Fighting Back

These are the ramblings of a person who has just engaged in a very pleasant family dinner to celebrate the arrival of a brand new great-grandson. The parents and child have travelled up from the South to visit for three days. The baby is three months old. It has been a lovely event.

This event reminded me that ‘society’ is composed of families rather than individuals. Without ‘families’, it is hard to see how there can be ‘society’. The idea is perhaps a bit complex for a short post like this, but it revolves around the idea that children are taught ‘morality’ in the family, and not in ‘society’. Thus, the ‘morality’ of ‘society’ depends upon how children are taught morality by their parents.

One of the worst things about Tobacco Control, all around the world, has been the attack on families. In his own house, granddad has to go outside for a smoke if grandson is in his house. If granddad visits daughter’s house, he has to go outside for a fag.

Why?

It is because TC has created irrational fear. The important word is IRRATIONAL.

It is perfectly obvious, in retrospect, that the fear of SHS is irrational. And it boils down this. If the atmosphere became saturated, in a pub, for example, with noxious fumes, people would vacate that place. They would not tolerate it at an individual level. They would leave.

That happened a few years ago in my local. The pub was quite busy and it was winter. There was quite a lot of tobacco smoke in the air. Really, the publican should have put the fans on for a minute or two, but he was a lovely guy but careless. A group of people walked in, two of them were Canadian, and the Canadians almost dropped dead because of the tobacco smoke and had to rush outside choking. They were obviously ‘propagandised’ – suffering from a non-communicable mental disease.

But wait! Is it possible to for propaganda to spread mental diseases? I do not see why not. Is that not the entire purpose of propaganda? To spread mental disease? To spread ‘thought’ disease?

I have vaguely in mind to start pestering my MP. I am not quite sure how, but it must be something similar to a troll. Erm… Correct that.

There we have a problem – how not be seen as a ‘troll’. How to be seen as an ordinary voter who represents hundreds of others.

At the end of the day, it means, for us old farts, simply voting for the smoking candidate, whatever the party. If no candidate smokes, then we do not vote.

I think that thousands and thousands of citizens have already gone underground as regards buying leaf. ‘Permits’ have caused the ‘trade’ to disappear from view, but not to disappear. Permits have/will cause vast costs, chasing after cause and effect.

‘Fighting back’ involves pestering your MP. I am not prepared to do so until there is a chance that such pestering might achieve something. But at least one can say, “I will vote for anyone else but you”.

What is important is that the persecution of smokers must be recognised as such,

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Fighting Back”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    I prefer ‘gadfly’ to ‘troll’. Socrates was a gadfly as are many social reformers. And, the treatment of smokers–especially the imposition of smoking bans and the steps to denormalize smoking–is indeed persecution. Beyond that the persecution is based on lies and reinforced through hysteria. Politicians are a fickle bunch. Just raising a pro-choice stance and exposing tobacco control lies and reminding them that it is persecution can resonate–especially if repeated.

    • junican Says:

      Bans are indeed persecution, but who is being persecuted? In the case of pubs, it is also the publicans who are forced to damage their own businesses. ‘Sin’ taxes are even more obviously persecution since they directly hit the individual taxpayer.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: