Expanding the debate — 10 Comments

  1. At least the junior minister Finian McGrath has gone public by saying he smokes and that smokers should be given facilities in pubs, trains and other public places. He is bang on when he says that "smokers are fed up being pushed around" by health regulations. Critics of the nanny state should support his openess and not let the pc brigade silence him. He is an Independent, isn't he?

    • He is at least raising the subject, which too many choose to ignore.  I heard a bit of Martin [the cunt who brought in the ban in the first place] on the radio today and he was dismissing the whole notion – "smokers love the ban", "all smokers want to quit", "studies based on sound research" – I wanted to throw up!

      McGrath is indeed an independent.  There were howls of protest aimed at him in the papers today.  I couldn't be bothered adding my hap'worth to the very one sided comments.  We are indeed a very tolerant society!

      • The howls of protest are great! Apply the scream test. The more publicity that his call for accommodation for people who enjoy tobacco (PETS) gets the better. Sometime somewhere, the verboten will break.

  2. I like to use cars instead of sport when this debate comes up. They are very dangerous, you can't avoid them unless you refuse to leave the house and you are in even more danger if you don't use a car, because that makes you a pedestrian or cyclist. Nearly 200 people are killed each year and 7000 injured, while poor air quality kills 3,400 people a year in Ireland, so it is claimed and that's mostly down to cars.

    Using the anti-smoking logic, petrol and diesel cars should be banned, because of the fumes (or second hand driving, as it should be know) while electric cars should be limited to 25kph and painted dayglo orange, with a flashing orange warning light on the roof. When you get into the car you should be forced to listen to a recorded voice spouting dubious facts about how bad cars are and how you are basically a horrible person and an idiot for driving one, before it'll start. It sounds extreme, but it's all for the sake of this children. Would you like your child to die under the wheels of a car or choke to death on fumes? If it saves one life it must be worth it, right?

    • Welcome Séan!  In hindsight I should indeed have used the car example.  The counter argument is nearly always the "cars are essential" which is a non-argument in my book.  It merely says that road deaths and injuries are "acceptable" payment for the convenience of driving. 

      I like your idea of the future of road transport, and I have no doubt we are heading in that direction – satellite tracking and cars that breathalyse you before they start?  They are even trying to remove the driver from the equation.

      You have to accept though that Puritans only disapprove of other people's lifestyle and never their own so I think the car will be around for a long time yet.

  3. ….why should a non-smoker [I’m taking a wild guess that Bob is a non-smoker?]


    “Bob” is not just a nonsmoker. He’s a rabid antismoker. Big difference.


    Name a person who'd EVER want their child to smoke".


    Have no problem if my children took up smoking. It’s their decision. However, I would be seriously disappointed if my children became rabid, narcissistic, shallow, neurotic, bigoted, megalomaniacal, moralizing antismokers, e.g., “Bob”.

    • Heh!  In fairness, Bob is fully entitled to his views and as far as I am aware is a perfectly decent person.  It's just that having found myself someone who is anti-smoker, I just wanted him to clarify a few points for me.  I can understand someone being concerned about their own health but a concern for the health of an entire nation?  Personally I couldn't give a flying fuck if half the country were alcoholic and the other half obese as it has nothing to do with me.

      P.S. You name is noted for the next time I'm asked the famous question!

  4. I just wanted him to clarify a few points for me

    You’re pissin’ in the wind for that one, Gramps.  Anti-smokers of Bob’s variety can’t clarify any of the points they make because they’ve never actually thought about them long enough to be able to clarify to themselves why they believe them.  They’ve just read a few “facts” which enable them to feel ever-so-slightly better than someone else and have taken it on wholesale.  That’s really important for an insecure person.  So – no research, no questions, no musing contemplation, no self-analysis.  Just hook, line and sinker straight down in one.  Lovely-jubbly.  So you’ll never, ever, get a straight answer to any question as to why they feel the way they do, because they don’t even know themselves – so how can they explain it to someone else?

  5. "Most of all though, I would love to know why one person apparently hates smokers so much."

    Why?  It's because Bob's being a cunt by proxy. Permit me to explain – many years ago, before smoking was banned in the workplace, I organised a no-smoking campaign and had smoking prohibited from the office by pestering the boss and getting up a petition. I would report smokers and so forth.

    However, oh dear, I have long since realised that the reason I did it was because I liked the feeling of telling other people what to do. I have since apologised to some of my former colleagues who confirmed that I was indeed being a cunt, a diagnosis with which I shamefacedly concurred. The realisation began when I heard of someone who lived next to a little airfield where microlights would operate every weekend, weather permitting, and he had it shut down on the basis of noise pollution. After it closed, he moved house – next to another airfield used by microlights and of course he started the same campaign. Eh?

    What I then realised is that some people get a kick out of ordering others about and that this feeling is addictive. Everyone must examine their Self, if the capacity for self-reflection exists, and check for traits of cuntishness, recognise them as such, and eliminate them by honest logical appraisal of their origin and purpose.

    Nowadays when I see people smoking indoors in defiance of a petty tyranny that I recognise for what it is, I feel nothing but satisfaction that neither they nor me give a monkeys' toss.


  6. Yup, I absolutely agree with Jax. Attempting to draw a non-smoking zealot into a sensible conversation (You know, justifying why they feel the way they do or asking them to provide any sort of real proof that backs up what they're stating?) is akin to herding cats. It's never going to happen. Same thing for any type of zealot as you well know.

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting