FoREST have launched a new campaign called Save Our Pubs and Clubs—launched at the Buckingham Arms last week—which aims to amend the smoking ban to allow smoking areas in pubs and clubs (do go and sign up). You know, allowing landlords a modicum of freedom in deciding what should be allowed on their own, private, premises.
As some of you may know, your humble Devil is vaguely involved with FoREST's 30th Anniversary celebrations and, whilst we were being wined and dined—courtesy of FoREST—in Boisdale in March, I decided to ask our host, "we all know that you are funded largely by the tobacco companies, so I feel I have to ask—what is your sponsors' objective?"
Our host replied that his sponsors wanted to stop the denormalisation of smoking. Recently, The Free Society carried an article recently, explaining what "denormalisation" means.
The government has added a terrifying new word to its lexicon. The word is ‘denormalise’ and we should be very, very afraid of it.
It is trotted out by the Government’s chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson when he’s having a pop at smokers. In fact, this verb is entirely directed at them.
But he doesn’t say that, of course. Sir Liam simply wants to ‘denormalise’ smoking. But smoking can’t be denormalised, only smokers, which means that for the first time in our history it is government policy to cast opprobrium upon a sizeable minority of the people it is paid to govern.
By denormalisation, he is setting up smokers to be scorned, frowned upon and suffer all the nasty bits of discrimination. This, among our politicians, is the ultimate evil when it comes to racism and sexism but is now perfectly acceptable, indeed desirable, when used against a minority of, ooh, 10 million or so.
A national health service for all – except for smokers. The right to work – except for smokers. Doesn’t sit well, does it? Replace the word smoker with black, or Jew, or woman, and for those people contributing billions of extra pounds to government coffers, it truly sticks in the craw.
This is the nature of modern government, though. Doctors are now talking of refusing to treat fat people. Perhaps they should be denormalised, too? Or how about drivers who decide to spend their hard-earned cash on a sturdy Range Rover instead of a nice Toyota Prius? Denormalisation is the least they can expect.
And another article points out the tactics by which the government and fake charities aim to achieve this.
Government ministers across the UK have often used the term ‘denormalise’ to describe the motivation behind their anti-smoking policies. They say their intention is to denormalise smoking as an activity, but the inevitable result, and arguably the real agenda, is the denormalisation of smokers as individuals.
It is difficult to ignore the Orwellian nature of ‘denormalisation’. It could have come straight from the pages of 1984, where a totalitarian authority seeks to control not only the actions, but the thoughts and feelings of its oppressed citizens. With the invention of ‘newspeak’ Orwell showed us how language and propaganda can be used to achieve conformity and obedience, whether through the creation of phantom threats, or the relentless drive to make everyone think and act the same way, lest they be guilty of a ‘thoughtcrime’.
Of course, if you want chapter and verse on all of these tactics, then I highly recommend that you buy Chris Snowden's excellent Velvet Glove, Iron Fist (use that link and earn cash for your humble Devil!)—Chris covers everything in fine detail.
Back in April 2007, your humble Devil covered a story about how the EU wanted to ban smoking outdoors.
The EU is now considering a proposal signalling the first move to limit smokers' right to puff away outdoors. It states that, as well as a ban on lighting up in all workplaces and public buildings across Europe: 'Restrictions could also be extended to outdoor areas around entrances to buildings and possibly to other outdoor public places where people sit or stand in immediate proximity to each other, such as open air stadiums and entertainment venues, bus shelters, train platforms etc.'
I can't help thinking that the EU really should put its own fucking house in order before ordering everyone else about, the stinking bunch of whore-cunt, fuck-stick arse-wipes.
Remember the ban on smoking in the European Parliament? And how they backtracked after only 6 weeks?
UKIP MEPs and staffers were fairly instrumental in having that ban lifted, quite simply by refusing to stop smoking. And UKIP are now urging civil disobedience because—yes, you guessed it—the proposed outside smoking ban has raised its ugly, totalitarian head again.
SMOKING outside pubs and offices could be banned under plans to be announced by the European Union tomorrow.
Brussels bureaucrats want to outlaw it in areas like beer gardens and covered patios – and even extend it to concerts such as last weekend’s Glastonbury Festival.
The European Commission says the current ban in enclosed public places doesn’t go far enough and non-smokers are still in danger.
Are they? Are they really? This large study on the effects of passive smoking—published in the British Medical Journal—would seem to disagree.
No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.
Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
Well, what a fucking surprise. Well, actually it isn't, because there are no studies showing significant health risks from second-hand smoke—and Roy Castle can go fuck himself.
But who would have thought that governments and fake charities would whip up hysteria on the very flimsiest of pretexts in order to gain control? Who'da fucking thunk it?
So, the EU ban has no medical evidence to support it whatsoever—and I know I have cited only one report, but there are many others—but the EU wishes to press ahead regardless. Indeed, as my peripatetic Greek friend highlights, the EU has even induced the Greeks to introduce a ban—although the Greeks have instituted it in a typically Greek way.
By the way, it is very much worth considering that, whilst one arm of the EU is trying to stamp out tobacco smoking, another is very much encouraging tobacco: the EU subsidised tobacco growing to the tune of €920 million (£620 million) in 2007 alone. Can anyone say, "hypocrisy"?
Meanwhile, back in Britain in 2007, we introduced our ban and did so in what has become a typically English way—over-budget by £100 million for a total, in 2007, of £1.6 billion—and with copious use of undercover spies to ensure its enforcement.
The project of denormalisation was started with a specially high fine for littering, i.e. dropping a cigarette butt, of £80.
With the war on smokers well on the way, the next undesirable thing to be hit must be drinking...
Source: The Devils Kitchen