Political and topical news and commentary
...but it should not be criminal offence to smoke.
Published on July 6, 2007 By adnauseam In Current Events
I know all about smoking. It is bad for you and it is bad for others who have to put up with second-hand foul air. It is a habit that became very popular after the first World War and was deemed socially acceptable right up to the seventies. The figures that show cancer and emphysema fatalities from smoking are not disputed. They are fact and the healthy eighties and nineties saw a downward trend in smoking to levels where only 25% of Brits , 25% of South Africans,18% of Americans and 16% of Australians smoked in 2005. (note: these figures were based on estimations of tobacco consumption and are probably slightly lower now).

The problem about smoking (for me), is that tobacco companies still continue to advertise (albeit in a more limited fashion), that they still provide employment for thousands of employees,and, their products are still freely available.

Now, I, a person with a sense of logical thought and a penchant for wanting 2 + 2 to equal 4 , want to know why cigarettes are not banned entirely. I mean it would prevent incidents like those this week in Britain where a pub smoker was locked up and Charles Kennedy (former libdem leader), was cautioned for smoking on a train. Is a smoker such a criminal that he should be locked up? It's the law you'll say. I'll tell you why the law is an ass (UK speak), a dumb ass (USA speak):

3 weeks ago I stood in the queue at passport control at Heathrow. The lady in front of me was having her passport checked. At the risk of boring you, the conversation went like this:

Passport officer: " What is your destination?"
Lady: "Jamaica."
Passport officer: " You arrived from Jamaica in 2001 and were given a six month visa to stay in the UK. It is now 2007. Can you account for that?"
Lady: "I must have overstayed. I didn't notice the expiry date. I'm sorry."
Passport officer: " OK, let's go and check this out."

Sheesh--and they want to lock up smokers?

My message to Britain is this: You cannot control your borders but you want to lock up smokers. Where are you're priorities? No wonder there are thousands of illegal immigrants in Britain. I shake my head.


Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Jul 23, 2007
Looking through my tackle box. Needs more hooks, Rapalas and sinkers. Up comes a message just as I load up the box and the boat:

" I can only feel deeply sorry for its staff and students --having such an anti-education inverted snob in a position of responsibility."

Whew, I thought for a while you were educated, showed moderate bias and would realise that you are blogging in the ether world. How on earth can I take you seriously now? You have become another sad blogger who makes judgements without knowing the person on the other end. You cannot judge me for what is essentially a blog expressing an opinion. Would you care to tell me what you do, how successful you are and whether you get on with your co-workers? I doubt you do. How do you justify such a statement as the above especially when I've been an educationist for over thirty years and regard my school, a good school, as a very important part of my life.

This is not a slur--it proves your ignorance--and I thought you were a "heavy" who would not lower himself. I'm off on holiday--thought I'd catch a cuda with my Rapala. Caught a fool instead.


I'm gonna have to assume that you were trying to insult Furry with this. To be honest it came off as ignorant and childish. You chose to insult someone who was "debating" on a blogging website rather than actually debate with him. Why did you create this article posting you opinion on an issue you felt was very important only to get upset and try to verbally close down the article because you did not like what one person or 2 had to say about your opinion? Wow and people criticize Bush for doing or saying what he wants and making himself supreme over everyone else's opinion.

You tried to point out that Britain was making more of a big deal of petty crimes such as smoking in a non smoking place instead focusing on bigger problems such as illegal immigrants. The problem is you are comparing the handling of petty crimes and immigration based on 2 smoking incidents and 1 illegal immigrant incident. As if this is enough to say that smokers are more important than illegal immigrants. But you failed to show facts that prove that there are more smokers being arrested than illegal immigrants. Where are these facts? Your word? Thats it? And then you stereotype by blaming most crimes on these illegal immigrants as if citizens and legal immigrants are somehow immune to committing crimes. This is not being "person with a sense of logical thought and a penchant for wanting 2 + 2 to equal 4", this is cherry picking 3 situations that are not related and are not handled by the same people.

I would expect a cop to give me a ticket for illegal parking, I won't get mad at him because of all the illegal immigrants he ignores. This is not the same. I would think you would be happy that they are enforcing a law instead you are mad because even though the law is in the books with a punishment to go with it you don't want lawbreakers to be punished unless the law being broken is a big one. Sounds kinda ignorant if you ask me.
on Jul 23, 2007
Let me just say that it is incredibly rude and ill-mannered to continue baiting a blogger on his own blog, especially after he has closed a thread. Whether I am right or wrong does not matter. What you are doing is contrary to Joeuser's rules and contrary to blog etiquette anywhere.


BTW, I find it incredibly rude and ill-mannered to say we are debating in a closed article when you posted these exact words:

Ok, I'll leave it open --for Furry Canary and CharlesSC1 --if you like. Carry on, and don't forget that you have wandered off the original thread about the layman being over-policed and illegal immigrants being under-policed. Now you're in attack mode and I wonder whether you actually realise that a Blog is a personal statement, right or wrong.


"OK, I'll leave it open --for Furry Canary and CharlesSC1 --if you like." Those were your words. I can't stand extremely childish people who can't even follow their own replies. Especially when no one deviated from the topic of the article. Of course from minute one all you have done is point how you are the owner of the article and how what you say goes. And then people like you criticize Bush for wanting things his way and not listening to the thoughts of others. Hypocrisy and Col gene come to mind.
on Jul 23, 2007
Okay, a quick recap:
Furry Canary: " I can only feel deeply sorry for its staff and students --having such an anti-education inverted snob in a position of responsibility."
adnauseam: 'How do you justify such a statement as the above especially when I've been an educationist for over thirty years and regard my school, a good school, as a very important part of my life.'

1) 'Why don't you take your incredibly arrogant attitude, your university halo and your self-opiniated grin to another JU place.'
That certainly reads like anti-education, inverted snobbery to me, and on the basis of - gasp! - no evidence. (Now, who was it who once said, 'You have become another sad blogger who makes judgements without knowing the person on the other end'? Ah yes, it was you, adnauseam.)

2) My comment was not about what you think, but about what the other staff and students at the school might think. Big difference.

3) Shouldn't your sentence have finished with a question mark, Mr. 'Educationist'?
on Jul 24, 2007
Gone fishing!
on Jul 24, 2007
Gone fishing!


Since the moment you posted the aritcle.
on Jul 25, 2007
'You have become another sad blogger who makes judgements without knowing the person on the other end.'

Yes, we all know the type, adnauseam. The kind of blogger who would respond to criticism of his arguments by attacking the critic, not the criticism. The kind of blogger who would fail to rise to a challenge that he supply evidence to support his assertions, but elect instead to publish a completely separate thread of personal invective and supposition in respect of the challenger.

Don't hide your light under a bushel, adnauseam. Let your readers into the fact that the only way you can respond to a counter-argument is to attack the individual who presents it:

Link
on Jul 25, 2007
CharlesCS1, if you don't mind, I'll respond to you here rather than on the adnauseam thread that attacks me personally. I don't want to be accused of attempting to sway anyone's opinions there. I want to invite visitors to that thread to judge for themselves, and leave it at that.

'Funny to think that I was somewhat like you on that article yet he/she did not mention me.'
Yes it is. Perhaps I was rather more persistent than you - other than that I can't explain it. However, I would like to thank you for your company and support throughout this debate, particularly when adnauseam's replies to me started to get more personal.

'I don't know if what DrGuy says is true about you ...'
Well, Dr Guy and I have crossed swords once or twice. I think his ambivalence towards me may derive from the fact that we subscribe to markedly different political ideologies, but perhaps I am being unfair. Ultimately it's not for me to say. You - and other JoeUsers - should be the judges.

'... but he is entitled to his opinion.'
He most certainly is. And I hope he reads this thread in forming it.

'I would hate to think DrGuy thinks like that of me ...'
What can I say? Adhere to blogging etiquette, but otherwise be true to yourself. How Dr Guy (or any other blogger) chooses to think of you subsequently is beyond your direct control.

'Those who get mad have two problems, getting mad and getting unmad.'
I love it!
on Jul 25, 2007
Yes it is. Perhaps I was rather more persistent than you - other than that I can't explain it. However, I would like to thank you for your company and support throughout this debate, particularly when adnauseam's replies to me started to get more personal.


Funny since I'm usually the one who comes off as persistent and annoying. No problem with the assistance, I come here to debate, to express what I think is right and wrong in the world. When I see a view similar to mine I reply with my view to add to the point. When I see a deferring argument I try to point out why I see it differently in the hopes of getting a "you might be right" or maybe I can be corrected in the subject. I'm not perfect and I can be wrong often. With exception of Col gene, I try my best to not come off as a jerk, know-it-all who thinks is never wrong, but I can be persistent and often annoying.

Well, Dr Guy and I have crossed swords once or twice. I think his ambivalence towards me may derive from the fact that we subscribe to markedly different political ideologies, but perhaps I am being unfair. Ultimately it's not for me to say. You - and other JoeUsers - should be the judges.


Well according to him he has respect from you, just as I do to him and many others on this site. I may be a jerk once in a while like I am with kingbee but he asks for it sometimes and I just can't resist getting annoying at this point. I have had my fair share of battles with many here including LW who I would suggest anyone who faces off with her to make sure to bring a sword and shield and lots of Tylenol cause you will feel it when she unleashes her brain. I should know, I have tasted it and lived to tell about it. Keep in mind this is usually only if you really piss her off. The rest of the time she is kind, sweet and an all around kool person to be around.

What can I say? Adhere to blogging etiquette, but otherwise be true to yourself. How Dr Guy (or any other blogger) chooses to think of you subsequently is beyond your direct control.


Well the reason I care is because I tend to care about what people think of me based on how I act. I don't like people who get mad at me for not reason, who think I'm a jerk for no reason and who may find me more than just annoying when I thought they saw me as a nice guy. Can't help it, I love attention. DrGuy has been nice to me since I first started here and just didn't like the idea of being seen as a jerk or something.

I love it!


Goes right up there with another saying my mom says a lot, translation "he who makes the laws makes the cheats".
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4