Monday, 8 February 2010

It Was All Going So Well


Derek Acorah, cuckoo ghost-whisperer, on quitting smoking.

I have been a non-smoker now for 11 weeks and I am still going strong. Giving up smoking has been one of the biggest and most important challenges of my life. I have done it, but it was because I wanted to do it and not because anybody told me I must do it. The time was right for me. All the scare tactics in the world didn't work on me – all the pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packets, all the television advertising, nothing. I had to reach that point where I wanted it for myself.
Very true. And something that anti-smoking fucknuts will never truly understand if their stubborn adherence to those very same failed methods be the judge.

However, after such an accurate assessment, Acorah makes the transition from smoker to rabid, hectoring, dictatorial ex-smoker, of tasmanian devil-esque proportion, in world record time.

... about two paragraphs, in fact.

It is unfortunate that the government uses stealth tactics in an attempt to price cigarettes out of reach of ordinary folk by raising taxes by a few pence at a time. If they truly want people to give up smoking, they should impose a complete ban on smoking anywhere at any time.
I think I must need the services of a medium myself, as I didn't see that entirely illogical conclusion coming at all.




13 comments:

Curmudgeon said...

I know it's stating the bleeding obvious, but a complete ban really works for heroin, doesn't it?

JuliaM said...

And what would the government do without the tobacco taxes, Derek? Are you getting any vibes about that?

Angry Exile said...

Not sure about this. This is something I've been saying for years - that governments should either ban smoking or shut the fuck up. I see the fact that they haven't banned it and show no real willingness to do so as being the strongest possible evidence that they don't give the remotest fuck about people's health. Isn't it possible that Derek 'Don't Cross The Streams' Acorah could be saying something similar when he says:

'If they truly want people to give up smoking, they should impose a complete ban on smoking anywhere at any time'?

Curmudgeon said...

But on the other hand it's often argued that currently illegal drugs could be better managed and cause less overall harm in society if they were brought within the scope of legal activity.

Dick Puddlecote said...

AE: I understand what you mean, but he's not talking about banning tobacco, just saying it's not allowed to be smoked anywhere, as if that's going to make people give up. It's entirely out of kilter with his experience as a smoker himself.

He also seems not to understand that anyone actually enjoys smoking. He's swallowed quite a lot of government rhetoric to believe that one. No-one buys a £100 cigar because they are addicted, for example.

smockr said...

"...it was because I wanted to do it and not because anybody told me I must do it"

-no way he can make that claim. at this point in time we are all being told 24/7 to stop. did he want to stop or did he want 'it' to stop?

Witterings From Witney said...

DP, what the f'nuts (to abbreviate your terminology, under the auspices of good manners) what the anti's fail to admit, is this woman gave up through personal choice.

Personal choice are two words the state does not understand!

rogueboy said...

Kill the cat if you really want it dead. Stop poking it with sticks

Leg-iron said...

Oh, great. Another born-again non-smoker.

If I die before him I'm going to squirt nicotine-stained ectoplasm right up his nose and follow him everywhere with the scent of stale ashtrays.

Come to think of it, I'm going to be a very busy malevolent spirit. There are so many of them to torment.

Antipholus Papps said...

Damn right. May they be tormented by untraceable wafts of second-hand smoke wherever their etheric remnants pollute eternity!

watching said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8503444.stm

Off Topic but good news!

Angry Exile said...

I understand what you mean, but he's not talking about banning tobacco, just saying it's not allowed to be smoked anywhere, as if that's going to make people give up.

Mate, what's the difference? As far as I can see not allowing it to be smoked anywhere is the same thing as an absolute ban. In fact Dan Akroyd, sorry, Derek Acorah actually used the term 'complete ban'. Would it make people give up? Well, I'm sure it'd be as successful as the bans on heroin, coke and weed have been, but it's a moot point. As I've argued before the government has no interest in smokers' health and a great deal of interest in their wallets. There will be no ban unless they can think up an alternative revenue stream, say caffeine products, and even then the temptation to simply have tax on teabags and coffee grounds at the same time as continuing to tax tobacco would be overwhelming. Whether Acorah was having a subtle dig at the government for not really caring about smokers or was playing Minime to Duncan Banningtime's Dr Evil actually doesn't matter much. $10 billion? They're not giving that up anytime soon and would really rather you didn't all stop, but have to pretend otherwise to keep their friends in ASH happy.

Angry Exile said...

Sorry, £10 billion not $. Been going a bit native recently.