office was pretty much half and half as far as smokers and non-smokers were concerned but there was a small group of intolerant anti-smokers who were constantly calling for a smoking ban.

One was Australian, I didn't know then what I know about Aus and smokers now, one was an intolerant twat, who was intolerant about all sorts of things including smoking, and one was a very middle class woman who said smoke made her eyes sting - even though she stunk the place out with her awful perfume.

They knew that I was opposed to the idea of a ban at a highly stressful place of work for the same reason I am against bans now. I also thought fears about smoke and dislike of the smell could have been resolved by ventilation - or sitting the smokers near windows and the ones who hated it over on the other side of the office.

The gang of three approached the editor while I was on holiday complaining about how we smokers were killing them and it was wrong to allow smoking in the building. The (non-smoking) boss did indeed consider it and spoke to others in the office. Some felt as strongly as I did, others didn't mind either way.

When I returned, and even before I'd got my coat off, the intolerant twat burst forth with : "Smoking's going to banned in this office so you better get used to it," in a na na n na na sort of way.

I sat at my desk and my job that day was to trawl through the national papers to see if there was anything remotely or directly concerned with anyone living in our circulation area which we could then follow up from a local angle.

A story in the Guardian caught my eye. It was a new "study" that "proved" traffic congestion caused lung cancer.

When I lived outside of the city of Lincoln, I took a bus to work or I cycled in. The traffic fumes were horrendous. When I moved into the city, I walked to work. The congestion was awful. There was a line of traffic spewing filth that I could taste from exhausts as cars waited at traffic lights on a road that I had no choice but to walk down.

Aussie, Intolerant Twat and Miss Perfume drove into work every day even though one of them could get a bus and two of them could've walked.

I cut out the piece from the Guardian and attached it to a letter I wrote to the editor explaining that in all fairness, if he banned smoking on health grounds then he also had to ban those people who lived within a five mile radius of the city boundary from driving into work as well. He called me into his office later to have a chat about it.

The Gang of Three squealed that it was because the air outside was so filthy that it was doubly important to ensure the air inside was "clean." The editor came down on my side and said if the issue came up again, he would keep me in the loop and ask for my views. He was a fair bloke.

I left the paper before that editor retired but I worked there as cover and saw the progression after a trendy young editor took over. First a smoking room and then a ban after threats from antis that they could sue, and then the law which wasn't necessary and shut the door after the monster had bolted anyway.

I think now our Govt has gone down the road of making laws that ban they simply can't stop and it does look as if a ban is heading towards the Gang of Three at some stage as their filthy habit is now in Nanny's vision

“Air pollution probably causes more deaths than passive smoking, traffic accidents or obesity, yet it receives very little attention from Government or the media.”

“In the worst affected areas this invisible killer could be taking years off the lives of people most at risk, such as those with asthma.

“The large EU fines we face, if we don’t get to grips with this problem, should now focus Ministers’ minds.

“Much more needs to be done to save lives and reduce the enormous burden air pollution is placing on the NHS.”

This is not news and something we've always known but the antis have always had a problem with it. Smokers have always demanded to know how we define those alleged deaths caused by SHS and those caused by traffic fumes, perfume, and other pollutants both indoor and outdoor.

I'll guess we'll never get an answer to that one while the anti-smoker money keeps rolling in and hypocritcal organic fart sniffers like Debs Arnott are happy to drive to smoke hater meetings while thinking nothing of condeming everyone else around them to death.

You could also argue, as traffic allegedly causes asthma in children, road deaths of children, and it is worse than SHS or obesity for children, then parents who put their kids in cars are no better than child abusers because they have a very high chance of causing them death or serious injury and they must know this. They can also choose other modes of safer transport for their kids but they are too damn selfish to do so.

Perhaps by turning the insult they direct at smoker parents might just make them realise how nasty and spiteful they are. Somehow, though, I doubt it.

I wouldn't want to see cars banned, incidentally, but I'd like to see a better public transport system. Perhaps the Govt could start by investing some of the cash stolen by ASH and it's fake charity buddies.