NOW SMOKING MAY BE BANNED IN YOUR HOME

[justice]

So whats next if it's all about childrens health.

Will chips be banned and what about McDonalds

These stories are leaks so that the sheeple are happy when they ban something else that is less controversial.

Don't the UK and the USA just deserve each other.

[IanPotter]

It'll be everything that's not approved, in all aspects of our lives: just as soon as employers are forced by law to contribute to worker health care universally - even the current moves to force employers to contribute to worker pensions in the UK might be enough.

It's all well underway regardless. See this article - some fascist tosser in Florida has already banned his employees from smoking, period!

http://www.local6.com/news/14537611/detail.html

Nearly time to bring an end to this I say...

[LeveL]

Quote:These stories are leaks so that the sheeple are happy when they ban something else that is less controversial.

Damn good point.

I had an argument with a guy at work once about implantable microchips, he said "don't be silly they would never do that" but its not that they will or won't do whatever - its the idea of it. No matter how ludicrous the scheme is - the Governments main objective seems to be to just mention it so then it is on people's minds, as a sort of conditioning.

The people we need to watch the most and be the most wary of is our politicians - for they are the ones who can affect millions of people, therefore why haven't our politicians all got tracker chips already? Why do we allow them to just meet up in secret like in the Bilderberg Group where we haven't got a clue what they are plotting against us? Why don't we know everything our politicians say and do, and who they meet - 24/7?

People not allowed to smoke in their own homes is going too far? But the British Government ALREADY HAS GONE TOO FAR, RIGHT NOW. You can be fined £80 for swearing in public! Its HAPPENING, its in the papers, its real. You can get fined £30 for dropping litter! Its real! Honestly, if I was questioned by some "litter warden" or whatever they are... in fact theres what people should do...

...flick your cigarette at a litter warden whilst telling him/her to "Fuck Off". :LOL:

1 - You will be fined £30 for dropping your cigarette butt.
2 - You will be fined £80 for swearing.

Just run off shouting "FUCK YOU". What are they going to do, chase you and rugby tackle you?

What annoys me most is, where oh where the fuck does all this money go? £30 here, £80 there. I asked my father this and he said it goes to the Government. Right - which faction of the Government does it go to? "Probably the treasury to help run the country" hmmmm, but the Treasury IS the fucking Government, the Government IS the Treasury! It does not answer the fucking question of WHERE does the money go.

I live in England and just ignore all these "draconian" measures. All it does is shows me what the Government is all about - controlling people. They say "Jump" and we say "How high Sir" when THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OUR SERVANTS.

What the fuck ever happened to that huh? The fact that every person employed by the Government, from street sweepers to the Police to the Army to local MP's right up to the Prime Minister are ALL supposed to be our servants?

Maybe someone needs to bring that up the next time those anti-smoking dudes have a conference - the Government isn't there to tell us what to do and what not to do it is there to fucking SERVE THE PEOPLE.

[IanPotter]

I think you'll find that in the UK civil servants give their allegiance to the Queen, rather than "the people".

[mothandrust]

(originally posted in the ConCen Blog)


Smoking is good for you?


Why do governments want to ban smoking? I mean, it’s not as if they actually care about their citizens’ health. If so, they would spend more on healing than killing. But, more to the point, they would address the far more personally and socially destructive effects of alcohol and refined sugar, (which of course, are one and the same) evidenced by alcohol fuelled late night violence and sex between drunken obese teenagers (and beyond), who cram casualty departments and make our city centres no-go areas until the sun comes up. Yet, regardless of this epidemic, because the sugar/alcohol multinationals’ influence is so powerful, health is a minor distraction – however, tobacco companies carry the same political influence, so this is not the reason. In addition, governments make billions annually from smoking: taxes, needless to say, but also in terms of unneeded pensions and the extraordinary savings in health care which escalate dramatically in old age.

Given this perspective, is it not strange that whilst not exactly pushing it, (they would not want to appear heartless now, would they?) governments do not offer smoking the same tacit approval they give to alcohol, junk food and gambling – all of which are many times more socially destructive?

So why do they hate smoking so much?

It was a question that had tumbled around in my head for months. The best I could come up with, was that they wanted to use the fields for a more lucrative crop. But what, barring illicit drugs, could generate such revenue? (Particularly with Heroin production back up to pre Taliban levels.) It just did not make sense.

Then, by chance i happened upon ‘Political Ponerology’ by Andrew Lobaczewski, which considers how wicked, power hungry people gradually take control over society. And he points out, that the last organised attempt to stifle smoking on the scale now under way in Europe and the United States was in pre-war Germany, under the Nazis. (P.156)

You see, what Nazi scientists discovered very soon into their research, was that carbon-monoxide, a central component of tobacco smoke, creates resistance to pathocratic influence: i.e. imbibers are more likely to question and less likely to blindly follow orders from psychopathic leadership (perhaps we could think of it as ‘attitude’, as symbolised by ’50s icons like James Dean and Marlon Brando). What is more, research also suggests ’second-hand smoke’, as breathed by children of smokers, may in fact immunise them against the influence of psychopaths. Hardly useful, one would suggest, if the objective is filling heads with supremacist beliefs and obtaining undivided loyalty.

To Nazi leadership, with their early, unsophisticated attempts at propaganda, reducing peoples’ critical thinking and increasing their susceptibility to messages of hate and fear and identification were central to their objective. So while the government made supply of tobacco increasingly difficult, and smoking areas increasingly limited, the Nazi propaganda machine set about pushing the party line, vilifying and condemning “red-man’s weed” and persecuting those who would smoke it. It was a campaign begun in the mid 1930s and continued and intensified until they were finally overthrown. (The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis - http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450 )

Today, when one considers the enormous advances in psychological warfare, be it for product sales, national/religious/corporate identity or fear of the other, and the increasingly sophisticated delivery techniques, the need for smoking to be eradicated becomes blazingly obvious. What government or corporation (or religion) in their right mind, whose primary goals are submission and association, cannot see the benefit of losing a few million in taxes, pensions, operations… for the benefit of a compliant, malleable ready made workforce, and market. From such a perspective, considering our current political and corporate leadership, it is clear, smoking never stood a chance.

What a good job we have a free and independent news media to stand up for the citizen, expose authoritarian lies and ensure governments and corporations cannot cynically manipulate and frighten people into servicing their nefarious goals… oh, err… looks like we’re in big trouble.

Better get puffing guys!

[Rosebery]

Quote:You almost had me fooled you were a freedom fighter like
us.................

Oh darn it!

Quote:and not one of them evil masons :wink:

Muahahahahaha. :biggrin:

Cheers

[Coffinman]

Quote:Its the policing we should worry about. what are they going to do? have police walking past peoples houses checking for smokers?

It could set the precedent for "enforcement officials" to be able to enter (and search) anybody's home at any time.
Better watch the weed plants!

[Coffinman]

Quote:By the way......repeat this to yourself over and over until you believe it. CARS DONT CAUSE CANCER. Say it!!!

The truth about unleaded petrol is worse than you could possibly imagine:
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.ht...b3f2f871a3c9fe4

[hilly7]

Any resturant that allows smoking in Tn can not allow anyone under 18 to enter. Smoking in parking lots banned. Smoking in the entrance areas of stores or the rear. Met about a week after the ban at Hardees's parking lot to get keys from one of the state senators that was probably in on it, figured what the Hell and lite one up. He never said a word, looked around to see if anybody was looking. Smoked that one, threw it down (another no no) and lite another. I smoke outside on the porch of our office, $50 fine but been doing it for weeks now, cops pass by smoking and just wave. Since I don't belong to the as chattel, I fugure they can sodomise themselves.

[nataraja]

interesting... very interesting, sounds familiar to me though, like ive heard it before somwhere.

thanks though realy makes sense.

penn and tellers bullshit, although not what i would call a viable source but still worth a listen imo, did a show on second hand smoke where they talked to both sides of the story and came to the conclusion that 2nd hand smoke is not harmful in the way they claim it to be.

amazing that there is soo many topics where the media feeds us a selective opinion on it.

off topic, borderline rant:

i was telling my house mate about my perspective on reality, from black flag operations to secret institutions. he responded by asking if i realy beleive all that. he then said that i beleive everything i hear and read. i asked him how much research or time he spends on finding out about different non mainstream news/issues/events etc he didnt respond. he was confronted with a "conspiracy" so large that his indoctrination couldnt believe it, even if i show him evidence, documents, pictures it makes no difference, it just doesnt seem to go in. he then brought up ufos and the landing on the moon. this got me a bit worked up, as comparing that bullshit to pretty straight forward world events that are hidden or distorted is insane. but i thought it was amazing how he put what i had to say in the same catagory as ufo and landing on the moon.

anyway... bllllaaahhh heard it all before blah blha

hehe:)

[LeveL]

Quote:I think you'll find that in the UK civil servants give their allegiance to the Queen, rather than "the people".

Surely thats illegal? Maybe under international law even?

Lets just remove the Queen then?

Its not like she does anything.

[mothandrust]

Quote:

Quote:I think you'll find that in the UK civil servants give their allegiance to the Queen, rather than "the people".

Surely thats illegal? Maybe under international law even?

Lets just remove the Queen then?

Its not like she does anything.

technically the British people are subjects, not citizens. perhaps this why the are (to the large part) so foundationally subservient.

as for the queen, she works tirelessly to perpetuate the inequalities and injustices laid down by her ancestors.

[jack]

bans & laws, another way to take money from you