Thursday 12 August 2010

Dick Out And About: Proof Of Harm Not Required

Jail for smoking in New York parks (link).


SadButMadLad said...

The ban extends to 30m beyond the park boundary. The basisd being that the smoke from someone walking on the other side of the road could affect the children in the park. People who believe this are on the same level as people who believe in the healing power of crystals - in other words nutters.

Anonymous said...

So, I guess we're bypassing the yellow star stage?

We need to REALLY start fighting back here BEFORE this happens in the UK - because it will.

I make a point of sitting beside fellow outcasts on town centre benches and talking about resistance. Most don't realise that there is any because they're not online. They certainly don't imagine what's on the cards.

Perhaps Smoking Hot's stickers need to be given to the non-liners and we also need new stickers warning of the danger of not gighting back.


Fredrik Eich said...

"Nor will there ever be any.
[evidence that outdoor exposure causes harm]"
I would not be so sure about that Dick! Five years ago I would not have thought that people would produce evidence that smoking bans reduce heart attacks in non-smokers. But they have produced the evidence despite it bieng complete bollocks. I would not bet against someone pulling the rabbit out of the hat. As you know if they want a policy they will find evidence to support that policy. If they get to the stage where smoking is banned in all outdoor public places, studies will show non-smokers lives are saved - as sure as mustard. Anti smoking science is a very lucky science as it rarely disappoints it's self!

Anonymous said...

Appropriate stickers stuck up alongside the no-smoking propaganda and signs everywhere might help get the message across that resistance is building and those not online are not alone. The banning of outdoor smoking is just like the banning of indoor smoking, to make smokers feel like each is on their own and while feeling apart from one another and out of communication, now that group smoking is banned, then there is no way to communicate or feel part of their own community anymore, which is exactly what the anti-smoking movement was designed to do. After they have done that, then they can bring in the rest of the communist-fascist rules and there's nobody left to resist them.

Anonymous said...

"The ban extends to 30m beyond the park boundary" says DadButMadLad. In order to keep "nasty things" well away from the Park. So, presumably, all petrol and diesel and "hybrid" motor vehicles are similarly not allowed within that 30 metres either, I mean call me stupid but I'd hazard a guess the average car exhaust emits far more "nasty things" in far greater quantities tha does a cigarette. Apply this "logic" by extension and pretty soon America will be a "no smoking, no petrol or diesel driven vehicles, no furnaces, processing plants etc. zone". Oh wait a minute no it won't, the logic won't be allowed to be extended in that way, ergo the ban is obviously just "anti-smoker" bollocks ..

Dick Puddlecote said...

Fredrik: "I would not be so sure about that Dick!"

I would.

Studies have been done in heavily populated (natch) outdoor smoking areas of bars.

"The researchers deliberately conducted the experiments on nights when sporting events would draw big crowds to the bars and restaurants.

[...] overall levels of exposure for all three areas remained relatively low, and would be classified as "background" level, according to measures established by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey."

To prove harm in an open park would be ridiculous and, although the public are extremely gullible, it would be so extreme as to show tobacco control up as laughably insane.

I hope they try. :)

Junican said...

The Americans are very strange, aren't they?
Of course, we do not know how their systems of government work. There is every possibility that the local police force in this town is directly responsible to the council and so may well be duty bound to enforce any law passed by the local council.
It may be better to just laugh at them. I mean, they are ever so stupid, aren't they?
We saw how silly the Manchester city council were made to look when they started talking about introducing a local 50p per unit of alcohol. How could they tell Asda or Tesco to charge different prices in Manchester as compared with, say, Liverpool? Who would enforce it? How much money is the council prepared to spend taking Tesco and Asda to court? Laughable, really.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bring it on! I want the powers that be to try to extend the ban to cars. Then, not only people who go to pubs (a very small proportion of the population) would be hit, but EVERY DRIVER! We can see the potential for civil disobedience, can't we?
We are all aware, aren't we that Manchester Airport (owned by the City) has had to introduce 'smoking areas'?

Junican said...

I have just googled 'Middletown New york' and found their site. I managed to get into the local newspaper and their comments section. I left a comment which amused me very much. Can I quote it? Here goes:

"""Here in England, I have read with interest about Middletown’s smoking ban in two parks (out of thirteen). My friends and I find it all terribly amusing. That is not to say that we think that the people of Middletown are stupid or any thing – it is more that, in this country, even though we have politicians who are just as much ‘useful fools’ as yours, we do draw the line at banning smoking in the open air. Some hospitals have tried to introduce a smoking ban in hospital grounds. Their endeavours have been met with derision.
My local airport is Manchester Airport. For two years or so they had a total ban within the airport ‘airside’ (ie. Once a traveller is beyond security). When the volcanic ash cloud from Iceland brought chaos, they were forced by popular acclaim to allow smoking airside, and so have introduced smoking areas.
I mention that fact only to indicate the stupidity of adopting an ‘absolute’ position. When the powers that be adopt such a position (such as banning smoking in the open air, wherever that may be) on health grounds they leave themselves open to ridicule. One needs only ask the question: ‘how is it possible for tobacco smoke in the open air to be harmful?’
If the Middletown city fathers want to ban smoking in the open air because they do not want kids to see people smoking, then they should say so, and not claim that the ban is ‘on health grounds’. They could claim some sort of ‘bad example’ principle, if they wanted to, but I would have thought that in the land of the obese, burger-scoffing hypochondriacs, that would be the last thing that the people would want.

Your country – you decide, but FOR GOD’S SAKE please do not export it to England!"""

It amused me, anyway.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Amused me too, Junican. :)

A friend of mine regularly fires off letters to the Sydney Morning Herald to take the mickey when the Aussies suffer sporting failure. He's had a couple published too, which always causes a hilarious reaction.

Anonymous said...

Anon(Jay) and others.

The need to reach non webbers with
stickers is absolutey vital in the
fight for amendments or reviews.
Despite their efforts and resolve,
the bloggers and web campaigns can
only reach a tiny proportion of those effected by the ban.
Many in the digital department
simply refuse to accept, that, however worthy their methods are,
we are still were we were in
FEB 2006 when the Commons threw
freedom into the Thames.
Stickers will be disregarded by
99% of the angry smokers,true
1% or even 0.1% will be more than enough.
In my humble opinion,if the bloggers,websiters and their readers are not prepared to plaster an handfull of stickers
about each week,what is the point

In the last 3 weeks I have put out 200+ pirate stickers at very minimal cost
Will it make any difference ,who can tell,but it has a thousand times more chance than doing nothing at all.

Any means,by all means.