Monday
Sep052011
Minister accuses smokers of foul play
Monday, September 5, 2011 at 19:13 A Scottish news agency has been in touch.
They wanted Forest's response to the following tweet by Stewart Stevenson, Scotland's minister for Environment and Climate Change:
I won't bore you with my response. But I'd be interested to read yours.
Update on Tuesday, September 6, 2011 at 7:34 by
Simon Clark
Simon Clark
The Scotsman has the story, including my reaction, here:
Minister accused of intolerance after branding fireworks smokers 'foul'
Meanwhile Stevenson has added this tweet:
PS. You may remember Stewart Stevenson. He resigned as Scotland's transport minister last December "over his handling of the travel chaos caused by the extreme winter weather" (BBC News).
Lucky he's no longer in charge of transport policy. See Ban on smoking in cars the next 'logical step'? (Brian Monteith, The Free Society).
Reader Comments (30)
It's just too damn trivial but shows him for what he is - Smokerphobic. He can stand around a firework display (if that is what he means by Fireworks Concert) - all that sulfur and God Knows what other chemicals being fired into the atmosphere around him - and yet he has not the common decency to tolerate four smokers, socially excluded from everywhere in his country governed by Puritans, whose smoke has NEVER been proved to be harmful, outdoors.
Lawd - gimmie strength and save us from these phobic nutters.
You might also get something from this link Simon. Do Scottish Ministers understand "Ironic".
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2011/09/and-tobacco-powered-electricity-plant.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DickPuddlecote+%28Dick+Puddlecote%29
It actually scares me that such odious nutters hold positions of power. Seriously.
Then again, as he is the Minister for Climate Change they obviously need a political extremist who is also rather dim and completely scientifically illiterate. As such, the fact that he is also an anti-smoker really shouldn't come as a great surprise.
That said, I wonder if he qualifies as a hypochondriac under DSM IV? That's one way to get rid of these Nazis - and that isn't a word I throw about or use lightly. It's a very small step to complain about 4 people (out of how many thousands?) smoking OUTSIDE (!) at a fireworks display where the air is full of chemicals, and someone moaning about those dirty ***** stinking of curry. It's clearly a psychological impairment of some sort.
So he's either a vile, intolerant Nazi or he's psychologically damaged. Take your pick....
Gunpowder is made up of three chemicals, in the following proportions - 75% Potassium Nitrate (KNO3) + 10% Sulphur (S) + 15% Carbon (C).
"Each compound is combined with other pesticide active ingredients (sulfur and carbon) and loaded into fumigant gas cartridges, which are designed to be ignited and placed in pest burrows. The ignited cartridge bombs produce toxic gases which are lethal to target rodents, skunks, coyotes and ground-nesting wasps."
Yep the chemicals that go into making gun powder are used as pesticides. No doubt as fellow mammals we are just as vulnerable.
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/4052fact.pdf
So there he is, observing masses of obnoxious, noxious chemicals being flung into his precious environmental air, and all he can think about is a few wisps of tobacco smoke.
But we forget! It was a fireworks display, and so there would have been lots of children there! Ah...that's a different matter then.......Or is it?
The man's a wally.
No reasoning to be had with these people. Take a leaf out of Derren Brown's book and just pretend you're deranged. Perceived madness trumps the danger of SHS.,
Nice orthodontia in the photo. Maybe he should take up smoking.
I assume that he was transported to this event via bicycle or electric car? Not by a foul, noxious and globally-polluting hydrocarbon-powered vehicle? If not, why not?
These people are obviously hand picked for their job. Insanity and a hatred for your fellow man ( minority groups) being the main criteria and qualification to fit the post.
With no tobacco companies left to advertise or put out solid arguments in the mainstream against the second hand smoking myth then it leaves smokers out in the open to be picked on, and politicians love to make out someone as enemy and themselves as saviour in order to get votes.
What a turd! End of.
Then again, this sort of deranged illogicality is what happens when "the right to clean air trumps all" and when legislation is (amazingly!) passed on a few not liking certain smells rather than on evidence of harm. Just look at the moves to now ban perfumes in certain parts of the world, or this idiot, who went to a fishing port and made an official complaint..... about the smell of fish.
ASH have a lot to answer for.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2034223/This-harbour-s-good-tourists--smells-fish--Holidaymaker-branded-idiot-complaining-pretty-Devon-port-upset-children.html
At least this man was branded an idiot - unlike the ASHites who walked into pubs that had allowed smoking for centuries and did exactly the same thing.
Havent we come a long way as humans when the smells of our labour and pleasures are being banned.
At this rate the Antis will want to tax the air we breath next.
Stewart Stevenson would be far better off living in the spirit world.
Along with his ASH co-conspirators!
The "right to clean trumps all" is a bully's creed. "Clean air" doesn't actually exist and the Smopkerphobic's nose ends where our right to free association with other people like us begins.
The biggest ever confidence trick was the lie that smokers and Smokerphobics could not be catered for. I have no problem with non-smokers and they have no problem with me but the smokerphobics are simply dangerous to social cohesion and the Govt is wrong to give them unqualified backing while legislating for every single lie they tell.
I am surprised that Stewart Stevenson was able to smell the cigarette smoke as it is a well known fact that theti-Smokers especially MSPs only use one orifice situated at the opposite end of the body.
Post above should read " the Anti-Smokers"
I quite like theti-smokers.
Theti is a mountain in northern Albania.
What annoys me most, and it really makes my blood boil, so frustrating, is some of the comments you get following articles like this in The Scotsman.
Guillible comments like "...and we now know how the companies increased the level of addiction...",
or worst of all, total ignorance, "If there was no smoking ban, they would still be lighting up in pubs/restaurants/buses/cinemas you name it.",
what kind of person forgets that the only places left where smokers smoked before the ban were most pubs and some restaurants?
This is the most annoying thing of all for me, a law and signage on places where people had not smoked for decades, even centuries!
I agree Timbone, that is one of the things that annoys me, too. It shows an inability to think abstractly. They just think, "Smoking's not allowed in pubs any more", rather than realising that this odious law actually the law of the land. They can't seem to understand the difference between not smoking in cinemas and the like (something that ended naturally because of social change and market forces and without the need for legislation) and being FORCED to stop doing something when there is no market demand for it to stop. I try to explain to these people that it's not the fact you can't smoke in pubs that annoys me (if pubs had gone the way of cinemas I'd have been annoyed, but I would just have to accept that I was an anachronism), it's the fact that it's law and no-one can open a smoker's pub, even if they really wanted to and even if they were almost guaranteed to lose cash (which of course they wouldn't, but that is by the by).
It's a big difference between the two scenarios and that is why there is still such anger about it. After all, did anyone complain about cinemas banning smoking? Or banks? Or theatres? Or their offices? But these idiots seem to think a national law that intrudes on private property and legislates against free enterprise is the same as a company deciding it won't allow smoking on its premises, just because the end result is "No smoking." The stupidity of these people is frightening.
Then again, trying to get them to think about private property rights, the right to assemble freely, market forces and enforced unemployment, State sponsored social division and alienation etc is damn near impossible when all they can seem to bleat is, "I used to have to wash myself before the ban, and now I don't. The smell! The smell!"
So we shouldn't really be surprised.....
Mr A and Timbone.
Eventually, totalitarianism will be overcome and common sense will prevail. When that happens, all the 'stinkers' will go back home. (They never went to pubs anyway, and still don't). They will disappear back into the woodwork from where they emerged, never to be seen again. The reason is that, as you say, that they never actually thought about what they were saying - and, when the persecution stops, they will stop talking about smoking; they will look for something else.
These people have always been about. You met them in the pub. Nobody took them on and they finished up alone and, eventually. went home. Now they can vote on YouGov and comment on newspaper blogs without any consequence for themselves - they rarely go to pubs.
I would like to see a survey which asks:
"How often do you go to a pub?" a) Very, very rarely, b) once a year, c) once a month, d) once a week, e) every day.
Next question is directed to each catagory separately----
As regards group a) (very, very rarely):
Since the smoking ban was imposed, do you now go: a) still very, very rarely, b) once a year,......and so on. With a new question f) have stopped going.
Well, something like that.....
So much for this being a website that supports freedom! Someone makes a comment, and is described as a “nutter”, “wally”, “idiot”, “vile, intolerant Nazi or psychologically damaged”, “turd”, “nice orthodontia”, etc. Charming.
In everything else we do, we are expected to exercise social responsibility. We can play music, provided it doesn’t disturb others. We can shout and yell, subject to the same condition. We can get amorous with our loved one, provided we restrain ourselves in public. Thankfully, most smokers also get that people also need to smoke with some social responsibility, so their smoke doesn’t disturb people around them. The rules are no different for smoking than for these other activities. If the MSP had complained about people in the crowd playing loud music, continually shouting and yelling, or copulating, nobody would call him the names some of you had called him. It’s just a shame that a small but vocal cabal of pro-smokers seem to believe these normal social conventions don’t apply to them.
Smoking is NOT 'copulating' in public, playing loud music or 'yelling and shouting' which upsets everybody, not just antis like yourself. For 50+ years of my life it has been the 'social convention' to smoke. Sensory inadequates change their minds and expect 400 years of sociability to fall in behind them. It may be your 'social convention' but it's not ours.
You have the sensory problem, you move.
Only an anti could associate smoking with "copulating in public." Where do you even begin with these people?
Oh, and yes - if he was complaining about playing loud music and yelling and shouting, I would still have called him psychologically damaged. He was at a fireworks display, for God's sake! (Or at least I gather he was at a fireworks display, such is his mangled command of the English language).
Antis. If their delusions weren't supported by the State and the multi-billion dollar Pharmaceutical industry, I might even find their ravings amusing.
It must be great to be you Rollo, like whenever you point out to someone that they shouldnt do or say something you consider to be wrong and they tell you to F . . k off or call you a nutter.
It must be great to be able to take it all on the chin because you know you are right and such a good person and always conform to your politically correct masters.
Bless.
Rollo, you must agree that these people might not have been smoking during the display had there been smoking pubs available to visit either before or afterwards. Before the smoking ban I very rarely smoked outdoors, because any wind spoiled my enjoyment of a cigarette.
@Rollo said:
"We can play music, provided it doesn’t disturb others." You make a good point here Rollo, as someone who likes live music I believe the average concert inside is 120ds, louder than an aircraft taking off. So that kind of volume would be quite unacceptable for example in your street. However it is acceptable in a private club. Thanks for justifying smoking rooms and even pubs.
Before you get all smarty pants on outside smoking, it makes noise and easily avoided.
"Thankfully, most smokers also get that people also need to smoke with some social responsibility, so their smoke doesn’t disturb people around them." - Rollo.
This is correct, prior to the smoking ban I avoided smoke-free places, including smoke-free restaurants and smoke-free pubs (all two of them that I knew of) and used places where smoking was permitted (many of these had non-smoking and smoke-free areas). It’s just a shame that a small but vocal cabal of professional anti-smokers seem to believe they have a right to deny a minority these normal social conventions. Still when the smoking ban is repealed or at the very least amended , these normal social conventions will be restored.
Ah! So jolly, fun-loving, care-free Rollo has turned up.
What I observe in his comment is that he has now veered away from 'danger' and moved over to 'consideration'.
Are you beginning to see that your monstrous claims of DANGER as regards SHS are falling apart day by day? More and more proper scientists, proper professors and proper doctors are appearing and rubbishing the claims of danger from SHS. The quacks are being shown up to be the charlatans that they are.
And your appeal to "Think of the children!" is also falling apart. There simply is not any evidence, and in this case, the lack of evidence speaks volumes. THERE ARE NO ILL CHILDREN as a result of SHS - that is why there is no evidence.
So carry on about 'consideration', but don't forget that when you and your fellow quacks threw smokers out into the wind, cold and rain, you did not exactly show them much consideration, did you? Nor have you any intention whatsoever of showing smokers consideration in the future.
Do buzz off, Rollo - we are sick of the quackery.
"Only an anti could associate smoking with "copulating in public." Where do you even begin with these people?"
With their history, Mr A.
"Godber recollected that he had said in 1962 to Keith Joseph, another of his Conservative ministers, that "we really have to do something about abolishing smoking" (having won the approval of the Health Minister Enoch Powell). Joseph looked quite shocked and said: "You really can't expect to abolish smoking.
"Godber replied: "No, but I want to see it reduced to an activity of consenting adults in private."
From Godber's obituary in the Independant - 2009
"copulating in public." "an activity of consenting adults in private."
Anti-smokers were less vulgar in those days.