street government

Sapphire believes that there are two governments in every land – one ruled by the young and free which operates in the streets, and the other ruled by the geriatrics and health nuts which has no jurisdiction over her and young people generally.

"When bars and clubs start enforcing bans on drugs decreed by the public health lobby we'll just move the party outside or go back to what we've been doing for years -- partying at home," laughs Sapphire. "I feel sorry, sort of, for the hospitality industry losing out on us, but the bar and club owners really should have taken a stand."

"Their main source of income -- and attraction -- came from us, not the geriatrics and the health nuts running the public health lobby," says Sapphire. "It's ridiculous that they've forced us outside to smoke or do drugs. Hardly anybody is taking advantage of the smoke-free environment inside, and of those most are so old that they are not going to be around much longer."

"How is the government going to made amends to the hospitality industry when these bans close down thousands of bars and clubs?" asks Sapphire. "What about the tourist industry? What young people would want to come here when the whole country is geared for health nuts and geriatrics trying to live for eternity?"

"Who wants a night out at the gym or a place where the old folks hang out in their drug free zones?"

"I'm not sure which group is more responsible than the other for the current crackdown on all of our vices," says Sapphire, "but there's definitely a health agenda behind it and I think alcohol is going to be next."

"Like I said, it won't bother me what they do because I have my street government," says Sapphire, "but the world is going to become an awfully boring place for everyone else when all the health bans on drugs take effect."

"Bring back the likes of cigar chewing Winston Churchill and vodka swilling Boris Yeltsin," laughs Sapphire. "Now they were politicians to admire and would have kicked the current politically correct idiots back to kindergarten where they belong."

Read more by Sapphire:

health nuts, geriatrics and smokers

unruly teen alienated by stepfamily

We’re all gonna die!

drugs create genius?

health and safety madness

plain pack smokers

Along with an immediately effective massive 25% increase in tobacco tax the Australian labor government made a world first last Thursday by announcing that by July 2012 all tobacco products were to be sold in plain packs (no brand images or colors) causing Marrielle to wonder whether it will soon become mandatory for smokers to become brown paper bag-heads, too.

“As a smoker, I am already abused by having to put up with disgusting health warning graphics on my cigarette pack, and being sold a legal product that is unable to be displayed and comes from ‘under the counter’ like hard-porn,” says Marrielle, “so I really don’t care about the plain pack proposal as long as it doesn’t present a huge problem for shopkeepers – but I do care about the 25% increase in tobacco tax because I’m a backpacker and don’t have much money and having this sprung on me without any warning to adjust my life and finances accordingly is really bad form.”

“True to form,” sniffs Marrielle, “the tobacco companies kept mum on the massive 25% tax increase but jumped up and down on the proposed plain packaging law because it would encourage counterfeiting, lower its profits, harm branding and infringe intellectual property rights.”

“The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd insisted that his government will not be intimidated by Big Tobacco – and quite rightly so,” says Marrielle, “but along with his other disastrous forays into social engineering and money grabbing he may change his tune down the line if Big Tobacco mounts a legal battle and wins compensation from the Australian government, or the whole industry is wiped out by his draconian measures – putting thousands out of work and a huge hole in his budget.”

“The 25% tax increase will increase the cost of a packet of 30 cigarettes to around $16.70 Australian dollars – which means one cigarette costs slightly more than the 55c it costs for a local postage stamp – and will reap the government an estimated $5 billion Australian dollars over four years,” says Marrielle. “This estimate takes into consideration that about 6% of the current estimated 16.6% smokers over 14 years of age will quit.”

“For a pack a day person on basic wages or benefits the cost of cigarettes has now become prohibitive and a lot more than 6% of smokers may be forced to quit – and a greater percentage of smokers may resort to the black market, or buy cheap and nasty imported Chinese cigarettes – meaning that Mr. Rudd may not get the $5 billion he expects to gouge out of smokers.”

“If the $5 billion is being relied upon to invest in the nation’s health system, then a lot of people are going to miss out on their hip replacements and lap banding surgeries – and I mean that literally because obesity related illnesses now outstrip smoking related illnesses in Australia and most western countries and I don’t see fatties and the junk food they crave being abnormalised in the way smokers and tobacco are.”

“Imagine the outcry if all of our pleasures had to be purchased under the counter packed in brown paper bags?” asks Marrielle. “These measures are not just abnormalizing smoking but pornographizing it!”

“Actually, the announcement came out of the blue – Australia already has an automatic bi-annual increase in tobacco tax – and as it was made at the same time as Mr. Rudd ditched his climate change plans until 2013 one wonders whether the 25% tax increase on tobacco was a quick fix intended to fill the coffers that the carbon emissions tax was supposed to fill.”

“Before the Copenhagen Conference Mr. Rudd was blathering on about climate change as being the ‘great moral challenge of our generation’ and if he can do a double-take on his carbon emissions tax then nobody in their right mind can believe that this new 25% tax increase on tobacco has anything to do with health.”

“If the government really cared about the health of smokers then it would be offering nicotine replacement therapies cheaply or for free,” says Marrielle. “So, the heavily addicted who can’t quit and can’t afford the extra tax will be forced by the Australian government to smoke cheap cigarettes that are more likely to cause health problems than regular cigarettes.”

“It’s just a tax grab on the most vulnerable of citizens – including the Aboriginal population – and it’s also an unscrupulous distraction from the fact that Rudd has reneged on the ETS and desperately needs a whole lot of money to repay his Chinese debts,” says Marrielle. “Which makes me wonder whether this is part of a deal he has made with China to flood the market with cheap Chinese tobacco products?”

“Also, plain pack cigarettes are really not going to bother existing smokers and I cannot see how they are going to influence young people not to take up smoking either,” says Marrielle. “Tobacco advertising was banned decades ago and to suggest that a stupid brand logo makes a young person want to buy cigarettes to make them look ‘cool’ is ridiculous, especially when all cigarette packs are plastered with horrific images of smoking related illnesses on them – what’s cool about that?”

“The plain pack proposal was merely added to the 25% tax increase on tobacco in order to give the impression that it’s all being done in the interests of better health, not to raise money,” sighs Marrielle, “and that the tax increase applies immediately, but the plain packaging doesn’t take effect until July 2012 – by which time Mr. Rudd and his labor government may be out of office – shows that it is all a big bluff and may never see the light of day.”

“Now that winter is coming on in Australia a lot of backpackers will be heading home for the northern summer and with the prohibitive new cost of cigarettes I will be one of them,” laughs Marrielle. “Australia is no place for smokers – especially poor smokers like me!”

pushy railway smokers

An incident on an outdoor railway platform at Farningham Road, Kent – involving two young guys smoking under a footbridge, an antismoking older woman, a push, a stumble and a fall onto the tracks – has brought out another spate of venom against smokers and Soraya – the same age as the victim, Linda Buchanan – is angry because this is what happens when governments pass laws without teeth, failing to give relevant authorities the funding necessary to enforce them.

"The ban against smoking has only been in force for a year," says Soraya, "and if the government is serious about its nonsmoking policy then it should have given the railways the funds necessary to hire more staff to patrol stations rather than leaving it up to strident members of the general public, like Linda Buchanan, to enforce it."

"Those two guys were described as being about 25 and have probably been smoking for over 10 years already," says Soraya. "By giving naive people like Linda Buchanan the false impression that all smokers can change their habits so quickly and easily, or want to – for no other reason than because the antismoking lobby has spent millions of taxpayer funds promoting how disgusting the habit is – the government has exposed her to the wrath of two young thugs who, quite clearly, have no intention of quitting and resent interference in their enjoyment of what is, after all, a legal product."

"Actually, I am loathe to call them thugs because although they were obviously cognizant of the smoking ban, but lit up regardless, they did their smoking under a footbridge, far away from the main platform, being courteous towards fellow commuters who did not want to smell cigarette smoke,” explains Soraya. “They were providing themselves with a quiet smoking space – making a protest, of sorts, against the stupidity of applying the smoking ban to outdoor areas – not expecting someone like Ms Buchanan to go out of her way to confront them at 7am, three days in a row.”

"I’m not a heavy smoker, I certainly don’t smoke at 7am and I’d never push someone who shoved me verbally,” says Soraya, “but I do think that the total smoking ban is unreasonable. It would be civilized to have a smoking section in all indoor public areas, but failing that it is cruel, hypocritical and nonsensical to ban smoking in outdoor areas where toxic fumes and evil smells from trains, planes, vehicles, factories, homes and restaurants are already polluting the air or offending the nostrils."

"What was thuggish about their behavior was not their furtive smoking but their over-reaction to being told to stop smoking, three days in a row, by a woman who is very lucky that they gave her a push rather than sticking a knife into her," says Soraya. "And, if it comes to that, they were very lucky that she wasn't a gun toting lunatic."

"They had absolutely no right to touch the woman -- no matter how much provocation she gave them -- and this is their crime, not their smoking, but all the anti-smokers out there fail to make this distinction," points out Soraya. "Had Ms Buchanan not stumbled, fell onto the railway tracks and caused the guys to run away in panic, she could have had them charged with assault and lumbered them with a criminal record that would affect the rest of their lives -- and she still can, of course, providing they are located -- but she can't have them charged and given a criminal record for smoking."

"Smoking in a non-smoking area is an offence and, like a multitude of other silly offences under the New World Order, it is not a crime like murder, rape and theft; and if everyone believes they have the right, as Ms Buchanan did, to tackle strangers for committing these silly offences, then the actual crime rate is going to escalate and there'll be dead bodies everywhere."

"Being the same age as Linda Buchanan, I cannot understand what on earth possessed the woman to think that strapping young men of about 25, on their way to a laboring job by the description of their clothing, would pay any attention to her," laughs Soraya. "Having tried once to stop them smoking, what possessed her to impose her will on them, 'lawful' though it was, a second and then a third time? If she was so incensed, so out of her mind with rage, why didn't she approach the railway staff and get them to do their job rather than doing it for them?"

“Is she nuts or something? I wouldn’t approach two young women of that age to ask them the time, let alone two young men to tell them to stop doing something that offended me. I’d just walk away, as would most sensible older people.”

"Would she have similarly approached two men her own age doing the same thing?" asks Soraya. "I very much doubt it, and what we are seeing here is perhaps a woman with adult sons of the same age who won't let go, who continues to treat them as children, and that is why her last words to them was to 'grow up' before they gave her the push that made her stumble and fall onto the railway tracks."

"I'm surprised, really, that two young laboring men would be taking a train to work in the first place -- most commuters where I live are older people," says Soraya. "And yet as the cost of running a vehicle becomes prohibitive, forcing more and more people out of private transport onto public transport, I suppose this sort of incident is going to become rife -- if not for smoking then for any number of silly offences."

“But it doesn’t surprise me that this incident happened in the South-East, the most overcrowded part of the UK, a tinderbox of hostilities waiting to be ignited,” says Soraya. “Even where I live, where it’s not so overcrowded, I’m into cocoon survival.”

"Those two guys were probably still living at home -- for the same reason that they cannot afford private transport to get to work -- and were probably subject to constant nagging by their moms," explains Soraya. "When nagged young men are confronted three times by someone else's nagging mom, I guess they snapped."

"I'm not making excuses for the young men, I'm merely pointing out that every railway platform in the country, if not the whole world, is seething with people suffering from all sorts of afflictions and private miseries and the slightest thing can set any one of them off -- a whiff of cigarette smoke, a crying child, a piece of litter, a cell phone ringing, you name it, something is sure to offend someone – and if we are to survive as a harmonious society in an increasingly overpopulated world then governments should be promoting tolerance rather than pandering to divisive lobby groups such as ASH.”

"What about the Greyhound bus passenger in Canada who had his head cut off by the lunatic sitting next to him?" adds Soraya. “He wasn't smoking, he wasn't littering, he wasn't drunk and disorderly or in any way annoying the lunatic sitting next to him -- but something about him ticked off the lunatic -- the smell of his aftershave, an inadvertent touch, a cough, who knows?"

"And this is why governments that pass silly laws trying to control every aspect of human behavior are wasting taxpayer's resources."

"If governments must pass silly laws telling us where we can and cannot eat, smoke, drink, fart, urinate, defecate, expose our body bits, have sex, make noises, etc, etc, then at least put some teeth into these laws by requiring all authorities -- in this case public transport operators -- to raise their act and take 100% responsibility for the safety and comfort of commuters," says Soraya. "It was grossly negligent of the government to pass the nonsmoking ban without enforcement patrols to go with it, leaving people like Linda Buchanan with no option but to do the job herself (and heavy smokers like those two guys with enough rope to hang themselves)."

"If I were Ms Buchanan I'd try suing the government because her actions were based upon a reasonable belief that the government was serious about the smoking ban, why else would they pass the law?” points out Soraya. “However, because the majority of the population doesn’t trust anything the government does, preferring to remain cynical, minding its own business, I don't fancy her chances."

"Everyone else on that railway platform in Kent, except for Linda Buchanan, was minding their own business," says Soraya. "If she had minded her own business and the railway staff had been given government funds to properly mind theirs -- patrolling the platform 24/7 -- her wrist wouldn't be broken and two young men would not now be on the run, hunted down like animals, their future lives in ruin should they be located."

Barack Obama Smokes?

Barack Obama’s losing fight to rid himself of the smoking habit is now public knowledge and is causing a stir among the chattering classes and Sissy wants to know why on earth it should matter.

“Many voters did not even know that he had ever smoked and are righteously indignant and shocked that a person with such an ‘abominable, filthy and disgusting’ character flaw could ever stand for office,” says Sissy. “But, in view of the legality of the habit, and his quitting smoking not being a requirement of nomination, what business is it of anyone’s?”

“As long as he can perform the duties of office and uphold the social contract we invest in him,” says Sissy, “then I really cannot see why a smoker in office would be worse than a drinker or a drug-taker, especially when tobacco calms the nerves and aids concentration.”

“I don’t understand why he ever bothered to take it upon himself to do the ‘quitting’ thing in the first place,” says Sissy. “And why is a presidential candidate’s smoking habit more important to voters than slaughter in Iraq or the state of the economy?”

“I would say that drinking, drug-taking, womanizing, gambling, lying, violence or abuse of women and children are far worse character flaws than smoking,” says Sissy, “and I certainly wouldn’t vote for anyone with those flaws.”

”To my mind, Obama risks being considered a wimp for trying to fit in with the Politically Correct herd mentality if he went on the quitting train,” says Sissy. “I’d rather that he remain his own smokin’ man.”


Read more by Sissy on this issue:

once a smoker always a smoker

backing a winner?

addictive friends

peace up in smoke?

walking on water

a life changing vote

who’s the boss?

candidates and spouses

and check out:

Secrets of Barack Obama’s Age

Obama, Clinton or McCain?

once a smoker always a smoker

Reports that Barack Obama has broken his pledge to quit smoking by sneaking a few cigarettes now and again – and comments about his deteriorating performance - do not surprise Sissy as much as his ridiculous decision to quit smoking in the first place.

“People lapse and lose focus when they quit smoking, so why did he put himself through all this totally unnecessary public humiliation?” asks Sissy. “Frankly, his timing to quit smoking – running for office - was atrocious, as was his estimation of his willpower.”

“He doesn’t seem to have much insight into why tobacco smoking first attracted him and always will,” explains Sissy. “He’s not so much a nicotine addict as a smoking addict – chewing Nicorette isn’t going to help him when he needs to see and smell smoke and take it into his lungs. Can’t he see that?”

“It pains and embarrasses me to see him so unfocused,” sighs Sissy. “I’m sure the other candidates take a shot of something or other before they go on stage, and if this guy needs smoke in his lungs in order to function at his best then he should just do it – and do it openly (it’s legal!) We are sick to death of hypocrites in politics.”

“On the other hand, if he is serious about quitting for good then being the type of smoker he is it may take him several years, and many relapses, before he succeeds,” says Sissy, “but even then he will always be a ‘smoker’ and just like a drinker on the wagon it will be a day at a time, a personal fight against a personal demon for as long as he lives.”

“Obama ignored all of the basic principles of giving up smoking,” says Sissy. “You do it because you want to quit not as a promise to someone else; you choose a calm, stress free time to commence the quitting process; and, if you’re a lifetime smoker (as he was) rather than a social smoker, you must have realistic expectations about your success.”

“That he’s now falling off the quit wagon and performing badly doesn’t surprise me,” says Sissy, “but it does make me feel angry that some idiot has compromised Obama’s chances by filling his head with so many illusions about what he is capable of doing, and what he is not capable of doing without a great deal of pain, effort and help.”

“His deteriorating performance since quitting smoking is so painfully evident that I shudder to think what he would be like in office, with more stresses than ever,” adds Sissy. “If he doesn’t pull himself together right now, while the race is still on, recant his pledge to Michelle and announce to the world ‘I’m a smoker, take me or leave me’ then I don’t see how he can win.”

“Even if he beats Hillary, he has ultimately to face McCain and the formidable Republican machine and things are going to get really dirty and nasty,” sighs Sissy. “But, since the GOP is in league with the tobacco companies perhaps Obama may have won himself a get out of jail free card on his smoking!”


Read more by Sissy on this issue:

Barack Obama Smokes?

backing a winner?

addictive friends

peace up in smoke?

a life changing vote

who’s the boss?

candidates and spouses

and check out:

Secrets of Barack Obama’s Age

Obama, Clinton or McCain?

smoking invasions

Like most smokers, Moya, 48, is under considerable pressure at work to quit her enjoyable habit even though smoking is something she indulges in at home -- not at work -- and she is fuming that her civil liberties are being violated and invaded in this manner. She sees the whole quit smoking campaign as being as criminal, shortsighted and venal as the Iraq invasion, and believes that it's pushed by the same type of opportunistic people, for the same reasons.

"Although it's not a life-threatening violation of my civil rights -- as the criminal invasion of Iraq was, and still is, to Iraqi citizens," says Moya, "the quit smoking war is still very much a criminal act -- it's creating discriminatory attitudes in my place of work that are violating my civil liberties to enjoy a legal product in the sanctity of my own home."

"What I do at home is absolutely no business of my employer and it's deplorable that a comment I made to a coworker about smoking ended up being reported on my employment file," says Moya. "This is Big Brother gone crazy and next thing they'll be wanting to know what we eat for breakfast and what we do in bed."

"As I see it, the quit smoking campaign came about as a result of someone getting lung cancer and successfully litigating against the tobacco companies," says Moya. "That person may very well have developed lung cancer from a bacterial infection whether he or she smoked or not, but once the precedent had been set -- and the dollar signs started flashing -- that was the end of freedom for smokers."

"From then on, smokers became the enemy and the lies started coming thick and fast -- such as smokers are killing themselves and others (some of us may very well be doing that, but so are drinkers, drivers, meat eaters, gun owners, etc); we are bankrupting the health services with our smoking-related diseases (and paying for them ten times over with tobacco tax); and we crave liberation from the thralls of addiction (yeah, sure, we embrace the efforts of the nicotine-Nazis with love and gratitude.)"

"The illegal invasion of Iraq -- against UN decisions -- came about as a result of Mr Bush and the warmongers being frustrated at failing to nab Osama and going after Saddam instead," says Moya. "One criminal excuse after another was given in order to justify the illegal invasion -- Saddam was a monster (he may have been, but so are lots of other rulers and even Hillary Clinton is seen as being one by a fellow Democrat! ); he had stockpiles of WMD (Hans Blix found none); and the Iraqis crave liberation (yeah, sure, they embrace our gun-toting troops with love and gratitude)."

"The quit smoking campaign and the decision to invade Iraq are also alike in that they were based on shortsighted premises by people who have no understanding of consequences and no way to back off without losing face -- making them dangerous people."

"Their jobs -- their wealth and their pension funds -- depend upon successfully completing their mission and maintaining control over the outcome," says Moya. "They refuse to admit that they were wrong in invading Iraq -- that Saddam was the right person to rule a divided nation -- and they also refuse to admit that they were wrong in making such deceitful claims against smokers."

"The Iraqi people they claimed to be 'liberating' are now living in fear, anger and helplessness, wishing Saddam were back in power," says Moya. "And that's the way many ex-smokers feel. The rewards of being a non-smoker are not what they were cracked up to be -- all of the hidden reasons why people become smokers in the first place come back with a vengeance when they give it up."

"I have personally seen several acquiantances at work sink into deep depression when they quit cigarettes," says Moya. "Now they are on prescribed medication and spending just as much on their meds as they did on cigarettes. Big deal!"

"And there has been no massive decrease in the so-called smoking-related diseases either," says Moya. "Rather that admitting that other factors cause these diseases, the health authorities now claim that people who once smoked have already done the damage. Hmm, more reason to keep on smoking, then?"

"Finally, by far the closest likeness between the quit smoking campaign and the invasion of Iraq is, you guessed it, money!" sighs Moya. "They want a bigger cut of the Iraqi oil fields and they want a bigger cut of our money -- if not in tobacco tax then in quit programs and products."

"They've already pushed the Iraqis too far by overstaying their welcome -- and they're pushing smokers to the end of their tether, too," says Moya, "and I have no idea whether they doing what they're doing out of grotesque money-grubbing greed, arrogant self-righteous hubris or just plain dumb stupidity."

"The only way the warmongers can win decisively in Iraq is the same way the anti-smokers can win decisively in the smoking war -- imprison or shoot all the dissidents."

"I don't think there are enough prisons and bullets to achieve this end and while fellow citizens may not be too concerned about this sort of thing happening in Iraq they may start squirming when the dissendent smokers at home start getting rounded up -- or will they?"

"Judging from what's happening at work -- and what's happening in society at large --I honestly fear that our national identity as a feircely proud and free nation has been so watered down with foreign immigrants from totalitarian nations that the concept of civil liberties is fast disappearing from our national psyche."

"That so many so-called democratic freedom lovers still see the Iraq invasion as justifiable -- as justifiable as smoking and other bans -- is really scary," says Moya. "I feel so sorry for the next generation raised on Big Brother television and Big Brother government -- as well as control freaks at school and work -- because they will never know what freedom is."

"And most of all I feel sorry for the Iraqis -- especially the ones who smoke, and that's an awful lot of them -- because if western style democracy takes off in that country, they're going to be hit with an invasion of their smoking rights next."

Le Grand Fag Parasite

Becky, a self-employed IT professional with a real doctorate is fuming that someone with an honorary doctorate, not a real one, from Sussex University, presumes to tell her how to live her life.

“Health England, chaired by Julian le Grande -- a former adviser to ex-PM Tony Blair and a lecturer in social policy at the London School of Economics -- advises the government on health policy but his proposal to discourage people from smoking by forcing them into a humiliating licensing system has nothing to do with smokers' health," says Becky. "Instead, it is yet another parasitic fag-bashing policy designed to raise revenue, create more non-jobs, boost NuLabour votes and further victimize a social group he hates -- smokers."

"In view of the fact that recent research at the London School of Economics (where he works) laid to rest the 'smoking harms your baby' scare tactic -- and smoking bans have removed the equally unsubstantiated claims about second-hand smoke, and cancer research is currently focusing on viruses rather than smoking -- Le Grand cannot possibly claim that his new proposal is anything to do with health."

"Le Grand's proposal -- that smokers should be forced to pay 10 pounds annually for a licence to buy tobacco and forced through complicated and annoying bureaucratic hoops in order to apply for a smoking licence -- is not only totalitarianism gone mad but a system which is totally unworkable (but since when has NuLabor parasites thought anything through?)."

"The system apparently exonerates foreigners -- I suppose they just need to show a foreign passport to purchase cigarettes -- so it is definitely targeting native Brits," says Becky. "And, it's the elderly and low income smokers who are going to suffer from this scheme because they can't afford to circumvent it like I can. It's an iniquitous form of extra taxation on top of existing exorbitantly high tobacco tax."

"Le Grand said that cash raised by the proposed scheme would go to the NHS," explains Becky. "What a joke. The money will go straight to the bureaucrats hired to police the scheme, just like tobacco revenue goes straight to the ASH parasites. It's just another NuLabour non-job creation scheme and a desperate measure to gain votes from the grateful jobsworths so employed."

"But it's more than that -- it's blatant victimization of a section of society that has been targeted by NuLabour for the past ten years."

"NuLabour hates smokers -- it hates us more than it hates Tories, Islamists, hoodies, binge drinkers, obese burger eaters, SUV drivers, burdensome elderly people and bottled water drinkers," sighs Becky, "And, when it has sucked the last sou out of smokers or forced the last smoker out of the British Isles, it will start on the next hated group."

"The most ridiculous assertion made by this man is that 70% of smokers actually want to stop smoking," laughs Becky. "Oh yeah? Where did you pluck that figure from, Mr Le Grand? After ten years of harassment and victimization under NuLabour, any smoker wanting to give up smoking would have done so years ago."


Read more by Becky:

self-employment in parasitic britain

parasites and brain drains

Licensed to smoke?

Bogus health research

Sinful Pleasures

Anti-smoking media tarts

cigarette muggers

Zaina and her partner were recently mugged for their cigarettes and she points out that this is what happens when governments regularly increase tax on a legal product that is addictive -- like cigarettes -- in order to fund schools and hospitals. The time has now arrived when cigarettes have become too expensive to buy for many smokers and some will necessarily resort to crime in order to get what they want. Is this how we want our schools and hospitals funded?

"I was standing outside a restaurant with my partner having a smoke when we were mugged by a gang of youths," says Zaina. "Okay, they didn't actually bash us up -- they pushed my partner and stole his packet of cigarettes -- but the effect was the same as a mugging."

"We felt violated and wounded by this experience," explains Zaina, "and more so because we had no redress -- we could hardly call the police and complain about being pushed around and having cigarettes stolen, could we?"

"This sort of thing never happened when restaurants allowed people to smoke inside," says Zaina, "and, as the tax on cigarettes goes up even more, I expect these muggings to increase and become even more violent. Is this really how we want our schools and hospitals funded?"

"By forcing us outside to smoke the restaurant owners are exposing us to muggers," says Zaina, "but I don't blame the restaurant owners because they are merely complying with the new rules. It's the fault of the mugging government in every respect!"

"The government enforced the no-smoking rules on public establishments and imposed draconian taxes on cigarettes and it might find the whole exercise backfires when someone gets badly hurt and takes legal action -- reversing the whole legal process that started the non-smoking campaign in the first place."

"Already we've read about lots of smoking-related violence -- smokers reacting violently against people trying to stop them lighting up in non-smoking areas, and anti-smokers behaving violently towards smokers smoking in smoking areas," says Zaina. "I don't know how many smokers have been mugged for their cigarettes like we have -- it's not the sort of thing that makes front page news, is it? -- but I predict an increase in this sort of crime when the taxes increase so much that poor people can no longer afford to buy their cigarettes."

"A huge increase in cigarette smuggling to avoid tax is also going on," sighs Zaina. "It's really upsetting to see a pleasurable thing like smoking attracting criminal elements."

"The government is crazy if it thinks that people will just cut down or stop smoking when it becomes too expensive for them to buy cigarettes," sighs Zaina. "We're talking about an addiction here, not a preference for one thing over another like buying a cheap bottle of wine when you can no longer afford French champagne, or a bottle of methylated spirits when you can no longer afford a cheap bottle of wine."

"Most smokers have already been forced by exorbitant taxes to buy cheaper brands of cigarettes, and when the cheapest brand become too expensive to buy the ugly consequences of the anti-smoking campaign are really going to manifest themselves big time."

"The government knows that cigarette smoking is most prevalent among low socio-economic groups," says Zaina. "What plans does it have to prevent theft, violence and slaughter when it raises the taxes on tobacco products to the tipping point?"

"I believe most smokers are honest law-abiding people -- we have accepted the new smoking rules and accommodated to them without stirring up a revolution," says Zaina, "but I do not know whether my partner and I will be able to sit by silently while not only the government bullies us but the poorer smokers, too."

"After our mugging experience we have decided to stay home from now on -- or to restrict our dining out experiences to places where there is a private smoking area," says Zaina. "But now we worry about being mugged at the point of sale -- places where we buy our cigarettes."

"When people get desperate they do desperate things -- and even if tobacco outlets are set up as fortresses the purchasers are exposed to muggers when they leave such establishments."

"Imagine having to look around and see who's watching you every time you buy a pack of cigarettes," sighs Zaina. "It's not a nice way to live and I am angry that the government is creating a criminal environment around the sale and use of a legal product."

"It is almost as if the government is deliberately creating a crime situation by raising taxes so much that poor people have to resort to crime to get their cigarettes (and then it can take the ultimate step to ban smoking altogether)," muses Zaina. "but since it makes such a big deal about tobacco tax being used to fund our schools and hospitals I can't see any logic in that argument."

"If our schools and hospitals are funded by tobacco tax, and everyone who smokes suddenly quits, buys their cigarettes tax-free off smugglers or mugs for them, then what? Where is the money for the schools and hospitals going to come from?"

"No, I don't think the government's ulterior motive in increasing tax on cigarettes is to create such a bad crime situation that it has a good reason to ban smoking -- that would be like cutting off its nose to spite its face," says Zaina. "So, that leaves me with the horrifying realization that the government hasn't a clue."

"It had no idea what Pandora's box it opened when it targeted smokers and put the tax screws on them, but it's going to find out pretty soon," sighs Zaina. "Reminds you of the invasion of Iraq, doesn't it?"

"In the meantime, I can't understand why schools and hospitals can't be funded by regular taxes," sighs Zaina. "If tobacco is so bad, then it's mind-boggling that the government would depend upon it in this way."

"And, if it's not so bad, then it's mind-boggling that the government would tax it to the point where consumers can no longer afford it and have to resort to crime."

smoking scientists discredited

It sounded like a good debate to watch -- Gore's Inconvenient Truth v. Durkin's Global Warming Swindle -- but Lottie was gobsmacked when one of the debating panellists attempted to destroy the life work of an eminent scientist by saying, shock horror, that the man was a smoker and had published a paper debunking second hand smoke.

"Imagine the furore if he had said, instead, that the scientist was a Muslim and had published papers, say,debunking the medical benefits of alcohol," says Lottie. "Since when have scientists been forbidden to be smokers, Muslims or anything they want to be -- and publish papers accordingly?"

"I fully expected the panellists to shred to pieces each other's pro and anti global warming theories," says Lottie, "but I didn't expect a debate between so-called science intellectuals to sink into a personal attack and especially so when the man whose personal habits were being attacked wasn't there to defend himself."

"To their credit, or perhaps not, the other panellists ignored this personal attack and kept strictly to the global warming debate," says Lottie, "and it did not surprise me one bit when I checked this guy out later and discovered he was employed by the government, being paid from taxpayer funds."

"His remark came in the context of a personal interview he once had with the eminent scientist -- oops, the filthy, dirty, nicotine stained, cancer riddled, moronic smoker -- and this guy actually counted the number of cigarettes the scientist had smoked in his presence."

"Hopefully, the scientist had politely asked his guest whether he minded if he smoked -- and naturally the guy would have said, okay, because he was, after all, a guest in the private space of a smoker -- and in this convivial environment the scientist relaxed, talked and smoked. Not twenty cigarettes, not ten but three lousy cigarettes."

"OMG, for the poor guy to have actually counted the cigarettes smoked he must have been incredibly uncomfortable and fearful of dropping dead on the spot from second hand smoke," laughs Lottie. "If so, why didn't he object straight off on the smoking issue or suggest that they go outside?"

"No, he sat there, pretending to be friendly and interested in what the scientist had to say but all he wanted was a reason to discredit the man," sighs Lottie. "What a jerk!"

"Had the scientist slugged three whiskeys, or ate three chocolate eclairs or scratched his backside three times would that have discredited him, too?" asks Lottie. "Probably. That guy was hell bent on finding something not quite kosher about the scientist in order to discredit his anti-global warming stance, and a smoking habit and support for the rights of smokers was it."

"The global warming debate was, of course, inconclusive -- neither side was able to convince the other, or the audience -- but I did pick up some facts about scientific research funding that made me understand not only how global warming came to be such a big issue but also how cigarette smoking got such a bad rap."

"Apparently, because the clique of global gnomes who rule the world behind the scenes have two pet hates -- smokers and rising third world polluters, China being a threat on both counts -- the word went out to the puppet western governments to stamp them out."

"Second hand smoke and global warming were quickly invented for this purpose," says Lottie,"and a mass of funding became available to any researcher willing to give credibility to these invented hazards."

"That's why there is now an avalanche of literature in medical and scientific journals about the hazards of smoking -- and very little about any of the terrible diseases that continue to plague us," sighs Lottie. "Our governments deliberately reduced the funding available for the diseases that the researchers wanted to study, and the only way the medicos and scientists could get around this was by linking whatever they wanted to research with smoking."

"Do a search of PubMed and the number of articles linking the most esoteric diseases to smoking is a joke," says Lottie. "I don't blame the researchers -- because it's clear from their articles what their real passion is -- but it is nevertheless an abominable way for our governments to manipulate researchers."

"Similarly, there is now an avalanche of literature in all types of journals about the hazards of global warming," says Lottie, "and if more scientists appear to support Al Gore it is only because they are the ones getting the big funds to do so."

"The politicizing of science -- like the politicizing of other so-called independent bodies -- is an abomination similar to the crazy religious climate in which Galileo worked and suffered," says Lottie. "An avalanche of government funded research does NOT represent conclusive evidence of anything other than politcal interference."

"While I remain undecided about climate change, I nevertheless applaud the maverick scientists who went out on a limb -- some with threats on their lives believe it or not -- in order to present publicly an opposing theory," says Lottie. "I applaud them not because I smoke -- or because some of them, apparently, have also presented an opposing theory to the hazards of second hand smoke -- but because science would not be science without dissent and scepticism."

"If today's 'politically correct' science community is encouraged to discredit the work of a fellow scientist on the basis of a personal smoking habit," says Lottie, "then what is it going to do about the work, for instance, of Albert Einstein, and how is it going to attract brilliant young minds with attitude?"

"Undoubtedly, after the debate the panellists retired to a lounge where, awash with alcohol and whatever other drug was being used, a convivial atmosphere prevailed," sighs Lottie. "I hope they didn't relax too much because who knows who was COUNTING and storing this information for a future discrediting."

are anti-smokers so perfect?

Neva reports that there's a quotation from an ex-president of ASH on the Freedom2choose website saying words to the effect that he's no role model, and she makes the valid point that people who make a living out of reviling other people's lifestyles should have a moral duty to be perfect in all respects themselves.

"Frankly, I have better things to do than waste time investigating the lifestyles of prominent anti-smokers and those who run ASH and our health departments -- and besides which what they do in their private lives is none of my business," says Neva, "but there are plenty of smokers who are so incensed by the hypocrisy of the holier than thou anti-smokers that they will most definitely make it their business to expose the nasty little secrets of these people."

"Actually, since most of these anti-smokers are being funded by taxpayer dollars it is really the civic duty of all citizens -- smokers or not -- to ensure that their money is being spent wisely and that the people spending it stand up to moral scrutiny."

"We've recently seen how easy it is for terrorists to get employed by health departments -- and to get paid with our taxes to blow us up," says Neva, "so what other type of people are being employed by health departments and their ancillary bodies?"

"It wouldn't surprise me if the whole health system -- from the top to the bottom -- is riddled with unsavoury characters," laughs Neva. "As far as I am concerned, the lunatics have been in charge of the asylum for a long time because who else would have foisted multiculturalism and political correctness upon us?"

"It is not sufficient to be a non-smoker to set yourself up as a voice against smoking," explains Neva. "You've got to be perfect in every respect in order to convince everyone that you are good and smokers are bad." "That ASH and other bodies like it have no 'face' and, as far as I know, no address or telephone number, leads me to believe that the anti-smokers are hiding something."

"Could it be that they are all such terrible role models that if the general public saw them they would be laughed out of town?"

"Let me see," muses Neva, "are they all fat slobs? Are they drunks? Are they psychiatric patients? Are they drug addicts? Are they wife beaters, pedophiles, tax cheats, pornography merchants, criminals, fundamentalists or what?"

"Like the puny little Wizard of Oz, when people make a big noise but prefer not to be seen there is generally something terribly wrong with them -- even if it is merely a lack of stature or just plain old age."

'The anti-smokers are smart enough to know that their appearance or character or creed is so unacceptable that their message is better promoted with advertisements and written literature than with public appearances," explains Neva. "And, when a public face is required they hire consultants (ie actors) to do it for them, or brainwash children into their cause."

"In view of the fact that a lot of good people have had their social lives ruined by anti-smoking propaganda," says Neva, "I can't blame smokers for wanting to expose the anti-smoking propagandists for what they are."

"Personally, the only anti-smokers I have come across are the brainwashed variety," says Neva. "When I ask them why they are opposed to smoking they invariably say that their teachers, parents or pastors told them it was a bad thing to do."

"I suppose if I took the trouble to ask teachers, parents and pastors why they are opposed to smoking -- and make sure that the children in their care are opposed to it, too -- they would invariably cite ASH or health department literature."

"So, by exposing the nasty little secrets of the anti-smokers in ASH and the health departments we would be able to discredit their anti-smoking propaganda," says Neva. "By exposing themas terrible role models, we destroy the credibility of their anti-smoking literature."

"It's all very nice in theory," sighs Neva, "but just like brainwashed religious fanatics don't turn away from their religion upon discovering their leaders are pedophiles and frauds,I doubt whether the brainwashed masses would stop hating smokers just because a health minister, for instance,was discovered to be a heroin addict."

"Smokers would need to expose every single anti-smoking propagandist as a fraud before the brainwashed masses woke up to themselves," says Neva. "and then it would take another generation before the anti-smoking hate subsided."

"As I see it, the anti-smoking propagandists know a lot about the power of generating hate in the masses -- and singling out a particular group to vent it on," says Neva. "And, while those who make a living out of reviling other people's lifestyles should have a moral duty to be perfect in all respects themselves, they very often get away with having far worse lifestyles than those they are reviling."

anti-smokers target women, avoid men

After several attacks from anti-smokers who deliberately avoided smoking men in order to target her, Gilda, 56, is wondering whether the anti-smoking crusaders are chicken-livered cowards or whether the campaign is designed to stop women, not men, smoking.

"Traditionally, men have always smoked in our society -- they had smoking rooms and smoking jackets and tobacco clubs where they hung out -- but it's only in relatively recent times that women took up the habit," explains Gilda. "It was very popular with emancipated women from the 1920s onwards, but didn't catch on with working class women until the 1950s."

"We all know what happened after the late 1960s," laughs Gilda, "and I'm wondering whether the anti-smoking campaign is just another backlash by men and their dependent women against feminism."

"Nobody in their right mind could object to the image of a macho guy smoking, let alone try to stop him -- he's so cool," laughs Gilda, "but it's a different story with women smokers, isn't it?"

"Guys of my generation -- the baby boomers -- are reasonably comfortable with women smokers," says Gilda,"It's the older men, the younger men and immigrant men of all ages who seem to have trouble with women smoking."

"Where I lived last year was an elderly couple in their 70s and although the wife was pleasant the husband was incredibly hostile to me -- not only attacking me for smoking but for being a single women, too," laughs Gilda. "He was from the old school who felt a woman's place was at home, under a man's thumb, and that smoking was something guys did, not women!"

"That guy would have a lot in common with Islamic men and might enjoy living under Sharia law where he could stone a few women to death," sighs Gilda, "and his beliefs are pretty widely held by men, and dependent women, of his generation. Too young to have fought with the smoking men and women in WWII, and too old to have enjoyed the 70s. Poor, lost souls."

"There were other smokers in the apartment block -- mostly male -- but that guy left them alone and just attacked me!"

"With immigrant men from backward cultures who denigrate women you expect a bad reception -- and I've had plenty of those in recent years thanks to our government opening the flood gates to middle-eastern refugees," sighs Gilda. "They just don't seem to understand -- or want to understand -- that women in our society have equal rights to men, including the right to smoke."

"At a outdoor coffee bar one lunch-time I was accosted by a middle-eastern man who screamed at me for smoking and raised his hand as if to strike me," says Gilda. "I didn't even see him arrive with his wife and baby and sit behind me. I was too busy reading. Considering we were seated on the sidewalk with vehicles belching out their poisons I was surprised that he didn't see the irony of what he was saying and, why, indeed, he didn't use the non-smoking section of the coffee bar if he objected to cigarette smoke."

"Again, several male smokers were seated outside but this guy left them alone and attacked me," sighs Gilda. "And guess what, the male smokers smirked rather than coming to my aid. Very gallant of them, eh?"

"Young men, too, seem to be particularly averse to women smoking," says Gilda. "I'd be a rich woman if I were paid a dollar for every young man who thought it was his male prerogative to insult a lady for smoking."

"But it's not just men who behave badly towards smoking women," says Gilda. "Women of all ages -- even my own -- seem to be coming out of the woodwork and beating up on members of their own sex who smoke."

"And, like the cowardly male anti-smokers, they target women smokers and leave the male smokers alone," says Gilda. "The young girls at my office have similar complaints so it's not just older women being targeted. In fact, some of the young girls have told me stories about being physically assaulted for smoking by the men in their lives."

"While it's sensible for female crusaders to avoid male smokers in case of violence, it's downright cowardly for the male crusaders to attack women and leave male smokers alone, isn't it? asks Gilda. "So, what is it? Are we looking at deliberate discrimination against female smokers, or just cowardice?"

"Do the anti-smokers want to stop everyone from smoking, or just women?"
"Is the hidden agenda of the anti-smoking campaign to regain tobacco for exclusive male use?"

"Are macho male smokers behind it all?"

"Don't laugh," sighs Gilda. "In this crazy world of government spin and faceless male elites ruling the world behind the scenes, anything is possible."

"You'd think, wouldn't you, that after fifty years of feminism we'd have more respect and political clout than we have today," adds Gilda. "We're going backwards -- no doubt about that -- and I blame globalization and immigration for eroding the feminist values that the grand old dames of the 20th century won for us."

"And, yes, smoking is a feminist issue," asserts Gilda. "Remember the cigarettes Virginia Slims and their slogan 'you've come a long way, baby'? It's all about being treated equally, and if women are being victimized for smoking and men aren't, then something is going on that all women,smokers or not, should be alerted to because you don't know what's coming next."

fleecing smokers

Calista, 48, applauds Martin Whisker's brave protest against the new smoking ban by refusing to stub out his cigarette in a Scarborough pub, but accepts that it's likely to be the only protest because most smokers cannot afford a fine of £50 (reduced to £30 if paid within 15 days)or one of £200 if they are prosecuted and convicted by a court.

"Sometimes I do feel that smokers are like stupid sheep and deserve to be fleeced," says Calista, "but what you can do when you've grown up being bombarded with cool ads for smoking and were considered a wimp if you didn't smoke?"

"My parents didn't smoke -- or drink," says Calista, "so it's not something I learned at home. I picked up the smoking habit -- and drinking -- when I was at school and there was nothing my parents could do to stop me."

"Smoking and drinking were normal social habits when I was growing up and I was almost ashamed of my parents for being so backward."

"They're in their seventies now and are delighted with the smoking ban," laughs Calista, "but they won't be entirely happy until alcohol is banned, too. Fat chance!"

"Are we going backwards or forwards, or what?" asks Calista. "I can't believe that so many young people today are against smoking -- and yet they're into drugs that I wouldn't even dream of taking."

"Maybe I should consider changing my drug habits because I am fed up to the teeth being fleeced by the government," says Calista. "Tax on alcohol isn't too bad, but the tobacco tax is really killing me."

"Sure, they make tobacco tax astronomical because they want us to quit," says Calista, "but the alternatives to smoking are scary. I don't want to become an alcoholic drowning my sorrows in cheap wine -- that would be a horrible scenario."

"What does the government offer us in return for quitting?" asks Calista. "I mean, with what are we supposed to fill that void in our lives? Don't the do-gooders understand that we are hooked on the habit and previous governments were responsible -- sort of -- for our becoming addicted to cigarettes in the first place?"

"If the government wants to change a culture it should offer something better to replace it," explains Calista. "What is better than smoking? Drinking?"

"Are the 24/7 liquor outlets supposed to represent a better culture?" asks Calista. "Is the government in cahoots with the liquor industry? Do all the politicians have shares in alcohol production and distribution outlets? What the hell is going on?"

"The government promotes an anti-smoking culture forcing smokers to quit and then promotes expensive patches and drugs made by Big Pharma -- with whom it is also probably in cahoots -- and that's it?" asks Calista. "Whether we smoke or quit, it's still big money for the government and its backers. What's in it for us?"

"Better health? Oh come on!" laughs Calista. "Most quitters cope by increasing their drinking and then risk dying of alcohol poisoning or cirrhosis of the liver. Is that a better deal than lung cancer?"

"What's the good of quitting and taking up expensive patches and drugs?" asks Calista. "You're no better off financially and the void left by smoking will eat away at you -- as shown by so many ex-smokers who are like bleating lost sheep."

"The fashionable drugs these days are all tax free and banned -- bought off dealers -- and while I would love to snoot my nose at the government for fleecing me of my hard earned cash for so many years, I worry about exchanging one dependency for another and becoming hooked on something I don't know much about."

"The young people seem very cool about their so-called recreational drugs and don't seem to worry about being busted, getting a criminal conviction or frying their brains," says Calista, "so am I being old-fashioned by sticking to smoking?"

"Should I throw away my fags and take up heroin, cocaine or crystal meth?" muses Calista. "Or, should I stick to the devil I know and accept being fleeced by the government?"

"To remain a smoker is a sheep-like decision, I know," accepts Calista. "Martin Whisker's protest was merely that of an outlaw ram butting his horns against the railings and the rest of us didn't follow suit -- as we should have -- maybe because he wasn't the leader of the pack, we're too damned comfortable where we are or we didn't want to cop another fleecing in fines on top of the tobacco tax we already pay."

"So, what do you want me to say?"

"Baa-aaaaa!"

elizabethan smokers

Leila, 43, is a thoroughly modern woman -- a heavy smoking and drinking executive -- and points out the irony of our times. It was in the final years of the reign of the first Queen Elizabeth that smoking took off, and it's in the final years of the reign of the second Queen Elizabeth that it's being killed off.

"Because Camilla smokes I don't think Charles will do a James I and call for a total ban on tobacco use when his time comes," laughs Leila, "but even if he had such power -- which of course he doesn't -- I doubt whether he would fare much better than dear old James, the Scottish moralist, who was derided as an idiot by his English subjects."

"However. when I look at Gordon Brown -- the new British PM and another Scottish moralist -- I think of James I and shudder," sighs Leila. "It looks very much like he will succeed at doing what James I tried to do as far as smoking is concerned and this worries me."

"Why? Well, England took off in every respect when Elizabeth I came to power," explains Leila, "and it may be a long bow I am drawing but what if tobacco use made England great and the global gnomes caught on to this fact and deliberately caused British supremacy to falter by poisoning our minds against tobacco?"

"Look at how far England has dropped in world esteem since the anti-smoking lobby gained sway in our government," explains Leila. "And it's not just England that's losing ground to the nefarious anti-smoking lobby but western civilization itself."

"All of our great leaders smoked -- look at pictures of them and a cigar or a cigarette is invariably stuck in their mouths or fingers," says Leila. "Who can forget Winston Churchill who died at 91 with a cigar keeping him perky?"

"Since him, our leaders have been lacklustre puppets," sighs Leila. "Britain has gone to the dogs and I blame this entirely on the sneaky prohibition on smoking."

"Look at China, its economy is going gang-busters and it's all due to tobacco!" laughs Leila. "China is now where England was in the early 17th century. Where else would China have gained such impetus to explode in all directions? It has to be extensive tobacco use."

"As China ups its tobacco use, it gains in world power," laughs Leila, "and as we go down in tobacco use, we become feeble, stupid, fat and lazy."

"I doubt whether I'd be as successful as I am without smoking," confides Leila. "I have brainwaves like you'd never believe when I have a heavy smoking session, and energy to burn, too. Sure, I'm addicted to the stuff and would go crazy without it -- and may die an agonizing death at 92 because of it -- but what the hell?"

"Can't you guys get it? The global gnomes want to destroy British power and western civilization with it and they've discovered the secret of how to do it."

"They looked at the history books and tried to figure out how a little island off Europe -- with no significance whatsoever -- suddenly became a superpower with an industrial revolution that shook the world."

"Sure, it all started with Henry VIII when he threw off the Roman Catholic yolk, but it was only when Sir Walter Raleigh brought back tobacco from the Americas that things got really going."

"I don't think Queen Elizabeth I smoked," muses Leila. "She merely gave her name to an age and the real power was in the hands of men who huddled together in taverns smoking their guts out and thinking up wonderful schemes to change the world. And they didn't just think -- they set out and accomplished amazing deeds. All of the great scientific discoveries and explorations of the 17th-20th centuries were inspired by tobacco!"

"Without tobacco we'd still be ploughing fields and eking out a meagre living off the land, " says Leila. "We're only learning now how advanced the South American civilizations were -- and they accomplished that with tobacco. The Spaniards robbed them of their smoking culture and replaced it with Christianity. Had they twigged the real importance of tobacco, the world would be speaking Spanish not English!"

"The global gnomes came to the same conclusion I did -- it had to be tobacco -- and in denigrating smokers and banning us from using this glorious substance they are dooming us to a life of servitude and compliance."

"As more and more of us are badgered into quitting, this once great nation of brilliant minds and eccentrics will fast become a politically correct morass of mediocrity, stupefied by alcohol."

"Five hundred years of glory is over," sighs Leila. "Prepare yourselves for the next Dark Age."

health nuts, geriatrics and smokers

Sapphire is 19, an arts student, and a sad example, perhaps, of the total ineffectiveness of anti-smoking propaganda and a bad reason, perhaps, for the government to ban the sale of tobacco products completely.

"I drink, take drugs and of course I smoke," laughs Sapphire. "The more I come across propaganda designed to make me stop doing something the more I want to do it, and if they banned alcohol and cigarettes tomorrow it wouldn't bother me because there's nothing you can't get off a dealer."

"If the aim of the anti-smoking health nuts was to get us out of your workplaces, restaurants, bars and clubs then you've won," says Sapphire, "but in doing so you've created a generation gap and a social chasm like no other one before – except, perhaps, for the Prohibition on alcohol years. Smokers and non smokers are being divided, as are young people and older people. Are you happy now?"

"Well, guys, eat up and pump up in your nice, clean smoke-free environments -- and enjoy your liquor for as long as you can afford it," says Sapphire, "because as more smokers quit, or if tobacco is banned, all those taxes the government has ripped off smokers have to be made up somehow – think carbon tax, guys!"

"And, while you're thinking about that, think also about the next wave of health nuts who may ban alcohol and all the nice sweet and fatty food you enjoy so much," laughs Sapphire. "Right now, the health system may perform operations on 80 year olds and older, but it can't possibly afford to do so forever.”

“Who is going to look after you if you ever do live longer than smokers?"

"It ain't going to be me and my smoking friends!”

Read more by Sapphire:

unruly teen alienated by stepfamily

street government

We’re all gonna die!

drugs create genius?

health and safety madness

smoking and boiled frogs

Deira, a closet smoker, likens the slow but spectacularly successful gains of the anti-smoking movement over the freedoms of smokers to boiling water and cooked frogs.

"I honestly believe it is far too late to undo the damage," says Deira. "We did nothing but grumble when they turned on the heat 25 years ago -- and increased the heat a degree higher with each passing year -- and now we're cooked."

"I'm a closet smoker because I'd lose my job, my home and respect in the community if my secret habit became known," confides Deira. "I never smoke outside my home and even then I only smoke in the kitchen next to the exhaust fan over the cooker so that my neighbors can't smell the cigarette smoke and get me evicted."

"I notice more and more smokers are now coming out angrily demanding restitution of their rights," says Deira, "but they're wasting their breath -- what remains of it after years of smoking -- and can't possibly catch up with the spectacularly successful efforts of the anti-smoking movement in changing community values."

"The anti-smokers are now in government -- from the top right down to the lowest minion of the public service," laughs Deira, "and no pro-smoking political party will ever gain the ground that the anti-smokers took from them years ago."

"Don't they get it?" laughs Deira. "The time to have stood up and spoken up for smokers' rights was 25 years ago when the anti-smokers coughed their first disapproving cough."

"It's like everything else that's gone to the dogs in our community," sighs Deira. "We stood by in a spirit of tolerance and fair play and let them take away our rights one by one."

"Sure, it was fair to have non-smoking areas -- people who don't smoke shouldn't have to put up with smoky rooms," says Deira, "but who would have thought that in giving them these areas they would take away ours?"

"Sure, it was fair to have warning labels on cigarette packs -- tobacco companies need to protect themselves from litigation," says Deira, "but who would have thought that these labels would turn into ugly, gory graphics of diseases no smoker I know has ever had or is likely to have?"

"Sure, it was fair to increase taxes on cigarettes -- the health risks of smoking need to be paid for," says Deira, "but who would have thought they would deny us medical help when we needed it?"

"Sure, it was fair to smoke outside in the snow and sleet when there's nowhere else to smoke," says Deira, "but who would have thought they would then deny us this place to smoke when summer came and they wanted to be outside?"

"Sure, it was fair to smile and act chastised when someone you knew voice their disapproval," says Deira, "but who would have thought that total strangers -- even people who sell you cigarettes -- now have a God-given right to sneer at you?"

"I could go on and on," sighs Deira, "but I got the message years ago and I am angry that smokers who were in positions of power years ago chose to ignore what was going on and did nothing to stop the situation getting worse."

"A whole generation of young, vigorous people raised on anti-smoking propaganda are now in those positions of power," says Deira, "and I have nothing but contempt for all those old fogies, pushed out to pasture and stripped of their rights to smoke, bleating on to each other about civil liberties."

"No pro-smoking politician or activist will ever be able to preach to anyone other than fellow-smokers," says Deira, "and since so many of us are now closet smokers, who are they kidding about being able to turn the tide?"

"The tide's gone out and it ain't ever coming back in!"

"Nobody can have a reasonable discussion about freedom to smoke with any of these young people in positions of power," says Deira. "They have been brainwashed -- literally fed with anti-smoking propaganda since they started school -- and every time I have tried to put forward my position, with reasonable evidence, I have been contradicted with propaganda and abuse. It's like trying to argue with a religious fanatic -- you just don't bother!"

"What really hurts about these anti-smokers in positions of power is that they do not wish to make smoking less harmful by encouraging the tobacco industry to come up with a benign cigarette -- and they do not wish to delve into the myriad of reasons why anyone would take up smoking in the first place," says Deira. "They just want to stop everyone from smoking, and that's that. They know best. They're God or God's on their side."

"Even those who make their living off smokers -- the tobacco companies, the club and bar owners and the tobacco shops -- are bowing to the New World Order and meekly accepting the government's bullying tactics, telling them what they can and cannot do on their own premises," says Deira. "They are diversifying, trying to find a new way to make money. Not one of them, as far as I know, has come out in front of the media and supported the smokers who support them -- but then what media would give the time of day to lost causes?"

"Damn it," curses Deira, "even when you get online and try to find a site that supports smokers you check out their links and find that they are moles for ASH."

"Face it guys, you're cooked," laughs Deira, "and NO, you're not welcome to come join me in a closet smoke under the kitchen exhaust fan."

"If you had been on the ball, doing your job and protecting our rights over the past 25 years -- rather than partying and enjoying the perks of power -- I wouldn't have been forced into becoming a closer smoker. Okay?"

anti-smoking propaganda or hook?

Shayne is 21, a student and a smoker, who maintains that all the anti-smoking propaganda that has bombarded her generation since birth has not been a deterrent but has actually been a ‘hook’ to get kids addicted to a legally purchased product from which the government rakes in a lot of ‘sin’ money.

"The government deliberately makes those graphic warnings on cigarette packs ridiculous because it knows smokers won't believe them," says Shayne. "It wants to keep us hooked.”

“To non-smokers, it looks like the government is the good guy, doing the right thing, but it's not."

"If it weren't so serious I'd be laughing at these pathetic attempts to stop me smoking -- or keep me hooked," says Shayne. "What are they going to try next? Are they going to waste more public funds -- most of which is provided by the exorbitant taxes smokers pay -- to give us auditory scares as well as visual ones.”

“Will I open my pack one day and be greeted by the sound of a terminal cough?"

"Every time an anti-smoking or a quit product advertisement appears on TV I automatically reach for a cigarette," laughs Shayne, "and I bet those advertisements have the same effect on all the poor, deluded suckers trying to quit."

"Governments make more money from cigarette taxes than from any other type of tax," says Shayne, "and they know exactly what they are doing with all of their hypocritical anti-smoking propaganda."

"It's the cleverest bit of reverse psychology I've ever seen," laughs Shayne. "Sure, I'm a sucker for getting hooked but what chance did I have as a kid to work out what that anti-smoking education was really all about?"

Read more from Shayne on this subject:

two-faced health warnings

stop government advertising!

gory tobacco ads

education or propaganda?

you light up my life

Maeve once worked at a factory where the janitor -- a recent immigrant from Greece -- fell madly in love with her and not only sang the song You Light Up My Life for her but also bought her a packet of her favorite cigarettes in the hope that when she lit up he would become the light of her life too!

"Zorba -- or whatever his name was," laughs Maeve, "was a really sweet man but he was way out of his league expecting me to fall in love with him."

"I was the accountant at the factory and I only noticed Zorba when I went outside to have a smoke."

"Because he always seemed to be working in the vicinity of where I sat down to have a smoke," explains Maeve, "it was natural that I would acknowledge his presence."

"One day Zorba asked me to explain an English word for him -- which I gladly obliged -- and after that he always seemed to make an excuse to speak to me."

"I started to feel uncomfortable because I could see he had other things on his mind besides learning English and I was angry that the new smoking ban meant I could no longer smoke in the privacy of my own ofice."

"One day Zorba embarrassed me dreadfully by singing the song You Light Up My Life to me," sighs Maeve."I appreciate that singing to a woman may be acceptable in Greece but it's just not done around here!"

"After that I gave up smoking at work in order to avoid any more embarrassing encounters with Zorba," explains Maeve, "but then Zorba did an extraordinary thing."

"He came to my office one day and asked why I wasn't smoking any more."

"I didn't think this was any of his business and when my boss passed by -- saw Zorba in my office and gave me a look as if to say 'what the hell is the janitor doing in your office' -- I had to order the poor man to please leave my office."

"The next day I came in and on my desk was a packet of my favorite cigarettes."

"Zorba had obviously returned to my office either the evening before or early morning and left them for me -- probably hoping that I'd take up smoking at work again and spend more time with him outside."

"It worried me that Zorba might have rifled through my personal papers while he was alone in my office."

"The thought of him sitting on my chair -- reading my letters -- gazing at the photographs on my desk -- and imagining himself in my life filled me with both horror and pity."

"I liked the man -- he was very sweet," explains Maeve, "but he had gone too far."

"I showed the packet of cigarettes to my boss and he didn't need an explanation. Apparently everybody knew that Zorba was madly in love with me!"

"My boss warned me that Zorba may have spiked the cigarettes with drugs and took them from me."

"I couldn't imagine Zorba doing anything so dreadful," says Maeve, "but my boss knew the ways of men better than I did so I deferred to his judgment."

"The following day I heard that Zorba had been fired."

"I felt both relieved and guilty."

"The trouble with forcing employees to smoke outside is that women get exposed to potentially dangerous situations," says Maeve. "I've heard that women who work in city offices get propositioned by passing men when they are forced to smoke on a busy sidewalk. How awful that would be!"

"It would be much nicer if workplaces had special smoking rooms."

"I hope Zorba found a new job quickly and found someone more suitable than me to light up his life."