<< WHO'S SARI NOW? ~ MAIN ~ RACIST ONLY WHEN ENRAGED >>
BAN VIOLATED
If we ban smoking, the terrorists have won:
Islamic religious police on Tuesday arrested 22 people for smoking in the Somali port of Kismayo, where they will be flogged if found guilty of violating a new tobacco ban, officials said.
Those detained were nabbed just days after local Islamist officials announced a total ban on the use of tobacco in the key southern port, in a new sign of their increasingly strict application of Sharia law.
“We started raids against tobacco users and we have arrested 22 people so far,” Kismayo police deputy chief Mohmaed Abdulkadir Jibril told reporters here, about 500km south of the capital Mogadishu.
Sharia law is evidently being applied with increasing strictness in Australia, too.
Well I for one won’t lose any sleep when the last cigarette is stubbed out… Nasty little habit, usually taken up during one of the less intelligent phases of life, that tends to impact on plenty of people in the vicinity of smokers, and that has few, if any redeeming features, from what I can tell…
Most sensible people who take it up and become hooked, tell younger ones not to do the same thing… Says it all really…
In this and other cases, I wouldn’t be interested in letting the enemy set the agenda, in terms of whatever they do, we should mindlessly do, or be in favour, of the opposite…
As usual these scum will, however, louse up even a semi-sensible idea with their backward ideas…
Allah be buggered! What will they do after sex? Probably shake hands and go home to their wives.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 21 at 03:20 AM • permalinkI wonder if hardcore dope-smoking, smoke-polluting cancer lefties will support this one.
Probably will.
Posted by The Best Infidel on 2006 11 21 at 04:02 AM • permalinkSo radical Islamists have some sensible rules, too…
There is full fire ban in the ACT, but the smoker-morons walk around with their lit ciggies, stubbing them (if at all…) anywhere they feel like.
Posted by Honkie Hammer on 2006 11 21 at 04:25 AM • permalinkMy cigarettes paid for your free health care. And don’t get me started on what my alcohol is paying for.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 21 at 04:31 AM • permalinkHello, friends… I’m blog commenter Dave S., with a message from your friends at ToPaco Enterprises…
Nine out of ten blog commenters say there’s nothing like the smooth, menthol taste of ToPaco’s Crusader brand cigarettes…
The red cross on the pack is your guarantee of rich tobacco flavor…
So strike a match for freedom and blow the smoke of liberty… with Crusaders.
Remember, it’s not just tobacco… it’s ToPaco.
#4 spyder
Damn, I wonder if that’s something Bracksey’s got waiting for us after the election.
I’m so glad I’ve left Victoria. Now Bracks can’t get me if, for example, I advocate the extermination of islam in Australia.
Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2006 11 21 at 04:37 AM • permalinkProbably not far off what’s happening in Victoria.
The Vic Civil & Adminstrative Tribunal has already ruled that venues which cannot provide an on-premises outdoors smoking area cannot hold a liquor license.
I appreciate where they’re coming from. I smoke, but I agree it’s definitely not appropriate to have smokers simply being forced out onto the street amongst the general passers-by.
The down side of this over legislative stupidity is already being suffered by the Young & Jacksons. The hotel is a historic building, protected by law… so they can’t build an on-premises outdoors smoking area. Which means that they aren’t fit to hold a liquor license under the new laws.
When you include all the nightclubs in built-up urban areas, it starts to show how ridiculous this legislation is in practice - no matter how “nice” it might sound in theory. The CBD of Melbourne is already suffering given the rise of Westfield style shopping centres, this just puts another nail in the coffin.
That was a little on the polemic side, but this issue hits close to home for me - it hits on all my sore spots of leftist, well-meaning over legislation combined with a complete lack of realism.
Infidel tiger:
And don’t get me started on what my alcohol is paying for.
Well, I’m single handedly paying for the entire bloody Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme with the taxes I pay on my odd beer or two. What’s left for you to pay for?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 11 21 at 06:02 AM • permalinkPache, a bit part of the problem in the CBD is the idiot city council. They have narrowed roads, dropped the speed limit and upped the parking meter rates.
I won’t go in there at all, these days, and I used to be in there for lunch and shopping a couple of times a week a few years back.
The smoking bans give me the dry rots, as it’s more micromanagement of people’s lives. I’m a non-smoker, and cigarettes make me throw up, so I’m all for having smokefree zones.
But….. if the habit and the product are not illegal, then surely forcing smokers into the cold is unwarranted persecution.
I used to rave about Melbourne as a place to live, but I’m really despising this state now.
We’re not known as Melbournistan for the hell of it.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 11 21 at 06:08 AM • permalink“I think this move is derailing democracy in the region”.
Bwahahahahahahahahahhaha. *cough*Posted by Daniel San on 2006 11 21 at 06:35 AM • permalinkWe in Victoria, are one of the most over regulated states in Australia, with the other Labor states catching up. As per the doctrine of leftist policies, regulation of citizens is par for the course. Imagine what will happen if the Greens get a look in, with Bracks and his lot of spivs. If your normal, enjoy a beer and cigarette, like a barbacue, perhaps a can of Coke and a burger, like to pick up firewood when out camping etc; you will be over shadowed by heroin, dope smoking minorities, as maybe seen last weekend at the G20 summit. With bloody tree worship thrown in. Talk about Victoria the ‘Bracksward’ State. Maybe the left IS making way for the caliphate.
Prior to anti-smoking laws being introduced here in Canberra, the market provided a few good non-smoking venues and I, as a non-smoker, patronised them.
My gut feeling is that there may be a weak argument for state intervention on this issue since some State governments are involved in workers compensation but the better policy would be to get out of the insurance business rather than regulating smoking on private property.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 21 at 06:56 AM • permalink“Some of them were smoking cigarettes while others were using tobacco leaves when they were caught,” he said.
What? They don’t have toilet paper in Somalia?
As the new VP,PECGD (EARSG), Dave S. should look into this. All the paper no longer used to wrap tobacco could be remarketed for “personal hygiene”.
Dave & Paco -
How about a card with a pic of Scarlett Johannson’s rack in every pack of Crusaders?
- mojo in Marketing
Who reckons that SmokeEasys will pop up and start making money?
Just like Kramer did on Seinfeld! (I wonder why that popped to mind? Hmm. I wonder?)
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 11 21 at 12:32 PM • permalinkBanning tobacco use in Somalia is just the tip of the iceberg for them. When the Islamists finally take full control, they’ll ban every human activity except praying and rioting (and that for men only).
As for banning smoking in the west, well… I’ve never been a smoker, and I don’t like to be around smokers (can’t stand the smell), but trying to legislate bad personal habits is just anti-democratic.
Just in from Phil in R&D:
Memo: Re: Viral Marketing Idea
Guys - I suggest we use modern production methods to vary our product and target various markets. Magazines do it, and so can we!
For instance:
Somalia - Name changed to “Janjaweeds”, green color scheme, card has pic of Lil’ Kim in a burqua, and we add a light dusting of 2,4,5 dextroinhibitol (street name “Truth or Consequences”) to the filler. Should prove interesting, eh?It’s all about not forcing smoke on non-smokers. Sorry, but non-smoker’s right’s trump smoker’s rights anyday.
Some people complain that it’s a “nanny state” thing or that it is micro-management of people’s lives, but I think they have that all wrong, and can only hold that position of they believe that passive smoking is not a health risk and severe nuisance.
I fucking hate smoky pubs and clubs, and have almost stopped going out to see live music in Melbourne because of it. Bring on the new 2007 laws.
Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 11 21 at 05:21 PM • permalinkMmm, smoking appears to be one of those divisive issues which splits the usual liberal/conservative boundaries.
Until recently it has been viewed mainly as a filthy but entirely personal habit, with only the wafted smell in a restaurant raising much ire amongst the nons.
Now, we are told, it’s a passive killer, which has launched a whole new range of justifications for its banning. I’d have to concede the moral high-ground, perhaps, to this cause - if they had a good case for the perils of second-hand smoke. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), the evidence is rather shaky. Mortality figures are distorted, numbers extrapolated (think Lancet in Iraq), confidence intervals lowered to 10% to obtain “statistically significant” results.
Don’t smoke - it’s very stupid. And dispose of your butts for Christ’s sake. But no, I don’t think you’re harming others and neither does the evidence when scrutinized properly. I guess governments can ban anything they want in their own buildings (one could quibble this point but I can’t be bothered, at least right now), but I still believe in the concept of private property; ie: if Bob owns a bar and wants to let people smoke inside, that’s his prerogative. Don’t work or drink there if you don’t like it.
Umm, look, it’s very simple. You let the business proprietor choose the environment he wishes to operate in—smoking, or non-smoking, and post signs accordingly. Consumers will then choose who to partonize.
When government insists on its one-size-fits-all policy, it obviously doesn’t work, as one-size does not fit everyone, and the unintended consequences of the government dictating personal behavior.
If government can ban the use of a legal good, then what is to prevent the government from banning the consumption of any other legal good. The first excuse for government tyranny is that its for your own good.
Try to remember that.
Being in close proximity to a smoker or in a smoky pub for a few hours is as good as having a few ciggies yourself. This is one of those “common sense” things for which I don’t personally need extensive statistical data to make up my mind.
Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 11 21 at 06:25 PM • permalinkHey Forbes, yours is a good point (#46), and in general, I would agree with it.
But for smoking in pubs/clubs I make an exception, maybe out of frustration with the groupthink that goes down amongst the pub/club industry, having witnessed it first-hand.
The other big groupthink fuckup in this industry is volume levels of live bands. Serious damage to hearing, and when you’re young, you think your’re invincible and don’t heed the warnings. Result: serious hearing loss. I have many muso/sound engineer friends who have full-on tinnitus (I have it mildly). Strangely, the peer pressure of “loud is cool” ovverrides rationality. 40-something sounds engineers at gigs wear professional-grade earplugs, and then crank up the volume for the young’uns ‘cos they don’t have the guts to put their wisdom to good use.
Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 11 21 at 06:56 PM • permalinkThe question of health risk aside, certainly the undeniable nuisance factor is enough to warrant some public regulation of smoking. I’m of the opinion that bars and pubs should be able to choose to permit smoking as the market dictates; they’re a specific sort of business, and if their targeted clientele smokes, may they continue so unmolested in nicotine-addicted bliss. I’m far less sympathetic about restaurants, theaters, aircraft and other more “diverse” public venues—there ain’t no such thing as a “non-smoking” section if you have smokers sharing the same structure and air circulation system.
It’s the extreme nuisance factor that’s the make or break deal for public smoking. Unless you’re prepared to argue that noise ordinances are a violation of basic civil liberties, you’d be hard pressed to make the exception for smoking. Smoking, by any standard, is a foul, obnoxious and incontrovertibly stupid habit. Most communities in the western world have no problem with outlawing the playing of loud music in public places, unless the venue has been designated for such. Lots of loud noise in a public square for a New Years celebration, or at a dance club is appropriate; someone blasting the Beastie Boys at 60db in the apartment below you at 3am in the morning is not. But, only in the unlikely event of prolonged exposure to sounds above 100db would such obnoxiousness become health threatening. The smoke filtering up through the floor and air vents from the apartment below may not be immediately health threatening, but it is a foul-smelling, unwanted nuisance. Why should smoking be an exception to existing nuisance laws?
Posted by Brother Nikko on 2006 11 21 at 07:06 PM • permalinkcloseapproximation
I agree with the sound blasting. I have never liked venues with loud music, even when I was younger. Last year I visited a restaurant with a friend and there was nowhere to sit to get away from the two piece band who were so loud my friend and I couldn’t hear ourselves talk. It was a blessed relief when the ‘band’ had a break. What is it with these people who think that there has to be noise? The louder the ‘group’ the louder the customers, and the volume just goes up and up.
When I have dinner with a friend I want to talk with them and listen to what they say. I don’t want to be deafened by the ‘entertainment’.Here’s one critical difference between public smoking and “noise pollution”: once someone turns down the volume, your clothes, carpet and furniture don’t continue to “sound” like Megadeth ...
Posted by Brother Nikko on 2006 11 21 at 07:20 PM • permalinkOy. Vey. The Middle east just keeps getting wackier and wackier. I don’t smoke, but if they made a specialty pack of Crusaders, I just might start . . .
Say, one with a picture of Saddam’s gutted palace and a bunch of good-looking USMCs in front. Crusaders- they’ll smoke your ass.
Posted by Tungsten Monk on 2006 11 21 at 08:03 PM • permalinkIslamic culture means well, however, it’s about power. The real power comes when you want to give up smoking the choice is yours and not Islamic culture. That is democracy.
Why come here?We might as well go and invade them, to balance the power.
Smoking stinks, but western science knows of the dangers, not Islam the dumb dumb religion.
p.s. Burqa’s contribute to rickets so don’t wear them! Same thing.
Funnu how durries and rock and roll brings out the control nazi in supposed social liberals.
If somewhere is too loud and or too smoky, don’t fucking go. Easy. anyone who supports this sort of draconian and intrusive bullshit from government deserves to live under Sha’ria.
Legislating for good manners is like contracting smallpox to ward of cowpox.
Can anyone think of another group who pays so much in taxes yet gets treated so badly?. I’m a cash-cow that gets kicked repeatedly whilst being milked.
Posted by Daniel San on 2006 11 21 at 10:18 PM • permalinkLegislating for good manners is indeed a stupid idea.
But with pubs and clubs, impresionable young’uns get caught in the scene and do themselves serious damage without realising it (‘cos this damage is long term, rather than immediate).
Legislating minimum clean air and sound restrictions isn’t such a “liberal nazi” idea. I liken it to legislating for adequate fire exits…most patrons wouldn’t worry about this, ‘cos the potential fire danger doesn’t affect them in an immediate, pressing way. It has more to do with the venue owner, who is making a profit but investing in a minimum of patron safeguards.
You could argue that a pub/club isn’t a public place, and therefore shouldn’t bear this onus, and yet such an onus is in place for fire exits….
Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 11 21 at 11:36 PM • permalinkI thank the Lord that I am blessed with more relaxed olfactory senses than those in some people, whose delicate sense of smell seems almost enough to trigger anaphylactic shock whenever a little tobacco smoke drifts their way. You win your moral point round, but only on a technicality. No style at all.
#61, I smoked copious quanitites of the “Schticky-icky-icky” until last month (been drug free for 4 weeks now, yay), and I can honestly say that it was the ‘terbaccy’ that got me addic(head). “‘Impresionable’ young’uns” aint ‘sposed to be in that place to start with. Dont matter where y’all is at.
Drugs are bad MMK?
But seriously, give up the grass, and life is clearer, xpecially if yer aint got yer shit sorted yet.
Smoke up; Pendejo
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 11 22 at 02:45 PM • permalinkP.S. I’d never seriously considered assaulting another human until I’d had some Meth.
So help me God, I came so close to kicking his fucking face in with my bare foot, I scared myself.
P.P.S. I’ve been known to pull street signs from the ground for the fun of it…
Drugs are BAD
Mmmmmk?
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 11 22 at 02:50 PM • permalinkGood luck, WOZ, in your recovery. Take care.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 11 23 at 12:23 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Getting them to stop smoking is easy - but just try getting the little buggers to stop chewing khat (or qat or however you want to spell it). Banning smoking is the wimps way out.