Comments

Forest EU — 9 Comments

  1. “Just tell them to fuck off as it’s none of their business.”

    I do. Regularly. Feels good too 🙂

  2. Simon, the head honcho at FOREST UK, is a gifted writer, blogger and journalist. He also has an acute understanding of how the ‘establishment’ works. Unfortunately his ‘passion’ isn’t smoking.He isn’t a smoker. His passion, about which he writes his best stuff IMO, is for defending the right of adults to choose to smoke or to do anything else that’s legal.

    It’s a subtle but all important difference. 

    Also I should imagine as Big Tobacco Kow-towed years ago and decided they wouldn’t push any line save the ‘smoking is dangerous to health’ message despite what science said-If I recall the exact quote ‘ it is important there is one single message’ or some such (I link to it somewhere here)- Simon cannot very well take a more proactive stance. IF smokers had been willing to fund FOREST it would have made Simon’s job so much easier. The biggest stick the critics have is that ‘FOREST is a mouth piece of Big Tobacco’.

    Always said , when I win squillons of £s in lottery there will be a huge cheque going to FOREST, totally string free, so Simon and his team can finally turn round and say ‘no actually we’re now funded 100% by smokers,unlike you who suck on the taxpayer’s tit, so there…nah..nah..nahnah’ *stick out tongue*.

    Oh and I have the dubious honour of having been blocked by FOREST on twitter. Although, to be fair, he still lets me comment on his personal blog…surprisingly….I wouldn’t.

    • I agree entirely about Simon – a grand lad – but his hands will forever be tied by the “funded by Big Tobacco” mill wheel.  We have corresponded many times and I follow his blog.  There is nothing personal in my wee brainfart, and I hope he sees that [if he reads it].

      Another thing I have a problem with is the use of the phrase “doing something that is legal”.  While the phrase itself is fine, what happens when the Anti-Smokers declare tobacco to be illegal, as they would dearly love to do?  The argument should be broader along the lines of “doing something that is a personal choice [be it legal or illegal!]”.  If I choose to smoke pot, that is a personal thing, so why is there a law against it?  Is it to protect me from myself?  Can there be any justification for such a law?

       

       

      • ” Anti-Smokers declare tobacco to be illegal, as they would dearly love to do? ”

        How very dare you cast doubt upon such fine upstanding paragons of virtue and paladins of public health?! I’m shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!

        The Public Health Guardians who take such good care of us (We know a song about ‘public guardians taking care’ don’t we, Boys and Girls?) have very clearly stated , many many times,that they have NO intention of making smoking illegal. You are just scare mongering. ….

         

        …there is NO ‘slippery slope’. Now excuse me please I need to buy a pack of my favourite brand of shiny colourful packs then go across to the pub to smoke them in a comfy armchair whilst having a couple of pints…while you hand pen an apology to that ever-sunny Debbie Arnott. For shame Granddad, for shame!

  3. In the interests of fairness and equality, shouldn’t FOREST be funded by the taxpayer in the same measure that ASH is?

    As for the dope thing, I’ve been banging on about the stupidity of the drugs laws for fifty years now. If I had my way, there would be no drugs laws at all, for anything. Give it a generation to shake out and there won’t be a ‘drug problem’, since all the ‘problems’ are caused not by the drugs, but by the laws prohibiting them.

    Unfortunately it’s not going tp happen in my lifetime. It’s difficult to cure stupid, particularly when there’s so much money in it.

    • In the interests of fairness and equality, shouldn’t FOREST be funded by the taxpayer in the same measure that ASH is?

      Hah!  I wish you luck with that one.

      Easier just to cut off funding to ASH.

  4. Sad to say this, but what  FOREST does, like for instance Simon Clark fighting vigorously to get a mention at the end of an anti-smoking article on BBC is for all intents and purposes useless. It’s like Germany in 1945…fighting an obviously lost war. He’s too polished, too nice and using the wrong tactics to stand a chance against the mobsters in Big Pharma and their stooges in ‘public health’.

    • The problem is that a person with morals is arguing against someone who hasn’t any. 

      Another point that should be made – when the argument is put that Forest is funded by Big Tobacco, the question should be asked – who’s funding you?

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting
Gravityscan Badge