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."