British MP's Smoking Ban Tweet Labelled 'Repugnant' by Jewish Group

So strange the hang ups governments have on how people take their nicotine…

I’ll use nasal snuff as an example. Completely unavailable you cannot purchase this product save for the most absolute niche tobacco shop I bet less then a dozen in the whole entire county would have it. I couldn’t find any at all what so ever in a capital city for example.

It’s my preferred method of intake so I order mine directly from the Isle of Man…. And get absolutely smacked over the head with the tax hammer, my 50$ orders have around 20$ shipping, 79$ duty and 168$ in PST…..

But I can smoke cigarettes, smoke cannabis, buy liquor(don’t drink) heck is some provenances you can be prescribed blow from a doctor it’s crazy town, but don’t put any mint tobacco up your nose and your gunna pay.

Although, I can say I don’t agree with every law my country has on the books on whole I like the laws where I live much more then the laws I read about where you live. You have my true and honestly sympathy Gortex.

Growing up in Canada as a 90s kid I recall viewing England as this almost magical place heck I had to stand every morning in school for a queen across ocean. You guys have literal castles and cathedrals and monuments so ancient time has forgotten them.(we have none of that in Canada civilized to recently and natives never built or did much of anything outside of survival before they where settled so no monuments or castles or sites). I’ve always admired the image of the British Gentleman.

I hope you guys pull through ol boy but your current regime is actually several steps past the INGSOC regime in V for vendetta literally several steps past. I read a boy was jailed for waving the flag of your nation.

If he can’t wave that flag…..who’s flag is he supposed to be waving.


a reply to: gortex

a reply to: gortex

Some people will make any excuse they can for why it's fine for government to do whatever they want. I think it's repugnant and disgusting to defend the government turning ever more speech into abstract thought crimes and framing a certain segment of their population as untermensch.

People seem to have forgotten history.

Degeneracy was essentially a code word that was used for banning things and persecuting Jews in Nazi Germany, for targeting all those "deplorables". Jews were blamed for instigating problems, instigating war. They were called degenerates and their basic rights of expression were violated. If you ban art, it's little different than banning speech or memes. If you blame people for starting wars, it's little different than accusing them of inciting riots or stoking violence. There is no proof, just the accusations themselves mean the crime has occurred according to the state.

The British government suddenly determining that some speech is dangerous... which one might also call degenerate and just happens to also be an indictment of government policy... and that it deserves arrest and detention, certainly isn't unlike tactics used by the Nazis. It's not like persecution goes from zero to death camps overnight. It starts with an excuse that large segments of the population can easily agree with.

This smoking ban seems to have appealed to people who, by their own statements, find smokers to be disgusting addicts with a filthy habit... what one might also consider degenerate. It's an excuse for cheering for more government power. Imagine if, because of the rampant spread of STDs in gay communities due to poor choices made by a small subset of promiscuous gays, the government decided to ban homosexuality to save NHS. What about banning obesity and fining people for being obese? That would certainly not be popular within the communities often vocal about supporting authoritarian government measures, would it? The latter, fining and criminlizing obesity, would probably cause the most profound change in demand for NHS services of any policy enacted under the guise of public health measures In modern history.

I think this person should go pound sand or read some more history books. The Holocaust was a human tragedy, not exclusively a Jewish one. Humans have a right, not just a right but a duty, to invoke it when they see shadows of it forming in their governments. The entire point of the quote, the core message, is that everyone must be vigilant against tyranny. The entire point is that we can't be worried about irrelevant demographic differences when there is authoritarian government trampling on rights. It doesn't matter if you're obese, or gay, or a smoker, or Jewish, or Christian, or what color you are. Unless you want the same treatment, no matter how many excuses you can come up with for why this time it's okay, then you shouldn't support increasing the power of an already tyrannical government.

This is a battle between authoritarians who support government tyranny and people that don't. It's no surprise that spokespeople with unpopular opinions, who are often wildly unpopular in their own communities, overwhelmingly side with the state. It's the state and their activist media lackeys that give them their megaphones.

Dumb, self-absorbed, petty, short-sighted, people are the kinds of people that support authoritarians. They are invariably full of fear of everything except for fear of what has time and time again proven the most powerful tool of evil for all of recorded history, government. It doesn't matter what their politics are, or what groups they're a member of, or where they were born, or what vagina they came out of. They're mostly all the same, just different flavors. Angry, selfish, ignorant people, full of irrational fear that they believe can be alleviated if the government bans just a few more things they don't like.

They were fine with people ending up murdered by the state for the sake of fake science COVID measures. They're fine with jail over memes. They're fine with banning smoking outside. When the time comes they'll be fine with property being seized, theft of property like Nazis did. When the time comes they'll excuse political imprisonment, like Nazis did. They will, like the Nazis before them, eventually be fine turning a blind eye to the overt extermination of groups, so long as it isn't them. That's essentially already part of the Western ethos now. People all over the world getting bombed in their homes using our tax dollars... but it's not us so there's always a reason to excuse it. It's not much of a stretch to believe the same people that treat war like a spectator sport will watch their fellow citizens being murdered without much concern, so long as it's not them and there's an excuse to turn a blind eye.

We have many slippery slopes and many slimy people pushing us down them. I hope some people start to wake up. Every law created by government comes implicitly with taking your property (fines), detention (jail), and eventually murder (for vigorously resisting being subject to outrageous applications of the prior two). The idea that it's not a big deal ignores all these implicit things that come with it should the government decide to use the full power of state against whoever they decide needs to be controlled.

Leaders can sometimes use divisive tactics to rally support or distract from other issues - this creates an "us vs. them" mentality.

Most of humanity never learn from history - so corrupted leaders often use this tactic.

Most of humanity really needs to wake up!

a reply to: ScarletDarkness

Prisoners who do not fall into exempt categories, such as those serving sentences for serious crimes, will be released under the new scheme after they have served 40% of their sentences, rather than 50%.

Here apparently the above will be the colour of the day.

Labour MP and leader of the House of Commons Lucy Powell had this to say about the proposed outdoor smoking ban this morning.

Pressed that small businesses are warning it could damage their livelihoods, Ms Powell said: "We want to see a smoke-free country.

"We're certainly not attacking the hospitality industry, we support the hospitality industry - it's vital to our communities, our High Street and our economy.

"I'm not going to pre-empt what is or isn't going to be in a future piece of legislation, but what I would say is that any such measures to extend some of these issues around smoking will be done in full consultation with business, with hospitality business.

"We will work incredibly closely about how we would tackle such issues."

However, Ms Powell stressed that any smoking laws are still in progress.
The minister said there is a "collective ambition" to move towards a smoke-free Britain.
news.sky.com...

Listen to concerns then plough on regardless toward their "collective ambition".

There were 10,048 deaths caused by alcohol in the UK last year which would also have put a strain on the NHS , I guess the best way to help pubs with the smoking ban and ease pressure on the NHS would would be ban alcohol , and while were at it 276 people died from choking on their food in the UK so probably best ban food too.

a reply to: gortex

I guess the best way to help pubs with the smoking ban and ease pressure on the NHS would would be ban alcohol,

Sugar and salt spring to mind also.

She wants to give her head a wobble.

Because this is sheer sh@te on a stick.

a reply to: ksihkahe

. It's an excuse for cheering for more government power. Imagine if, because of the rampant spread of STDs in gay communities due to poor choices made by a small subset of promiscuous gays, the government decided to ban homosexuality to save NHS.

I was thinking about an example of perfectly legal behavior we ban from public, but no one bats an eye if done in the privacy of your home.
nudity in public fits that perfectly, and showcasing homosexuality in public even better...
It's all about social acceptance and that's always shifting, if enough people get offended over a certain behavior it will be made illegal. The opposite occurs too, like womens rights where behaviors that were deemed inappropriate in public become appropriate.
the list of illegal narcotics also keeps getting longer every year.

Taken your logic to the extrem I'd endorse people shooting their drug of choice on every street corner for all to see, and then go on to copulate around the next. I'm all for legalization and sexual liberation, but i wouldn't feel comfortable either if it was practiced everywhere anytime..

As a smoker i would hate to not be alowed to smoke in public. But i would not feel like I'm loosing my freedom.

Its pretty straight forward; let pub landlords decide if they want to have a smoking beer garden or non-smoking beer garden.
Put signs up clearly showing if smoking is allowed or not.
Customers can then make their own choice whether to go into it or not - personal choice.

Yet another example of over-bearing, interfering nanny-state.
In fact its got to the point that its not the nanny state anymore but approaching authoritarian.

Its another example of the creeping infringements on people's right to make choices for themselves and civil liberties.....and that is the relevance of the poem in this instance.

I do find it somewhat hypocritical though that a politician who was a Cabinet Minister in a government that introduced several similar over-bearing pieces of legislation should now moralise to this administration.
I would have had more respect for her if she'd spoken out when The Tories were in power.

For all she may be right I question her motivations; just another populist politician seeking brownie points and possibly positioning herself for a prominent position in The Tory Party once they elect a new leader.

a reply to: Freeborn

Its pretty straight forward; let pub landlords decide if they want to have a smoking beer garden or non-smoking beer garden.

Problem with that though is no pub landlord would want to restrict the freedom of their remaining customers who want a smoke with their pint in their beer garden , choice is not a word in this government's vocabulary , rule by diktat is the order of the day for Socialists.

Labour MP Zarah Sultana had to pay more than she expected for her Oasis tickets so she's now calling for Ticketmaster to be nationalised.

Some people were left paying upwards of £800 for a single ticket.

This left hundreds of fans frustrated, with Labour MP Zarah Sultana calling for Ticketmaster to be nationalised to control pricing.
news.sky.com...

Gotta love socialism eh? These prices are to extreme! We need to nationalize “x” thing so everyone can enjoy it.(the previous price was a product of supply and demand only people with Y amount of many could ever afford it like an oasis ticket.

Now it’s government priced government controlled, you gotta stand on some retarded line or go to some retarded website and I the end no one get what they wanted. You get some water down # version of the original because it was never supposed to be for everyone in the first place.

a reply to: gortex

originally posted by: ksihkahe
a reply to: gortex

Some people will make any excuse they can for why it's fine for government to do whatever they want. I think it's repugnant and disgusting to defend the government turning ever more speech into abstract thought crimes and framing a certain segment of their population as untermensch.

People seem to have forgotten history.

Degeneracy was essentially a code word that was used for banning things and persecuting Jews in Nazi Germany, for targeting all those "deplorables". Jews were blamed for instigating problems, instigating war. They were called degenerates and their basic rights of expression were violated. If you ban art, it's little different than banning speech or memes. If you blame people for starting wars, it's little different than accusing them of inciting riots or stoking violence. There is no proof, just the accusations themselves mean the crime has occurred according to the state.

The British government suddenly determining that some speech is dangerous... which one might also call degenerate and just happens to also be an indictment of government policy... and that it deserves arrest and detention, certainly isn't unlike tactics used by the Nazis. It's not like persecution goes from zero to death camps overnight. It starts with an excuse that large segments of the population can easily agree with.

This smoking ban seems to have appealed to people who, by their own statements, find smokers to be disgusting addicts with a filthy habit... what one might also consider degenerate. It's an excuse for cheering for more government power. Imagine if, because of the rampant spread of STDs in gay communities due to poor choices made by a small subset of promiscuous gays, the government decided to ban homosexuality to save NHS. What about banning obesity and fining people for being obese? That would certainly not be popular within the communities often vocal about supporting authoritarian government measures, would it? The latter, fining and criminlizing obesity, would probably cause the most profound change in demand for NHS services of any policy enacted under the guise of public health measures In modern history.

I think this person should go pound sand or read some more history books. The Holocaust was a human tragedy, not exclusively a Jewish one. Humans have a right, not just a right but a duty, to invoke it when they see shadows of it forming in their governments. The entire point of the quote, the core message, is that everyone must be vigilant against tyranny. The entire point is that we can't be worried about irrelevant demographic differences when there is authoritarian government trampling on rights. It doesn't matter if you're obese, or gay, or a smoker, or Jewish, or Christian, or what color you are. Unless you want the same treatment, no matter how many excuses you can come up with for why this time it's okay, then you shouldn't support increasing the power of an already tyrannical government.

This is a battle between authoritarians who support government tyranny and people that don't. It's no surprise that spokespeople with unpopular opinions, who are often wildly unpopular in their own communities, overwhelmingly side with the state. It's the state and their activist media lackeys that give them their megaphones.

Dumb, self-absorbed, petty, short-sighted, people are the kinds of people that support authoritarians. They are invariably full of fear of everything except for fear of what has time and time again proven the most powerful tool of evil for all of recorded history, government. It doesn't matter what their politics are, or what groups they're a member of, or where they were born, or what vagina they came out of. They're mostly all the same, just different flavors. Angry, selfish, ignorant people, full of irrational fear that they believe can be alleviated if the government bans just a few more things they don't like.

They were fine with people ending up murdered by the state for the sake of fake science COVID measures. They're fine with jail over memes. They're fine with banning smoking outside. When the time comes they'll be fine with property being seized, theft of property like Nazis did. When the time comes they'll excuse political imprisonment, like Nazis did. They will, like the Nazis before them, eventually be fine turning a blind eye to the overt extermination of groups, so long as it isn't them. That's essentially already part of the Western ethos now. People all over the world getting bombed in their homes using our tax dollars... but it's not us so there's always a reason to excuse it. It's not much of a stretch to believe the same people that treat war like a spectator sport will watch their fellow citizens being murdered without much concern, so long as it's not them and there's an excuse to turn a blind eye.

We have many slippery slopes and many slimy people pushing us down them. I hope some people start to wake up. Every law created by government comes implicitly with taking your property (fines), detention (jail), and eventually murder (for vigorously resisting being subject to outrageous applications of the prior two). The idea that it's not a big deal ignores all these implicit things that come with it should the government decide to use the full power of state against whoever they decide needs to be controlled.

This deserves a standing ovation! Well said. I couldn't express myself this well, I get lost for words

originally posted by: gortex
Labour MP and leader of the House of Commons Lucy Powell had this to say about the proposed outdoor smoking ban this morning.

Pressed that small businesses are warning it could damage their livelihoods, Ms Powell said: "We want to see a smoke-free country.

"We're certainly not attacking the hospitality industry, we support the hospitality industry - it's vital to our communities, our High Street and our economy.

"I'm not going to pre-empt what is or isn't going to be in a future piece of legislation, but what I would say is that any such measures to extend some of these issues around smoking will be done in full consultation with business, with hospitality business.

"We will work incredibly closely about how we would tackle such issues."

However, Ms Powell stressed that any smoking laws are still in progress.
The minister said there is a "collective ambition" to move towards a smoke-free Britain.
news.sky.com...

Listen to concerns then plough on regardless toward their "collective ambition".

There were 10,048 deaths caused by alcohol in the UK last year which would also have put a strain on the NHS , I guess the best way to help pubs with the smoking ban and ease pressure on the NHS would would be ban alcohol , and while were at it 276 people died from choking on their food in the UK so probably best ban food too.

Yup it's about control , 100% about excerting their power , because otherwise they'd be harsher sentences for drunk driving in the UK, and alcohol causes as much , if not more , co-morbidities as smoking.

Even better, as tax-paying adults, how about they butt out and let people decide what's best for them themselves?
But , like I said, they don't give a crap about anyone health's, it's about control and taking away our personal control.