Reading the total drivel of the wannabe dictator Chris Hallam, I began writing something to rebutt his utterly stupid stance on smoking.
But DK has done it so much better than I ever could, so I reproduce here for your delectation.
do they find them, eh? “They” being Comment Is Free and “them” being
quite the stupidest people on the planet. The moron pictured to your
left is a certain Chris Hallam who is, presumably, CiF's joke find of
Look guys, a joke's a joke, but I think that letting the fucktard write an article is just going too far.
Because Chris Hallam thinks that the smoking ban doesn't go far enough, oh no; Chris would like to see smoking totally banned.
in reality, neither of these arguments is entirely correct. The simple
truth is that the conditions of the smoking ban are not too
prohibitive, but that they are nowhere near prohibitive enough. Instead
of producing the dream of a land free of the scourge of secondhand
smoke, it's now virtually impossible to enter many pubs and clubs
without first pushing your way through an unhealthy congregation of
smokers converging around the doorway.
Further, I notice that you have failed to complain about the car fumes
that you have had to wade through to get to the pub in the first place;
do you own a car, Chris? Because, if you do, I would love to wander
over and—with a cry of “hypocrite!”—punch you in the face.
pointedly, the ban has exposed a wealth of contradiction in public
attitude. To pick just one example, while nobody seriously questions
that anyone using a mobile phone while at the wheel at the car should
face the stiffest penalties, people are less concerned about smoking
behind the wheel.
I really don't think that they are
comparable, Chris, old chap. Why? Quiet apart from the concentration
required to continue a conversation which dangerously distracts a
driver from the events on the road, a mobile in one's hand is a serious
impediment to the operation of the vehicle—it is actually quite
difficult to hold a steering wheel, change gear and hold a mobile up to
your ear simultaneously.
By contrast, a hardened cigarette
addict smokes instinctively—the act requires no concentration—and you
can hold a cigarette between your fingers whilst simultaneously keeping
a grip on the wheel and changing gear.
Will that do for starters? Oh, and go fuck yourself for good measure.
And what about children?
If the government is sincere about protecting those most vulnerable
from second hand smoke, then why isn't a ban on smoking in all
households containing children, at least being considered?
children! Oh, won't somebody think of the chiiiiiiiilllldrrrreeeeeeenn?
Perhaps you'd like to see smoking in a private home on a par with child
abuse? Smoking around your kids is akin to beating them with a steel
bar, or keeping them chained in a bath and starving them or just plain
I think that you are getting a little
over-ambitious, sunshine; the social services can't cope with their
workload as it is, without them having to do the rounds to every family
that has a smoker in it. This is especially true since, as far as I am
aware, no evidence has actually been published about the harmful
effects of secondary smoke.
But the upshot is that you think
that you know how to raise children better than everybody else, don't
you, Chris? I look forward to your next article, seriously advocating
that all children be removed from their parents and put in Polly's
State Podding HutchesTM.
You, sir, are an illiberal, authoritarian wanker of the most dangerous kind.
do they manage to get half-wits like this from? He calls himself a
“freelance writer and researcher”, although a Google on his name fails
to turn up a single example of anything he has written before. He does
seem to advise the Joseph Rowntree Trust, however. Which probably
explains a lot.
Indeed. And you can expect those Toynbee State Podding HutchesTM to be coming along any day now—all your kids are belong to us.
we have, I think, adequately demonstrated the totalitarian evil of the
man, but we must look to the last paragraph of Chris Hallam's so-called
article in order to demonstrate his near-unbelievable ignorance and
Ultimately, the ban enacted on July 1 should
not be the end of the legislative process but the beginning. The months
and years to come should witness a wealth of legislation enacted by the
government leading towards one ultimate goal: the abolition of smoking,
whether public or private, throughout the land, forever.
Law-esque though it may be of me to point it out, but Hitler would have
been proud of you, boy; he was none too keen on the evil weed either.
But this is just bog-standard, I-know-better-than-you socialist evil;
I'll let Bishop Hill take over once more to point out the stupidity.
would have thought that after the chaos of the war on drugs and
prohibition in the 1930s people would have learned that banning things
has unintended and very unpleasant consequences. Mr Hallam obviously
feels that tobacco smuggling gangs having gunfights on every street
corner is a reasonable price to pay so he doesn't have to sully his
nostrils with a whiff of tobacco smoke. Some people just never learn.
Ladies and gentlemen: let me introduce, hopefully for the last time,
Chris Hallam—scum of the earth. Not only ignorant of history and thick
as fuck, but also a nasty little dictator too.
Now, I'm off to
find out where he lives, so that I can smoke an entire pack of my
beloved Marlboro Reds and blow the smoke through the tedious little
Fuck you, Hallam