THS and SMOKER MONEY

Apologies to Dick Puddlecote and Leg Iron because I can't remember the post that carried a conversation between the two about smoker's money.



I do recall that Dick said he used to write SMOKER'S MONEY across his notes in the early days of persecution when the anti-smoking industry put out the myth that only Non-smoker's money was worth having in pubs.



He thought it would be particularly useful given the push to further outcast smokers from civil society, make them homeless, unemployable, and devalue their own private properties with the invention that is third hand smoke - THS.



Well, I'm up for that. It was my intention to scan in my very first Smoker's note and post a photo here but the purse is empty until I get to the bank tomorrow. I also thought that if it involved money, and technically the copying of that money, it was bound to be illegal somehow. Hence I used another image to illustrate the point I'm trying to make.



I can't find The Smoker's Arms in Grimsby on the Lost Pubs site so it must still be open. I'd go there just because of the name and in spite of the ban if I lived locally. I wonder how long it will be allowed to keep it in this current climate.



Even though the anti-smoking industry is still lying about the effect of the loss of Smoker Money, and Govt is in denial about it, most normal people and those pub owners made bankrupt by the blanket ban do recognise there is a valuable link.



The Angry Exile makes a good point about smoker to smoker services in the comments section of Chris Snowdon's post on the dangerous delusion of anti-smoker quango ASH It's a great idea and one worthy of organising. A reference list by profession or service, with contacts of smokers and tolerant non-smokers, would be handy.



AE said : I mentioned a bloke in Ireland who refuses to hire smokers because he thinks they're all lazy, stupid, smelly and sickly. Fella who commented today said he was considering using that company for a £50K project but has decided against because, in his own words:



"...anyone stupid enough to make comments like he did is obviously not bright enough to handle our needs.

Please pass the word so others are not tempted to employ a company led by such a cerebrally challenged individual."



An accountant who posted a comment on this blog once told me that he is being constructively bullied out of work because he is a smoker. Despite the fact that he does not take breaks, nor smokes at work because it's illegal, his employer demands that he doesn't smoke in his own time "because he doesn't want clients to see employees smoking out of work."



I am sure that there are plenty of self employed smokers who would rather commission the services of this tax expert than his pious boss's company which is happy to take their Smoker Money while he bullies smoker employees who may handle their account.



And now that Tobacco Control is discussing how best to put padding on the invention of THS (thanks Dave Atherton for the link) it may well be that society will be encouraged to refuse Smoker Money in future for fear of catching something awful.



In the TC discussion, they concede that nicotine and "other harmful substances" can be found in a variety of other everyday products and they need to be sure that they can single out the smoker as living in an "infected" property.



It seems the only language that Govt listens to is financial and so perhaps the use of SMOKER MONEY may speak greater volumes than the common sense and reasonable arguments we have used to date to stop our persecution.



UPDATE My other half just came back with a tenner from the ATM so what the hell. I made my mark in the blank bits around the note for fear of devaluing it by writing over something important like the number which I have erased because it seemed wise.

SMOKER DISCRIMINATION AT WORK

SAD Ireland thinks smoker job discrimination is a huge social step backwards and so do most right thinking people except those blinded by anti-smoker hatred.

I heard about the legal discrimination of smokers at work reported in the New York Times but the Stand FAST blog has taken a deeper look into the problem of discrimination in the workplace against smokers.

It seems that many "healthcare" (I use that word loosely because although these zealots may work in health, they certainly don't care) employers have moved from attacking smoking to smokers themselves. It's all part of the wider "Denormalisation" plan that promotes "Smokers as employer liabilities".

Not only have they refused to hire smokers - who may only smoke in their own time - but they are also threatening to sack any smoker who doesn't quit and force them to take urine tests to detect traces of a legal product:

...the “No Smokers Need Apply” policies are not restricted to new hires. In some instances, employers are demanding that smokers quit their habit or face the prospect of unemployment. In some cases, employers are demanding urine tests, intended to detect traces of nicotine, a perfectly legal substance, from those seeking employment and, in some cases, from those who may already be employed who want to keep their job.

These employers, which include the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and a growing number of hospital and health care facilities, believe they have a right to dictate what activities employees may indulge in their free time.

The anti-smoker zealots justify these gross intrusions into the personal lives of potential employees (and existing employees) by pointing out the need to “increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs and encourage healthier living.”

The (New York) Times article insinuates that the shift from smoke-free workplaces to smoker free workplaces is a new phenomena. “The policies reflect a frustration that softer efforts — like banning smoking on company grounds, offering cessation programs and increasing health care premiums for smokers — have not been powerful-enough incentives to quit.”

But, in fact, the uncompromising vindictiveness of the zealots has been characteristic of the euphemistically named “tobacco control” movement from the very beginning. They have carefully crafted a propaganda campaign which portrays smokers as social misfits - addicts, aggressively spreading their contagion to a non-smoking population and jeopardizing the lives of children.

Offering jobs to non-smokers only is increasing in the UK as well and the Govt is doing nothing to protect smokers from such blatant discrimination. I'd like to know if they really think we are incapable of doing our jobs because we are smokers. After all, who the hell won two world wars, built the first tank, and engineered just about every great thing this country has ever been known for? Smokers of course because back in our glory days most people did it.

In The UK, things have moved further towards "quit or jail". The first piece of the plan is likely to be put in place in a couple of days when a bigoted council in Suffolk decides whether to impose a "fine or quit" policy on those it harasses in the street or at work.

None of this is ultimately about health - it's about hate. For me and many other smokers, it's not about smoking - it's about the right to be left alone to live in peace without fear or prejudice.

Is there no Govt that will give us that at least?

UPDATE - StandFAST reports that non-smoking employee spouses of smokers are also contagious. I think the aim is to break up marriages by such covert means so that smokers will be isolated further. Divorce or quit is also a strong quit motivator to some.