Could ‘Entertainers’ Bring Down Tobacco Control?

I don’t know what brought this idea into my mind. It just appeared somehow. Something earlier today triggered it.

From time to time, an ‘Entertainer’ is ‘caught’ by photographers enjoying tobacco. There follows hysteria in the press, and, as often as not, the entertainer apologises in a vague sort of way. It is even worse for footballers because there is an implication that smoking absolutely destroys their fitness. One cigarette, and they become decrepit old men. Further, they are said to be ‘role-models’ for the youth, and should be chained by ‘their role’.

There are one of two entertainers that I admire. One is Kate Moss (not strictly an ‘Entertainer’, but entertaining) . She is often castigated by the press for smoking and snorting, but she utterly ignores the blandishments and caries on regardless with her own chosen way of life. She doesn’t give a shit about role-models – she just enjoys her life as best she can. Sod the role-model crap – that is just ‘nouveau morality’. Footballers, cricketers, swimmers, etc should tell the press, “Look. I shall decide when want to become a role-model. Until then, I am just a footballer, (etc) and I shall enjoy myself as I please”. He could go further and say that the people who demand that he should be a role-model should become role-models themselves first. “Who shall cast the first stone?”

We have a gang of academics who are ‘casting stones’ in all directions in abundance indiscriminately, which stones are hurting and damaging countless numbers of people, and, what is worse, they are aided and abetted by the very people who are supposed to protect those people – elected representatives.

Frank Davis  is a big fan of the singer, Lana Del Rey. She smokes openly, both on stage and off. SHE IS COOL. But there is another side to this coin, represented by the old bag, Madonna. She told the people who pay to watch her performance to sod off if they dared to smoke in the open air at a concert. She refused to perform if they did not comply. Somehow or other, she elevated herself to the state of ‘scientist’. She, as a scientist, could prove beyond doubt that SHS in the open air would kill her.

But anyone with a smattering of knowledge knows that studies such as the Doctors Study reveal that, for full-on smoking to have any effect, one must smoke FOR DECADES, and smoke a lot. The important phrase is FOR DECADES. Thus, since SHS is greatly diluted tobacco smoke, it would take CENTURIES of exposure for any significant health effect to be observed. Sure, for some particularly delicate persons (who are probably very ill anyway), SHS might be irritable to the eyes and nose, but not damaging. People with asthma should clearly protect themselves by wearing a surgical mask at all times, especially when outdoors. they should never enter places where there might be smoke, such as restaurants or churches. Well, not without their surgical masks. Of course, for such people, streets which have motors belching out fumes are not desirable places to go to. But for people who do not have such conditions as asthma, even diesel fumes, in the open air, would take CENTURIES to have any effect. That is what the Doctors Study shows.


But my main point tonight is that song-writers and the popular groups who sing those songs could have a major effect on the current attempts to destroy our culture of ‘live and let live’. NO! –  Miserable puritans WILL NOT dictate how we live.

We need to go back to the status quo just a decade or so ago. And the resolution is very easy. ‘Public Place’, as a phrase, does not override ‘Private Property’. That is the fallacy which TC has imposed upon the Body Politic. It ought never to have happened.

It is for reasons such as this that it is right and proper for us all to despise current politicians. They are disgusting, filthy, stinking power-control addicts.


In Australian soaps, like Home And Away and Neighbours, absolutely no person at all smokes – not even the villains. Despite both of them having bars, neither does anyone seem to drink alcohol. Truly, the Ausies are lost. But, what we are aware of is only the ‘official’ position (as described in the soaps on TV). The reality is displayed by the recent police raid on a tobacco plant growing farm, where some 3,000 plants were growing. One ‘cop’ does not an extinction make. Rather, the ‘cop’ encourages greater secrecy and better methods, and thus a further extension of the activity.


Back to the subject of this post.

If there is one area of public communication which is not under the control of anyone, it is pop music. (I do not use the phrase ‘pop music’ lightly – I mean the wild and extravagant music of the the youth) Such music is very influential to youths, and it is normally inclined to vilify the ‘controllers’. I am very sure that ‘pop music’ played a big part in the dissolution of the Soviet Repression.

Would that it would destroy the Nanny State and the Iron Triangle! It will if musicians turn their talents in that direction!


9 Responses to “Could ‘Entertainers’ Bring Down Tobacco Control?”

  1. Twenty Rothmans Says:

    Had I wanted to go to a Madonna concert, I’d have expected the old Septic to have warned me beforehand that she’d have been giving me life-saving medical advice as well as appalling music. I’d rather go by my own instincts than be lectured to by someone who’s seen more Jap’s eyes than a Tokyo optician.

    Australia is lost, as you point out, not just on smoking but on drinking. It is difficult to see past all the warning signs to get to the barman here. I don’t hate my country – I hate what it has become – a bullying, hectoring nanny state. Friends tell me that they ‘just get on with it’. This isn’t the fucking Blitz!

    Cresting a hill about 8 miles from Sydney, you can see the smog. Sydney’s a bowl, and the nice brown haze did not come from cigarettes, though no doubt all lung conditions acquired by non smokers will be attributed to SHS. By this rationale, anyone getting cancer of the lower abdominal tract has been taking it up the arse.

    I know I have – 33AUD for 30g of (poor) tobacco. My Ecig is my saviour.

    • michaeljmcfadden Says:

      33 AUD for 30g is roughly $500 US per pound. Here in the US you can still get a pound of decent rolling tobacco (Technically, it’s pipe tobacco, but it’s not much different nowadays actually: they’ve adapted to an outrageous tax on cigarette rolling tobacco.) for about TEN dollars a pound. So for what you’d pay for 30g, I could buy about 23 KILOS!

      I’d say the Australian government has moved over the edge from being a legitimate government toward being a criminal organization.

      – MJM

      • Twenty Rothmans Says:

        The tax here is $431 per kilogramme.

        Australians are sheep.

  2. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Junican, the Antis have targeted and largely controlled the broadcast media here in the US for years. I talked about it extensively in Brains and, to a lesser extent, in TobakkoNacht. I’ve continued to collect data on it though. This past Christmas, after many years of not bothering with TV at all, I got a very nice 40″ flatscreen and a subscription to Netflix. Netflix has something like 9,000 movies and about a thousand TV series seasons on instant tap, and has enabled me to play a bit of catch-up with some of the popular culture out there.

    One particular show that caught my interest has a wonderful “continuing story” that stretches over the seasons and a fairly regular cast of characters: “Bones.” During my “catch-up” I actually watched all available 166 episode and noticed that every episode features gory corpses and murders and such, and in every episode, regular good-guy cast members are shown drinking and enjoying alcohol both alone and socially as an everyday part of life. Throughout all 166 episodes, there were only three instances of smoking that I noticed: (1) one of the heroes smoking a cigar in a bubblebath while sipping beer from a beer-can sports hat; (2) people smoking in a covered walkway while two of the hero cast walked through it waving their arms and coughing while trying to talk; and (3) a guy trying to light a cigarette in an outhouse who only succeeds in lighting the methane gas and blowing himself and the outhouse high into the air.

    And, as noted in Brains, news outlets here have an official directive to avoid showing smoking as a normal activity in their broadcasts of events. The prime example of that in action was the brave stewardess who stopped the “Shoe Bomber” from blowing up an airplane. The helicopter cameras zoomed in on her heroic arrival at the local hospital where she insisted on getting out of the ambulance unassisted and then stood there joking with the attendants for a couple of minutes before finally being led into the Emergency Room to get her bandaging double-checked.

    Every network showed her getting out of the ambulance and started to broadcast her brave images… until, after just about 15 seconds, she opened her pocketbook. At that point EVERY NETWORK that I could find, EXCEPT MSNBC, cut her off dead. MSNBC continued showing her for another minute or so as she pulled out a pack of cigarettes and lit one while continuing to joke with the ambulance people and wave up to the news copters.

    So much for priorities in recognizing heroism, eh?

    – MJM

    • Junican Says:

      It seems odd that the ‘independent broadcasting media’ can receive ‘a directive’. Who could issue such a directive? Who has the authority? I remember you mentioning the case of the heroine before. It really is remarkable how docile the press has been about anti-smoking zealotry, especially in view of the Prohibition Era.

      By the way, I enjoyed reading ‘Brains’. Despite the fact that the book is now a little ‘outdated’, it is still apposite to today’s conditions.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        Yep! I still recommend Brains as the primary entry reader for anyone not intimately familiar with the battle map. TobakkoNacht is more of an “arsenal” of ideas and analysis for those who already know what we’re facing out there.

        I believe the “directive” was simply a report from someone about … hmmm…. OK! Here’s the passage from p. 170 of Brains w/ the ref:


        Take a look at daytime soap operas over the last 20 years or so and see how many “good” or even “neutral” characters were allowed to smoke. With the exception of a few storylines in which a smoker would quickly succumb to a heart attack or cancer, such characters were virtually non-existent. With astoundingly few exceptions the only smokers on soap operas are drug addicts, wife beaters, serial killers, child molesters, terminal alcoholics, pyromaniacs, or, strangely, gay. All three of the major networks have admitted to pressuring producers of individual series to cut down on the smoking even in the few and far between instances where it is still allowed (Ellen Gray. “Unlike Cable….” *Knight Ridder* 06/16/99).


        Evidently I had the date wrong by three days in the Brains reference. If you read the reference you’ll see this: “”They (network executives) kind of urge us not to show people smoking unnecessarily, but there’s no mandate,” said Mark Tinker, executive producer of ABC’s “NYPD Blue.”” but I’m pretty sure I had something else that supported my “all three of the major networks” statement or I wouldn’t have phrased it that way. I also have a memory of something in regard to network news coverage portrayal of smoking, but at the moment I’m not seeing it here.

        Heh, back around that time though there WAS a problem with the Philadelphia Inquirer: there was a huge ice storm and an elder-care hospice was being evacuated. One very decrepit looking patient was in a wheelchair which was in danger on some ice and a senior officer who had been standing off to the side jumped in to help. The paper’s photog got a snap and portrayed it as a warm human interest picture, but unfortunately the cop had been taking a break and had a cigarette in his mouth! All hell broke loose and it resulted in an official police directive against officers smoking even while on breaks. Heh, about six months (?) later the directive was withdrawn as someone realized that it was FAR better to have cops still visible in public and watching over people while on their breaks than having them hiding somewhere out of sight while smoking! LOL!

        – MJM

      • Junican Says:

        “all three of the major networks”

        Oh, I’m certain that you have seen that phrase somewhere. The ‘facts’ (lack of smoking scenes) speak for themselves. It looks to me as though there have been pressures applied from pretty high up – like from board members linked to ‘The Foundations’ or such.

  3. woodsy42 Says:

    “‘Public Place’, as a phrase, does not override ‘Private Property’. ”

    But I suggest we lost that argument many years ago. Example: If you drive round a pub or supermarket car park I believe you must have insurance because it’s a place the public are invited – so anywhere can be a public place irrespective of ownership.

    Just a comment.

    • Junican Says:

      We have heard about organisers of ‘events’ (like cheese rolling competitions) having to take out insurance and gain local authority permission.
      If I had a barbecue in my back garden and invited the neighbours round, would my garden become ‘a public place’? I doubt it, and that is the artificiality of the phrase ‘a public place’. In my view, a place is not ‘public’ unless the public have a right to be there. Another distortion of our language specially invented for the Zealots and Charlatans.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: