Hounded on the street, discriminated against in society, excluded from public places, refused life saving medical treatment – I’m not going to talk about how smokers have become the last
true minority – we know. We’ve read it repeatedly, can see it for ourselves and the only people that actually disagree are the self-righteous, holier-than-thou white knights rushing in to save us from everything from red meat to carbon emissions. Well, them and people too intellectually devoid to trust anything other than the mainstream media’s paid for position that we’re continually spoon fed. These people I consider one and the same – they are the congregation to the Self-righteous’ church, lapping up every word like holy jism slipping saltily down the throat in the vestry of St Absurdio’s.
What really pisses me off is that I consider myself to be a considerate smoker – by which I mean I won’t blow it in your whiney little face, even if it seems incredibly tempting – and yet still there are those who feel they can tear into me for enjoying a smoke.
My usual response to these people is that I’m harming only myself, I do it away from them and I pay my fucking taxes, so you can fuck right off. And we all know the response: Some half baked idea that the amount that we, as smokers, cost the NHS is far greater than the amount of tax revenue generated by tobacco sales.
Well, according to the Governments own statistics, smokers are costing the NHS £2.7bn http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8490490.stm while the revenue generated by the tax on tobacco products is around £8.8bn! http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-2.pdf
I’m not going to get into a complex economical debate but I hardly fucking have to!
This is the reason why the government will not make smoking completely illegal. The money they make from it is just too fucking attractive. They’ll demonise those of us who still haven’t quit, who stand in the rain when everyone’s enjoying the warmth of the pub while our mates enjoy the ‘smoke free environment’ (personally I call it a lack of fucking ambience, but there we go) and they’ll cross the street to avoid us like the plague but they’ll still take our cash, thanks . . . and still plough our taxes into advocacy groups: http://fakecharities.org/pages/posts/action-on-smoking-and-health-ash5.php
Showing posts with label hypocrites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypocrites. Show all posts
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Monday, 5 July 2010
The Ongoing March of the Bubble-wrap Brigade
The health and safety fuckwits are on the march once more: Parents threatened with social services’ intervention if they do not supervise their children’s bike ride to school: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291970/Couple-threatened-social-services-children-ride-bikes-school.html and rugby - in schools at least – to undergo a face-lift whereby the scrum is outlawed because someone might get hurt: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10501327.stm. What the fuck?
In the first case, I applaud this couples wish to enable their children a degree of freedom and self-sufficiency which they themselves enjoyed. In the latter, all contact sport can be dangerous – it is refereed to minimise that danger, although a small percentage of injuries will, no doubt be sustained.
In both cases, am I seriously being told that the children would be ‘safe’ if these factors were removed? If the answer’s yes, then these fuckwits have got their heads buried so far in their own arses that it’s a wonder they don’t just pop out of existence. Kids cycling to school alone are apparently at risk from ‘stranger danger’ (a term which I incidentally loathe due to it’s insinuation that every stranger is some dirty mack-wearing paedo whose single track mind is to find a vulnerable child to show some puppies to) and traffic accidents. Heh – well, we’re all at risk of being mowed down as soon as we step out of our front doors. The fact that these kids are cycling through back streets minimises this in as much as it can be minimised. As far as the strangers are concerned, there’s a chance that everyone at meet might not have the most honourable intentions, but is this a reason to stop their interaction with the rest of humanity?!
As far as possible injuries sustained during contact sports goes; I’m sure most people will agree that children are far more likely to injure themselves and each other when not engaging in a game that, while is a good outlet for physical aggression, is regimented and refereed.
What really fucks with my head with these two stories, though, is that we’re continually bombarded by a certain section of the population, that unless we cycle everywhere and play sports and eat our vegetables and wash behind our ears, we’ll all die before we’re thirty and be reprobate souls until we do. . . and then the same bunch of interfering cuntlords (there’s more than a little overlap) comes along to tell us we can’t do it after all because we might hurt ourselves.
The only way the possible dangers in the above situations could be avoided is if children – like smoking – are banned from public places and raised in isolation until such time as they can be released in to the community without being carried off by a nonce or skinning their knees after a fall (mental anguish, possibility that the wound might get infected with plague or some such).
Instead of wasting time on traditionally normal, ‘moral’ (whatever that is) and generally upstanding behaviour, why can’t these glorified excuses for curtain twitchers stop interfering in the normal lives of normal people and help some poor bastards that actually need that help?! While time’s wasted on these pathetic charades the kids that really need it are just going to go wanting. . .
In the first case, I applaud this couples wish to enable their children a degree of freedom and self-sufficiency which they themselves enjoyed. In the latter, all contact sport can be dangerous – it is refereed to minimise that danger, although a small percentage of injuries will, no doubt be sustained.
In both cases, am I seriously being told that the children would be ‘safe’ if these factors were removed? If the answer’s yes, then these fuckwits have got their heads buried so far in their own arses that it’s a wonder they don’t just pop out of existence. Kids cycling to school alone are apparently at risk from ‘stranger danger’ (a term which I incidentally loathe due to it’s insinuation that every stranger is some dirty mack-wearing paedo whose single track mind is to find a vulnerable child to show some puppies to) and traffic accidents. Heh – well, we’re all at risk of being mowed down as soon as we step out of our front doors. The fact that these kids are cycling through back streets minimises this in as much as it can be minimised. As far as the strangers are concerned, there’s a chance that everyone at meet might not have the most honourable intentions, but is this a reason to stop their interaction with the rest of humanity?!
As far as possible injuries sustained during contact sports goes; I’m sure most people will agree that children are far more likely to injure themselves and each other when not engaging in a game that, while is a good outlet for physical aggression, is regimented and refereed.
What really fucks with my head with these two stories, though, is that we’re continually bombarded by a certain section of the population, that unless we cycle everywhere and play sports and eat our vegetables and wash behind our ears, we’ll all die before we’re thirty and be reprobate souls until we do. . . and then the same bunch of interfering cuntlords (there’s more than a little overlap) comes along to tell us we can’t do it after all because we might hurt ourselves.
The only way the possible dangers in the above situations could be avoided is if children – like smoking – are banned from public places and raised in isolation until such time as they can be released in to the community without being carried off by a nonce or skinning their knees after a fall (mental anguish, possibility that the wound might get infected with plague or some such).
Instead of wasting time on traditionally normal, ‘moral’ (whatever that is) and generally upstanding behaviour, why can’t these glorified excuses for curtain twitchers stop interfering in the normal lives of normal people and help some poor bastards that actually need that help?! While time’s wasted on these pathetic charades the kids that really need it are just going to go wanting. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)