31 2 mins 9 yrs

I don’t smoke. I have never smoked. I hate the smell of smoke. But I despise the Nanny State even more.

Making houses and cars smokefree is the only way to protect children from second-hand smoke, according to a new government campaign in England. The TV and radio adverts show how pervasive invisible second-hand smoke can be. Breathing it in can damage lungs and cause cancers, research has shown. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is calling for smoking in cars where children are present to be made illegal. Second-hand smoke is the smoke breathed in from other people’s cigarettes. The new TV campaign is based on research which shows that most secondhand smoke is in the form of invisible, odourless gases.

This is the State seeking to order you what you cannot do in your OWN home, on your private property. It is an outrage but a natural extension of the sort of thinking that led to the smoking ban in offices in the first instance. Look, IF smoking is so bad so awful – BAN it. And lose all that lovely revenue that Government can’t get enough of. Hypocrites.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

31 thoughts on “SMOKEFREE HOMES?

  1. First they came for the smokers .. then the Drinkers, then the fatties, then the salt abusers, then the sugar abusers, then those children without the correct BMI, then .. who’s next?

    The righteous will not stop.

  2. Next thing you know the government will ban back-garden barbeques.

    I can see it now.

    The helicopter hovering over the neighbourhood with the “Charbroil sensor” rapidly bleeping, the directional needle pointing, the red LED flashing.

    Suddenly an automated voice blares out of a speaker: “Barbie violator target located…….Infrared sensor locked on…..Hellfire missile launched……………Then….a distant BOOM and a black oily cloud rises over the landscape”

    Mission accomplished.

  3. There is no doubt that Alex Jones is actually a Shill for the Judaic World Order. He refuses to state the obvious, that it was Israel behind 9/11. Instead he used terms like Illuminati, the Black Nobility, the New World Order, to describe what was essentially a Mossad operation.

  4. But banning the burqa and niqab and minarets is OK. Nanny statism is fine as long as it is aimed at the right people.

  5. “The TV and radio adverts show how pervasive invisible second-hand smoke can be. Breathing it in can damage lungs and cause cancers, research has shown.”

    Not true. In fact, suppressed studies have shown that the opposite effect might happen, that passive smoking might have beneficial effects:

    THE world’s leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

    The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

    It’s not a coincidence that these fascistic measures are suggested abd implemented world-wide. Just last week on Drudge there was a piece about US cities looking to do the same thing. Usually you’ll fine the secretive and sinister World Health Organisation behind these things. It has nothing to do with health, nothing at all. It’s about implementing a global agenda on the quiet.

  6. Banning minarets is a proper use of zoning powers.

    Banning burqas and other visible displays of human slavery by hostile cultures is only reasonable.

    Who told you that everything under the sun had to be legal and that otherwise it was nanny statism? The comparison does not hold.

  7. And it is reasonable to regulate a substance that kills hundreds of thousands of people each year.

  8. How about a compromise. Allow smoking to remain legal….. but only for women wearing Burqas 😉

  9. This ‘Ban the Burkha ‘ business, show me where it soley states. ‘Ban the Burkha’?

    It’s ALL face coverings, it’s the ‘new & exciting’ EU face recognition hardware and software, scarf up around your face in deepest winter, not any more .. hats and sunglasses will be next .. watch this space.

    It’s the Muslims allowing the Totalitarian state to use and abuse them as mere patsies, and they fall for it every time.

  10. Tobacco is regulated.

    You’re moving in the direction of Prohibition. Which is a very bad idea.

  11. If it is so bad, why not outlaw it?

    I don’t believe that there should be only two choices, between outright ban and completely unregulated.

  12. There are many regulations now

    It can’t be sold to underagera. Smoking is banned in workplaces and in many public places, including outdoor ones. It is taxed to the gills.

    It is one of the most regulated substances in society.

    Any further restrictions are clearly in the direction of Prohibition.

    And I say this as someone who very much loathes tobacco and what it des to peopl.

  13. Banning smoking inside peoples cars has nothing to do with protecting children. It is intendant as another stop and search device for the Police State to exercise. We are sleepwalking into a Orwellian State and the BBC is being used to socially engineer the sheeple to accept it.

  14. No Bobby – it is an overzealous idea motivated by the right aims, but it’s not what you claim it to be.

  15. It’s remarkable that the defenders of tobacco against the nanny state are mostly in favour of the nanny state’s prohibition of smoking marijuana, including in your own home. The elephant in the room?

  16. It is not defending tobacco to oppose persecution of smokers

    And marijuana should be legalized, and regulated in a similar fashion as alcohol.

  17. Peter, on March 31st, 2012 at 7:58 pm Said:
    It’s remarkable that the defenders of tobacco against the nanny state are mostly in favour of the nanny state’s prohibition of smoking marijuana, including in your own home. The elephant in the room?

    Smoke that reefer, smoke away untill your hearts content.

    You can do what your heart desires, in your own home, your home, your rules .. and not the ‘States’… when the ‘State’ gets involved, it will surely turn to dust.

  18. Harri

    I inhaled once at the age of 17, never since.

    This is nothing to do with personal habits. It’s about personal liberty, and it would be nice if the tobacco groupies could see the connection, but it seems they can’t.

  19. “THE world’s leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.”

    Not true.

    (a) The study was published – the proof of that is that you can read it here:

    http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.abstract?ijkey=4181a90df72256dab7679169071b4fefefbf4b6f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

    (b) The study did NOT show that there was no link between passive smoking and lung cancer. It did however show no association between CHILDHOOD exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.

    The authors of the report also wrote about it:

    One of us (W. J. Blot) had conducted epidemiologic studies on this issue, served as a consultant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in its review of ETS and lung cancer, helped to identify relevant issues in risk assessment for a law firm involved in litigation against the tobacco industry, and acknowledged the possibility that long-term exposure to ETS could increase risk of lung cancer (2). The other (J. K. McLaughlin) had no involvement in studies of ETS and was skeptical of a causal connection. During the course of our review of the article by Boffetta et al. and of the overall epidemiologic and biologic literature on ETS and lung cancer, our views merged. We both came to the conclusion that there was a convincing mosaic of evidence demonstrating that prolonged ETS exposure during adulthood can lead to an increase in risk of lung cancer.

    and

    When all the evidence, including the important new data reported in this issue of the Journal, is assessed, the inescapable scientific conclusion is that ETS is a low-level lung carcinogen. Thus, the reduction in risk of lung cancer following cessation of exposure to ETS in the IARC study is a hopeful sign and suggests that measures aimed at the reduction of smoking may benefit not only smokers but also persons with whom they live and work.

    http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1416.full#ref-1

    Regarding the lack of risk of lung cancer to children, so does that mean it’s cool to blow smoke in the faces of babies and children? Not surprisingly the answer is no. Such children have a host of other problems such as respiratory disorders, just as you’d expect if they are regularly exposed to a cocktail of toxic chemicals. But hey, at least they don’t get cancer, right?

  20. Sorry, mistake in the above – Blot and McLaughlin were not authors of the ‘suppressed’ report. They just wrote about it in the same journal.

Comments are closed.