Erm, hands up who isn't aware of tobacco control advice that smoking is dangerous. Anyone, anyone?
Now, I don't know about the Australian education system but considering the UK one promotes mandatory tobacco control advice on the national curriculum - and Australia is arguably more authoritarian than here - I'd guess they probably do too.
The little Ps had their first state-funded anti-smoking lessons around about the age of 5, and every single year from then upwards. So much so that they and their classmates are sick of it. The elder of the two is currently revising for GSCEs and going through past papers. The deleterious effects of smoking is included in science and they have to learn it inside out and backwards to get their grades because - yes - it is a question that can come up because it has many times before.
How any tobacco controller can possibly say that smokers who started in the past few decades were not aware that smoking carries the potential for harm is quite ridiculous! But if they say kids of today aren't aware then they are clearly insane.
This is because the tobacco control industry lives in this self-indulgent cuckoo-land world where admitting that smoking is a personal choice would seriously threaten their jobs and salaries. If they have to concede that there is more than enough information now for the public to make an informed choice, they would instantly make themselves unnecessary and not worthy of government grants.
So their only recourse is to suggest - as Hefler has above - that no matter how much blanket and incessant coverage of tobacco control rhetoric; no matter how ubiquitous the advice from them; anyone who smokes obviously started because they are too stupid to understand it, therefore they are urgently required to provide more.
That, really, is what tobacco control thinks of anyone who considers their advice and chooses to smoke anyway. It's very enlightening, isn't it?
If this is pointed out to them, they always wriggle, of course.
In general terms, yes. But most don't understand full range of diseases and relative risk @j_orelma @GrahamGords1001 @AdamCleave— Marita Hefler (@m_hef) February 14, 2016
No, they really do. In fact, the public believes that smoking - and especially the myth of passive smoking - is far more dangerous than it actually is. And, I have to add, to read someone in tobacco control talking about the public's misunderstanding of relative risk when they have relied on exactly that for decades to spread junk science bullshit is as jaw-dropping as it is laughable.
Unless, of course, that by saying the public doesn't understand they are admitting that they are useless and that everything they have done has been a roaring failure? Well, you know, it's one interpretation isn't it?
Meanwhile, in America, one of the adoring fans of the secular church of tobacco control lunacy makes a brilliant argument for banning e-cigs too.
@GrahamGords1001 @CaeruleanSea @Hifistud I— Carrie Kelly (@CarrieHKelly) February 14, 2016
am 7th cousin of Lady Diana; Royals are often chem-sensitive. You make fun of a disability? WOW!
Not that she's mad or anything.
Let's #Twittershame #smokers who refuse to put out! Take a photo & call #police if it's N/S violation! #nosmoking pic.twitter.com/v3yq4rQhic— Carrie Kelly (@CarrieHKelly) February 5, 2016
Elsewhere, their faithful hate-filled foot soldiers continue proudly exhibiting their mental health problems on blogs, message boards and comments sections safe in the knowledge that smokers are untermensch and therefore valid targets for abuse like tobacco control has instructed. Because all smokers are stupid, aren't they? We know this thanks to people like Marita Hefler who tell the world so.
You will never, ever, hear a tobacco controller condemning such vile anti-smoker behaviour ... because they hate smokers, and they rely on it. Always have, always will.
We're on the side of the angels, remember that.
UPDATE: Apparently, tweeting publicly isn't meant to be regarded as public, so please disregard the above.