Smoking

Let me start by saying: I hate smoking. I've never smoked, I've never even taken a puff to see what it tastes like. I remember when I was a kid, asking one of my uncles how it could taste different going in than it did coming out, or just blowing round in the breeze. He told me it didn't, which confused the living fuck out of me: why would you voluntarily inhale something that was that disgusting? I don't let people smoke in my house. So, that's me: Mr Non-Smoker.

And yeah, I used to get irritated when I was out somewhere and someone's cigarette smoke was blowing in my face. But I've always accepted smoking as a part of public life. And, if that's what people want to do, they should be able to do that. So I was horrified by the blanket ban on smoking in public places.

The reasoning behind it always struck me a spurious, health fascists were claiming that it's because of secondary smoke, whereas I always thought that if people wanted to work in a smoke-free environment, they could always fuck off somewhere else?

However, it seems it was all a bit of a con, according to England Expects:

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/08
by Godfrey Bloom (IND/DEM)
to the Commission

Subject: Environmental tobacco smoke

According to the Commission Green Paper 'Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level' (pdf) (COM(2007)0027), more than '79 000 adults' die in the EU per annum from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).

This claim is the driver behind the proposals by the Commission to bring in a binding directive later this year to enforce smoking bans in workplaces.

Given that the impact of such a directive will be considerable, both economically and
socially, could the Commission please name three or four people who have died from ETS within the European Union in the last two years?

Their answer?

E-3520/08EN
Answer given by Ms Vassiliou
on behalf of the Commission
(18.7.2008)

The Green Paper 'Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level" , refers to the estimates of mortality attributable to passive smoking in the EU reported by Smoke-free Partnership in Lifting the Smoke-screen: 10 reasons for a smoke-free Europe . These estimates are based on the international evidence on the level of risk posed by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and the estimated proportion of the population exposed rather than individual cases of deaths due to passive smoking. The nature of the epidemiological evidence on all risk factors, be they chemical or other, is such that it does not allow to identify the victims at individual level but only populations.

The Commission is now considering several possible policy options including a possible proposal for a Council recommendation as a follow-up of the Green Paper.

The Impact Assessment currently being carried out will provide a basis for the final policy choice. It will also provide further information on the impact of exposure to ETS on health.

Or, in plain English: we don't know anybody, we've never heard of anybody, we're just guessing that it might.

Typical EU cunts. But (of course!) it gets better, thanks to the Labate case:

The applicant, Mrs. Kay Labate, widow of former European Commission official Mario Labate, on her own behalf and on behalf of her husband's estate, contests the Commission's decisions refusing to recognise the lung cancer of her husband as an occupational disease.

Mr Labate was an official with the Commission for 29 years, during which time he was exposed, according to the Applicant, to a large amount of secondhand tobacco smoke. He was declared permanently invalid following the discovery of the lung cancer which subsequently led to his death. He submitted a request for recognition of the illness as an occupational disease.

So, given that the EU is declaring war on smokers for health reasons, will it, in fact, admit that it may have helped kill Mr Labate?

Er, no:

While acknowledging Mr Labate's exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and finding no other cause for his lung cancer, the Medical Committee in its decision nonetheless stated that it could not establish with certainty the connection with his professional activities. The Commission accordingly denied the request, following the finding by the Medical Committee that the connection between the disease and Mr Labate's professional activities was not sufficiently established.

"The claims for compensation submitted in the letter of 25 October 2007 by Mrs Labate are dismissed as manifestly unfounded"

So, the EU is claiming that the only possible cause of his death was secondary smoke, and even though he spent most of his waking life at work (as we all do!) ... somehow they are not responsible in any way for his death!

Amazing!

And of course, here in the UK, pubs are closing hand over fist because people can't have a fag with their beer, the expected masses of non-smokers haven't materialised, armies of little Hitlers are empowered to punish people for letting others smoke in pubs, ludicrous laws about what constitutes a workplace allow more draconian enforcement yet our glorious leaders are still allowed to smoke in the Houses of Parliament through a carefully drafted loophole (palaces are exempt and the HoP is technically a palace), despite them promising not to smoke at their work, oh, no.

The Dutch "coffee shops" are gearing up to sue their government for fucking with their business, because only 18% of their customers like to smoke pure Mary-Jane, the rest of them like it cut with tobacco, which is now illegal, but smoking pure weed is not!

How the fuck does that work, then?

This is pure fucking totalitarianism, and as I said at the time, they're coming after the boozers and the fatties next. Soon, this will be an entirely intolerant society of whey-faced, boring, lifeless but healthy drones.

Fuck it: eat, drink, smoke and be merry, cause you're going to fucking snuff it soon enough anyway!