Sunday, July 05, 2009

Infantile Paralysis

by Blad Tolstoy


I am sure that whilst most of you are well acquainted with dealing with antis on blogs and newspaper threads, you are nevertheless still a little surprised by the childish mentality which is revealed by many of their postings.

It is frequently said that the nanny state encourages adults to behave like children. Nowhere is this proposal manifest more clearly than by some of the comments of antis who talk as though the entire world should revolve around them - even though they plainly do not go to the entire world as is proven by the unmitigated economic disaster which is the smoking ban.

Yes, you all know how the story goes, than when smokers were cleared out from the hospitality venues they would be replaced by hordes of non-smokers. We knew, beforehand, that this would not happen, as we only needed to take note of the damaging effects of smoking bans in other countries, particularly parts of America, where such bans had already been implemented.
However, now, even in thickie UK, more and more commentators are speaking out about the damage to our pubs, clubs, bingo halls and even restaurants.

There is now a significant movement to have the ban amended by proposals allowing establishments over a certain size to be able to choose to have strictly partitioned (separated by walls and sealed from each other) smoking and non-smoking areas; and establishments below that certain size to be able to choose whether to be all non smoking or smoking throughout. This is in line with policy already adopted successfully by many continental European countries.

The response of many antis to these proposals is almost solipsistic and they regale us with comments about: "the most wonderful law that New Labour has enacted" and, "why should I have to immerse myself in your filthy smoke?" In a nutshell, they choose to completely ignore the fact that the proposals present an opportunity to be fair to all and that they won't have to be "immersed" in anyone's smoke at all if they choose not to be.

When attempts are made to explain this to these people (if I may call them that), the spectre of "deadly" second-hand-smoke (SHS) is immediately raised with the hysteria of a religious zealot screaming "heresy". The SHS issue is easily demolished by those favouring choice (both smokers and non-smokers), with a whole barrage of arguments and evidenced scientific data which leaves the average anti in a state of confusion as their comfort blanket of sticky sound bites and mendacious propaganda is ripped apart.

Desperately, seeking to clutch at some straw, the average anti then reverts to what I have chosen to call Violet Elizabeth Bott syndrome. Here are instances from "LucyQ" responding to an article by brain sodomised Guardian journalist, David Cronin.
(See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/02/eu-smoking-legislation-ban?commentpage=2)

Some of LucyQ's comments:
"@Lolly99 Smokers are the worst addicts, and yes that is what they are drug addicts pretending otherwise is sort of that river in Egypt."
(Pardon? Aside from the lack of punctuation indicating a certain immaturity, does she mean the Nile?)

and,
"Smokers homes are stinky and gooey from nicotine residue. If they own the property then they should be preparedif ever trying to sell it for a very low price as even wood floors are gummed up with the stuff."
(Aha, I see)

and,
"Smokers are the only addicts that are empowered to bully others wherever and whenever. If nicotine is your drug ofchoice why don't you use it in liquid form and push a needle in your veins?"
(That's it, LucyQ, you just stick it to 'em)

LucyQ's comments are, in fact, quite mild, compared to some of the stuff smokers have to put up with and there arefrequent diatribes of: "stinky, nasty, horrid smokers; nasty, nasty, horrid, smelly. Why don't you just die? I hate, hate,hate you."Those of you well acquainted with Richmal Crompton's "William" books will, no doubt remember Violet Elizabeth Bott,a precocious six year old with a lisp. Her outbursts were usually concluded with: "I'll thcweam and thcweam and thcream."

So let's run that all again:
"You thmokerth are nathty, thtinky and horrid. Yeth, nathty, an' thmelly. I hate you, why don't you juth die? You'readdicth. I could thcweam and thcweam and juth thcweam."

This, dear readers, is an example of the sort of infantile paralysis that grips the mentality of many anti-smokers. It is"gimme my dummy or else" writ large and a tribute to the disturbing success of the hate propaganda pushed and nurtured by the anti smoker lobby. And if you are misogynistic enough think these kinds of selfish emotional outbursts are confined to women, you'd be wrong, for the men are exactly the same.

So, when the antis say: "think of the children!" now you know who they mean...