How It's Justified

Maybe I'll start this differently  telling you some weird things I have seen will make this easier I think,maybe not for you if you happen to be unlucky enough to read this but for me.

I had a boss once,he was a strange guy,he used to carry a small notebook in his pocket and wander around watching us as we worked.
One day I remember someone made him furious and he pulled out his little notebook and while he was standing where all of us could hear him he said "That's it,you're on my list."
The man was so insane and so controlling that he had  a list of people who he imagined had wronged him .
I can remember thinking  well now I know and now I have to watch myself around this man because I can never be sure exactly  what is going to make him come unglued.

I should probably mention that I work in retail and that this man has become a manager since this incident.
I know people who were on his list and many have been refused to have product enter his stores ect.
I worked for a selfish ,petty man who couldn't stand to be disagreed with,couldn't stand to not be the ultimate authority in his little world of retail and  controlling others that he made lists daily of those he would get even with if he had the chance.

I don't mention this to clarify things for you but I want to make sure that I explain this right or hell half right if that's even possible.

Last night I happened to be on twitter,I follow a large portion of the people in my sidebar on twitter because we share interest in the same things and I enjoy reading the things they write very much.
Christopher Snowdon was tweeting something pretty odd at Dick Puddlecote.
It appeared to be a small and very badly worded piece of text.(I suck with screenshots so bare with me) describing him as a blogger.
That seemed odd so I went to his twitter page and read what had to be about the oddest thing I had ever read in my life.
Apparently there's a list.
A list full of people (bloggers and libertarians,scientests and people who lobby their governments).
In reality what exists is a list of people who happen to disagree with the things tobacco control calls truth.

All I'm going to talk about here is the unpaid bloggers, because to be honest that is all I know.

When a person starts writing its out of a need I think.

I started blogging because I don't belong.

I think from reading so many of the pro choice blogs for so long that feeling isn't uncommon.
And eventually  if you're very lucky you get to read about how other people feel and when you share the same thoughts and feelings it's like a gift.

And because of great good fortune you find a community of sorts of different voices online and many of them say the things you wish you were clever enough or smart enough to say.

Those blogs become part of your day if your very lucky and you feel a bit less alone.

I think they the people who started this list are doing this to try and toss great gobs of mud at the unpaid bloggers who disagree with them.

It's far easier to discredit your opponent,to cripple them,to bloody them than to fight fairly with them, although with the cash they have at their disposal there is no fair.

There's just people venting their frustration and being harassed for it.

And what bothers ME most is that this sort of thing is how it's justified.

Smoking,Food,Display Bans and Apparently Size Does Matter

Not much besides links I'm afraid.
But considering I'm not a great writer that's probably a very good thing.

Nicotine Addiction~said to be gold ?

I have always had a soft spot for smokers. They are on the frontline of the battle between puritanical wowsers and "live for the moment" hedonists. My real concern is that once the smokers have been wiped out they'll come after us boozers. I used to enjoy sitting in the smoking section of aeroplanes because smokers tend to be drinkers so when I raised my hand for a refill it was one in a sea of raised hands.

The air hostesses would provide a top-up with an indulgent smile. I felt comfortable in the company of fellow hedonists. It also meant I was less likely to be pestered by a fellow passenger intent on sharing his love of the Lord or the latest Amway scheme. Smokers were too busy puffing and guzzling the free grog to bother anyone.

The display that cost a retailer $400,000

Supreme Court documents show the Zurich-based Nuance Group, the owner of Downtown Duty Free - which eventually pleaded guilty to breaking the law - said section 16 of the act did not apply on constitutional grounds. Section 16 states a person ''must not, in New South Wales … display a tobacco advertisement''.

The company argued the store was not in NSW for regulatory purposes and should therefore be regulated by the Commonwealth Tobacco Act. Its compliance officer believed that under that law tobacco could be displayed in a certain format and remain within the law. Photos taken by a health inspector, Michael Cassidy, show the store placed health warnings above the displays.

Sergeant Bloomberg

The Mayor believes that government has a duty to educate its citizens and even to "nudge" them in the right direction, as the fashionable behaviorial economists like to say. But the real lesson here is that a government that pays most health-care bills will soon be dictating the everyday behavior of its people. An America that needs government to protect its citizens from 20-ounce sodas has bigger problems than obesity.

Why Tobacco Lawsuits Loom Large for Obesity Prevention

Because the cases are all about tobacco. 

The way our court system works, the outcome of each of these cases has serious implications for food policy, so it’s critical that advocates concerned about obesity and advertising to children pay attention and maybe even get involved.

In a “common law” system like ours, the decision of one court on one topic area may influence—or even bind—a later court interpreting a similar legal provision. So a court interpreting the First Amendment in a cigarette marketing case could be deciding not just what goes for tobacco but what goes for any product that any company wants to advertise.

Smoking shelters planned for James Paget Hospital

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-18234493

Mr Lower said the hospital was "not conceding defeat, it's recognising the reality of the situation. We have got signs, we have staff come out to ask smokers not to smoke or move off our premises - it doesn't work".

"We have thousands of visitors to the hospital, often in times of stress, and many of them have a need to smoke - they are addicted to nicotine."

But Patrick Thompson, from the patient group Norfolk Link, said rebuilding smoking shelters on hospital grounds sent out the wrong message.

"We'd like the site to be a non-smoking site, but 'the site' is only covered by the building and not the outside areas.

I think it's pretty telling that these shelters that were removed in 2005 are going to be rebuilt.

A shelter not fit for pigs is progress 

 I think if they are truly rebuilt then it sends a message that smoking can't be stopped,not by force or threats or by busybodies with nothing better to do than chastise others.

Tid Bits

Treasury says smokers save the Government money

In its report, the Treasury says smokers often die earlier than non-smokers and save the state in superannuation costs.

Treasury says smokers pay $1.3 billion a year in excise which may already exceed the direct health costs they impose.

The report then goes on to consider broader economic questions. It says smokers' shorter life expectancy reduces superannuation and aged care costs, meaning they are already "paying their way in narrowly fiscal terms"

Taxpayer funded lobbying

The Treasury’s most recent guidelines  (2009) for contracts with non-governmental organisations also make it clear: “Government agencies should also be careful to ensure that contracts do not breach public service standards of political neutrality”.

However, the Health Ministry is still funding the “advocacy” and “awareness raising” that these organisations engage in. The Ministry still funds ASH and other organisations like the Public Health Association – it is just more careful about what it puts in the contracts.

The current ASH contract  allows it to “liaise with government and private health agencies, the media and any other appropriate organisations to raise public awareness of tobacco related issues and developments”. It says it will “prepare and distribute media briefings, commentary and releases on key tobacco issues. This will include maintaining relationships with key media.”

A quick look at the ASH website  makes it clear it is a lobby group, but a lobby group that gets 89% of its funding from the taxpayer

Government can’t afford to raise tobacco taxes

For governments, tobacco-tax policy remains a hornet’s nest, and there are no easy answers. On one hand, health groups favour still-higher taxes and stronger enforcement. On the other hand, legal producers and distributors favour reduced taxes with stronger enforcement.

This raises the following question: could lower tobacco taxes drive out the illegal product by inducing smokers to switch from illegal to legal cigarettes, and at the same time increase tax revenues?

Assuming individual smokers’ basic preference for legal products, tobacco-tax reductions would likely only create a modest drop in consumption of the illegal product,lead to a decline in tax revenues and result in a small increase in total consumption. The market share of the illegal product would fall more substantially were the price of the illegal product to rise as a result of stronger legal or enforcement pressures on suppliers.

French smokers unite against curbs

PARIS — French smokers have formed a lobby to "defend their rights" against what they perceive as unfair curbs imposed by the state, the group's leaders said Sunday.

The Union for the Rights of Adult Smokers (UDFA) says it represents a potential 12.5 million voters and intends to fight against the spread of no-smoking zones or rising cigarette prices.

"We want to defend our freedom," chairwoman Nathalie Masseron told AFP.

"We are being barred from cafe terraces, some want to ban us from parks with children, some hotels are non-smoking, soon a smoker won't be able to rent a flat and there's even talk of banning smoking while you drive," she said.

Wanting to Smoke at Home, and Facing Hurdles in Apartment Hunt

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/nyregion/for-smokers-apartment-hunting-is-even-tougher.html?src=recg

 Mr. Lolli said. Some of the renters do smoke, he suspects, but just keep their habit to themselves, a practice that is becoming more common these days.

And why might that be?

“It welcomes you like a cloud of disgustingness,” Leonard Steinberg, a managing director at Prudential Douglas Elliman, said of taking a stroll past a smoker. “Hate, hate, hate.”

With that kind of animus in the air, it is not surprising that some smokers demanded anonymity in exchange for their apartment-hunting stories.

“You get judged for being a smoker, so I like to keep it hidden,” said a 28-year-old woman, who declined to reveal herself as a smoker in the newspaper, or to her landlord. “I would like to get my security deposit back.”

Gee thanks Nanny Bloomberg.

Russian MPs to debate harshest-ever anti-smoking bill

http://www.rt.com/news/prime-time/smoking-bill-russia-mps-814/

The bill stipulates a dramatic price rise on cigarettes, up to the European level – at least 1.28 euro per pack. It also bans cigarette sales at public catering venues, street stands and stalls. Cigarettes will be sold only at shops of at least 50 square meters in area. 

In other measures, it will be prohibited to display cigarette packs at showcases – potential buyers will have to make their choice from a price list only. The aim is to prevent the uptake of smoking among young people under 18.

Cigarettes and smoking in children's movies will be subject to censorship. Tobacco companies will not be able sponsor educational and sports organizations, healthcare and cultural institutions. 

Because doing things like this always works so well.

These governments can't wait to try and one up each other,each trying to be harsher than the last.

Fortunately no one has tried to imitate Bhutan yet.

It has always bugged me that some members of society picked smokers to be their scapegoats .

And now we're on track to see soda go the way of cigarettes .

Someday I hope I wake up to find this has been nothing but a bad dream...................

Hard to argue in favor of smoking in clubs

http://community.adn.com/node/161117

It's not easy for a politician to defend smoking but Eagle River Assemblyman Bill Starr will be doing just that next week.

Starr has proposed a repeal of the smoking ban for private clubs. The Assembly will take comment Tuesday night. The change would affect 20 or so clubs -- mostly veterans and fraternal organizations -- but it is really aimed at just one: the Eagles Aerie 4174 in Peters Creek.

Not much I can say,but any politician who does this is OK in my book.

Wish they'd wise up and repeal all the bans on bars,clubs and pubs everywhere.

Sad no one sees the disparities in tax revenue and job rates and losses as being connected.