Saturday, March 24, 2012

Blowing Smoke Up My...

By the time you read this, Sudbury prison will have become afflicted by one of the most asinine policies yet to flow from the prison bureaucrat’s pen. Smoking is to be banned in the open air.
I can appreciate the arguments around smoking in enclosed public spaces, although the research on the harms flowing from passive smoking is less than convincing. But to what earthly purpose is smoking being banned in the open air, as we wander the grounds in the evening?
It is this State interference with the individual which is truly cancerous, and it is such mindless restrictions that will always heat my political blood.

12 comments:

  1. "although the research on the harms flowing from passive smoking is less than convincing"

    Ben. Seriously now, come on! That really is blowing smoke! The evidence is plentiful and unequivocal and if think otherwise you really must be stuck in the depths of some significant denial.

    If you want to poison your own lungs and pollute your own air, then fine, but why should the evening stroll of non-smokers be spoiled by your noxious fug? Perhaps your own lack of sensitivity to the odour has led you to believe non-smokers can't smell you from pretty much the other side of the compound? Well, you are mistaken. If I was making that sort of unpleasant smell (such as after a particularly strong curry, for example), I wouldn't inflict my effluvium on you and I really don't see why I (and other non-smokers) should have to suffer yours!

    No support from me on this one, sorry. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Plus it may be fine in fine weather, however when it is rainy and people start hdduling around doors, it can be incredibly frustrating for non-smokers to have to walk through their cloud to get into a building.

    ReplyDelete
  3. An easy and viable solution is to invent smoking material that is not so harmful in the first place. They put all sorts of junk in cigarettes, and its unnecesary. Smoking is a social activity, these constant and awful attempts at restriction are far too heavy handed, and as was mentioned before there are an awful lot of double stantdards about the place too; an example being the luxurious smoking rooms still for use in the Houses of parliament. If they were serious about doing something about the health problems associated with smoking there would be more honesty and debate concerning supply, and more honesty about the fact that some human beings wish to smoke, and making allowances for the freedom to do so, safely and with respect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Luxurious smoking rooms are fine by me - as long as I get an equivalent luxurious room to hang out in for a 5 minute break every time my smoking colleagues nip outside for a quick drag.

      Delete
    2. Its the hypocracy in the situation that I was refering to; one rule for the plebs (we are not allowed to smoke anywhere practically) and another for them, who can smoke away in luxury.

      I agree that fag breaks are like informal breaks from work. I used to joke that I was 'having a fag' when I wanted/needed some time out, but people just looked at me strange (I am an ex smoker), so I gave up with that one and simply said "Look, just leave me alone for five minutes, you are pissing me off and I want some company with the comedians of the world, the ones who can make people laugh."

      Delete
    3. Its the hypocracy in the situation that I was refering to; one rule for the plebs (we are not allowed to smoke anywhere practically) and another for them, who can smoke away in luxury.

      I agree that fag breaks are like informal breaks from work. I used to joke that I was 'having a fag' when I wanted/needed some time out, but people just looked at me strange (I am an ex smoker), so I gave up with that one and simply said "Look, just leave me alone for five minutes, you are pissing me off and I want some company with the comedians of the world, the ones who can make people laugh."

      Delete
    4. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070611/text/70611w0004.htm#07061114000542

      The House of Commons shares your view. Which is why they have a self imposed ban on indoor smoking.

      Delete
  4. "It is this State interference with the individual which is truly cancerous..."

    It's truly fascist, as you can cure cancer without the need of carpet-bombing.

    Although I regard smokers as junkies, I would fight for their right to make of themselves what they will; with the usual provisos such as don't do it near me, you smelly so-n-so.

    ReplyDelete
  5. stops people dying of lung cancer....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does no such thing.

      It reduces the number dying of lung cancer and other misc ailments.

      If you think smoking cigarettes is the only cause of lung cancer you're incredibly ignorant.

      Delete
    2. That's not what I said Hideki, you need to read stuff proper like what I do before posting.

      Anyone who thinks smoking does not give you cancer is clearly lacking all rational thought

      Delete
  6. I think that the point is being missed here! We have a Government that has no Mandate to govern, and does not keep to the rules of Democracy. They are Dictators now! Since when did you have Eternal Life here? If you come to this place when born, you are "Gonna Die" for sure as "demiurge made little apples" =D
    If you had the Polio vacine as a child, you will die of Cancer, but not Lung Cancer in particular! If you had the Hepatitus "B" vacine, you will die of HIV! This Universe, is a toxic place without humans! Add too many humans to the place, and then you will get Cancer from too much waffle, but not of the Belgie kind! =D

    ReplyDelete