(Or: “Whiny, miserable, filthy, poisonous, anti-smokers who don’t have enough brains in their pathetic heads to see just how idiotic their own asinine arguments really are.”)
(Or: 10 Answers to Joel Goodman’s 5th Grade Mentality-Like Drivel Entitled “10 reasons why you piss me off“)
1) I cannot enjoy a game of snooker without coming out of the hall stinking – and I mean REEKING – of your filthy fags. If I wish to play then I have to factor in washing all my clothes, my body and hair upon returning home. As a smoker you don’t realise[sic] just how foul you smell and how disgusting it is for a non-smoker to have to smell the same way.
Joel, you fucking brainless piece of moronic bile: If you don’t like smelling of smoke: GO TO A FUCKING SMOKE FREE SNOOKER HALL! Problem solved! Or, do you actually think that you have an inalienable birth right to be able to pick and choose any location on the face of the earth, and everybody else on the planet must compromise their chosen activities of enjoyment in order to appease your desire to play snooker? And, don’t you DARE say that there aren’t any smoke-free snooker halls near where you live! That would only argue that there isn’t a significant demand for such, and paint you as a whiny little brat who feels that everyone has a moral obligation to appease your wants at the expense of their own. But, that’s it, isn’t it? You’re just like almost every other anti-smoker — a whiny, bratty, punk-ass little fucking girl who was never able to emotionally mature past pre-pubescence, and believes with all of your heart that you have an inalienable human right to never be inconvenienced by anything, right? how incredibly sad and fucking pathetic.
2) I cannot enjoy a nice meal at my local Chinese without suffering your filthy smoke wafting over my salt and pepper ribs. I’M EATING HERE YOU SELFISH SCUM.
See above. Go to a smoke-free restaurant, you selfish, self-righteous prick. Don’t go to where the smokers already are and cry like a little girl because you’re not getting your way. Grow up a little, and perhaps make an appointment for some fucking testosterone injections, you whiny-assed, cry-baby, punk-bitch, little girl.
3) You even stink up a nice walk. If I take a stroll in a built-up area, it’s bad enough that I have to put up with the mixture of pollution from lazy bastards in cars and inefficient manufacturing practices, without a cloud of your death-puff wafting in my face. You wouldn’t like it if, for instance, Sir Perigrine Worsthorne farted in your face. Well I dislike your filthy output too.
Fuckin’ idiot. Have you ever wondered why you’re so much more opposed to cigarette smoke than the pollution you speak of? The concentration of cigarette smoke on any busy urban street pales in comparison to the concentration of airborne pollutants from automobile exhaust and inefficient manufacturing practices. But, I don’t hear you whining and crying about those? Why is that? Where is your “filthycarowners.com” website? Could it be because you’re a brainless fucking troglodyte with a mind so soft that it has become hopelessly muddied by the popular anti-smoking media barrage that we all experience these days?
As per the farting issue: If a stranger is farting on the street, I will move away. If I can’t move away I will politely ask them to move away. If I’m in a public place and happen to momentarily come into contact with someone’s flatulence, I’ll carry on about my business without much bother, knowing that being subjected to the occasional occurrence which I might find disagreeable is part of life and living in a community filled with other people. If I really can’t stand the habits of other people to such a degree, I’ll move to a fucking cabin in the woods. You can be sure, however, of two things: (1) I will never bitch, whine and cry like a spoiled little child: “Whhaaaaa! I shouldn’t ever have to smell anything that doesn’t appeal to me!” and (2) I wont go to some bar or restaurant where the patrons are known to regularly fart and scream out “I’m here now! Everyone MUST stop farting! What I find disagreeable as an individual trumps what you find agreeable as many individuals!” I’ll go to a no-farting bar or restaurant instead. If there aren’t any, then that’s my tough shit — I must be one of only a very small number that would require such an establishment.
4) I cannot socialise[sic] with friends and colleagues without suffering your selfish stench. Smoke free areas can help a little, but few pubs and clubs have such areas or take this seriously and how many clouds of smoke do you know that can read “No Smoking” signs? You’re fucking up my social life so that you can indulge in your putrid behaviour.
I’ll say it again: DON’T GO TO WHERE THE SMOKERS ARE, YOU SELFISH FUCKING PRICK! Nobody’s forcing you to inhale, or come into contact with, cigarette smoke. Do you not understand that? You don’t have to go to where smokers are smoking. You are perfectly free to go where smoking is not allowed. No smoker is actively trying to ensure that every establishment allows smoking. But, you’re trying to force no-smoking establishments on the smokers, aren’t you? And, you have the unmitigated audacity to call smokers “selfish”? How fucking stupid are you? Seriously? You have absolutely no fucking shame, or sense, you retarded fucking tool. Nobody’s fucking up your social life, idiot. If you don’t like smokers STAY AWAY FROM THEM. If I don’t like you, I wont come to someplace you are and demand that you have to leave and bitch and cry if you refuse. I’ll either leave myself, or just put up with you.
5) You stink. I mean just getting close enough to talk to you is unpleasant. Your breath is foul and stale and makes me want to retch. And looking at your yellow teeth and sagging, haggard face isn’t particularly nice, either.
You’re terminally fucking stupid — at least I can quit smoking. What the fuck are you going to do?
I’ve met many people who’s odour I find disagreeable– smokers and non-smokers alike. I’ve met many more who’s appearance I’ve found disagreeable. If I have that much of a problem with someone, I keep my distance. I don’t suggest that if someone possesses an odour or appearance that I happen to find unappealing they should be restricted from enjoying certain liberties in which they choose to partake. The agreeability of odour and appearance is entirely fucking subjective, you fucking imbecile! Why does your particular tastes trump the rest of us?
I don’t happen to mind the smell of tobacco smoke at all. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest. You know what I do have a problem with though? Certain foods! If I smell cooking shellfish of any kind (all kinds of seafood actually, but shellfish in particular), it makes me nauseous. If I’m within about 6 or 8 feet of someone who has eaten selfish within the last few hours, I can smell it on their clothes and on their breath and it turns my stomach. If I go into a restaurant that serves a good deal of such foods, I can smell it lingering on my clothes and in my hair until I do laundry and bathe. So, is it reasonable of me to demand that the world become shellfish free? I mean, eat all of the shellfish you want in the privacy of your own home as far as I care — but NO MORE SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS! You’d be fine with this?
6) You’re an irritable, highly-strung bastard. You can’t even cope with a 2 hour train journey without breaking the law and having a fag in the toilets or in between the carriages. If you did, you’d probably end up beating up the guard or clawing the fabric from the seats. Can’t you see what a selfish dickhead your habit makes you? It’s not a freedom If you’ve not got the strength to hold off for 2 hours. Admit it: you’re a PRISONER of the fags. In claiming that you’re expressing a personal freedom you’re only fooling yourself.
You’re a fascist wannabe fucking tool. All anti-smokers are. They’re all pedophiles too. Don’t fool yourself into denying it! Anti-smokers are all uptight, anal, moral busy-bodies whose intense sexual repression manifests itself in pedophilia — every single, fucking last one of them, including you! How many children have you raped this week Joel? How many four year olds have you sodomized? You fascist fucking child rapist! Lay off the young boys a little Joel, you might lighten up a bit.
There! Now that we’ve got the stupid fucking blanket-generalizations out of our systems… do you actually have any intelligent arguments to put forth? Or is it ALL just asinine, childish drivel?
7) Stop fucking moaning about being short of cash you stupid twat. You spend £5+ per day on a packet of fags. That’s nearly TWO GRAND A YEAR. You’ll nag your boss for a similar-sized wage rise, but you won’t stop pouring cash down the carzy in pursuit of your unproductive, wasteful habit, will you? Or spend the money on decent, healthy food for yourself or your kids. So quit marching for lower university fees – just STOP SMOKING YOU MONG.
How about I take an audit of your life, Joel, then suggest you just cut out any activity that I happen to think is unproductive and wasteful? You’d be OK with that? I’ll make you a deal too: I won’t even touch the ones that are unfairly subjected to discriminatory taxation practices because of the whining, bitching and moaning of mung-headed, dickless, girly-men, busy-bodies like you. How about that? You can’t seem to stop crying like a little panty-waste because you sometimes come into contact with things that smell bad to you – so JUST STOP YOUR FUCKING WHINING YOU MONG!
8) I do not want to sleep with a filthy, putrid, stinking smoker who, after a crap shag in an itchy, filthy flat, turns over to light up a fag. You’re neither sexy, nor attractive and I have no desire to spend time with you.
So don’t. … that was easy.
Can you really be this fucking stupid? Do you actually believe that people are forcing you at gun point to have sex with smokers? Seek help Joel. If you don’t want to have sex with a smoker, then when you pull up to the street-corner in the dark of night, ask the hooker FIRST if she smokes or not.
9) Your filthy piles of fag-ends piled on the city streets proves that you’re all totally anti-social, selfish, litter bugs who truly don’t give a toss about other people or the environment which you share with them. Christ, your dirty butts are now starting to poison our seas, you tossbags.
That’s called littering. It has nothing to do with smoking you fucking goof. If a person tosses a cigarette butt on the ground, or an empty bag of chips, they’re littering. I don’t throw cigarette butts on the ground, and neither do most smokers that I know — but you have no problem in punishing EVERYONE for the idiocy of a few, huh? You fucking fascist-wanna-be momo.
10) Your claim that, in being allowed to pollute my air, you are empowered with freedom of expression, is a fallacy. Not only are you being manipulated by the addiction itself, but many of the politicians who so cynically claim/have claimed to speak for the health of our nation are, themselves, part of the tobacco business. You are doing their bidding.
You hypocritical piece of shit. You’re too fucking stupid to see your own hypocrisy. Every time you get in a combustion powered vehicle you’re doing the bidding of the oil-companies. Every time you take an aspirin for a headache you’re doing the bidding of big-pharma who wont send their patented AIDS treatment to poor African nations that can’t afford to pay for the medication. Do you drive a car, Joel? Or, do you make use of public transportation? If you do, then sit-the-fuck-down and shut-the-fuck-up, you fucking hypocritical, brainless, fucking idiot! Do you ever wear any sort of artificial textiles, such as vinyl or polyester? Do you ever use EMF emitting electronics in public places? Do you purchase goods made from polyvinyl-chlorides? Do you ever dine-out at restaurants that serve anything other than raw foods? Do you ever consume alcohol at public venues? If you do, then sit-the-fuck-down and shut-the-fuck-up, you fucking hypocritical, brainless, fucking idiot! I’m going to fight to take all of those things away from you, and if you so much as raise an eyebrow, I’ll label you as a puppet of the evil-global-corporate-powers as well. Fucking hypocrite.
Automobile emissions and the productions of artificial textiles and PVCs dump almost all of the same pollutants into the atmosphere as cigarette smoke, plus many more that aren’t in cigarette smoke. And, they do it at many BILLIONS of times more cubic-feet per minute than smokers do. Electronics equipment beams cancer causing EMF directly into the genetic structure of those around you. The cooking of food produces all of the same toxins as the burning of tobacco, only, again, at a much higher rate of cfm. Alcoholic beverages contain the carcinogen ethyl-alcohol and the normal evaporation rate of a single, average mixed drink releases more carcinogens into the atmosphere every hour than does TWO THOUSAND FUCKING SMOKERS!
So, unless you can tell me that you do none of the things mentioned above — SIT THE FUCK DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP you hypocritical, whiny-assed, punk-bitch, little fucking girl!
2 Comments
(Thought I’d better split this – it kept growing)
It’s the fossil fuel/petrochemical contaminants from toxic industry which provide traces in tobacco smoke of some of the same pollutants destroying the Earth: toxic heavy metals, petrochemicals, the nitrosamines introduced to the food and tobacco supply because natural amines in exposed plants are warped into nitrosamines by industry poisons, – these are not inherent in consumable plants.
They are a reducible, if profitable/cost-saving, hazard created by powerful corporations beside which ‘Big Tobacco’ is revealed essentially as a dwarf, typically with each manufacturer only one of many subsidiaries of such conglomerate giants.
How much control do the actual tobacco companies typically really have, even over their own policies?
The air, indoors and out, has long since since been poisoned – if often in a humanly undetectable fashion – through industry profiteering having nothing to do with smoking or the choice of any among the general public.
If there had been any real concern over the supposed toxicity of cigarette smoke, as opposed to toxic industry profit and cost-saving, mining, industrial, and, in the U.S., outright designated toxic waste would not be permitted to be sold as/in unlabelled fertilizer to poison crop and grazing land – the entire food and water supply, not ‘merely’ scapegoat herbal tobacco plants only in which such otherwise ‘acceptable’ levels are a subject of official claimed concern – not to reduce such added toxins but to eliminate the users of the plant.
Instead of sensible action being taken in protecting human health and the planet, such practices were declared ‘acceptable’ (saving the cost of many toxic waste sites being maintained by various corporations since the wastes were too deadly to continue dumping in waterways and elsewhere) and the toxic RIP cigarette – with secret ingredients – enforced in sales of commercial cigarettes on a global basis.
While the particle type determines the hazard of exposure in a multitude of ways, these not provided by tobacco smoke in the manner of hard-cored particulate from fossil fuel emissions, the very consistency of tobacco ash has been demonstrably altered (at least in the Canadian version) in the globally enforced RIP cigarette.
Whereas tobacco ash is very soft and easily smears onto a tissue for wipe-up if spilled or dropped, the RIP ash is gritty – possibly specifically changed so that the altered particles can now imbed and remain within a smokers’ lungs in the manner of fossil fuel particulate and begin at long last to produce, perhaps, the blackened signs of damage suffered by coal miners, the diesel-exposed and big-city dwellers but never smokers per se of real tobacco, despite massive PR transference campaign claims.
But, according to the claims of industry, acting through PR as ‘Public Health’ and various CEO’s and other Big Business interests elected/hired into ‘democratic government’, making a supposedly toxic product more toxic can’t possibly matter – this attitude applied, if more discretely, to the food supply and all else, as well – and you can’t make a safer cigarette by reducing toxic additives like unlabelled fertilizers loaded with deadly industrial wastes to contaminate crops of all types and anyway, even entirely unknown combinations of potentially hundreds of thousands of artificial industry chemicals can’t harm you, only (competing) hazards like natural herbs and vitamins and democracy can…
And smokers are killing themselves and everyone else anyway so who cares if they die, as long as no virtuous non-smokers are dragged down with them?
(Applying also to the suddenly contagious! fat and the [unable-to-purchase-products] poor and the expensive, self-created [chemical-laden immune-damaged] adult-onset diabetics and all the others who don’t matter at any given point in time to those few who do matter…)
This is a pogrom, make no mistake, conducted in the midst of democracies around the globe, but it’s OK this time because the targets are smelly, ugly baby-killers, threatening the ‘good’ population and manipulating back-room power in attempts to take over the world – just like last time.
Sacrifices must be made for the good of public health and the children…
However, if the dilute smoke of even these enforced toxic, stinky RIP cigarettes was so deadly as to provide a serious and immediate threat (warning, heart attack in 30 minutes after fuse is lit, now counting down…) to non-smokers, smokers likely wouldn’t make it through a pack – any more than somebody could long survive while daily directly inhaling the same mass of diesel fumes as a 20-a-day smoker inhales of tobacco smoke.
So what are the antis demonstrating that they know, now that they’ve become so paranoid about even an outdoor sniff of the globally-enforced, secret-ingredient, off-shore-grown-with-GM-tobacco-seed RIP cigarettes they’ve forced those refusing to knuckle under to smoke?
In the meantime, (non-smoking) increasingly often hermaphrodite fish (well away from 2nd-hand smoke but not from carcinogenic/hormone mimicing endocrine disruptors) are frequently so loaded with industrial toxins that one mustn’t indulge too often, with oceans likely to be effectively dead of the effects of industrial pollution within about another 20 years of increasing industrial abuse.
I can’t wait until we’re hearing the antis claim that the Beluga whales dying of cancer, testing as being so loaded with industrial chemicals as to have their corpses labelled as dangerous toxic waste, were doomed because people smoked near the waters edge.
Or perhaps that’s next?
And why does the general public suppose public attention and censure is redirected away from powerful industry processes, products and pollution to, initially, the most vulnerable among the public themselves – with globally orchestrated PR demands, echoed by the vindictive and unthinking, that democratic personal autonomy be taken away from us all ‘for our own good’ while commercial enterprise determines what we’re allowed to buy, think and do, and establish expanding precedent that – contrary to the very definition of democracy, as well as various democratic Constitutions created to prevent such abuse – those more powerful make arbritrary decision as to which groups of citizens will be allowed to participate and/or be considered in public policy discussion, work, reside in a building, exist at all – on a global, co-ordinated basis?
And yet some – with no knowledge, one presumes, of the mysterious and strangely unpublicized RIP cigarette – are obediently scared of historically present tobacco smoke, or pretend to be, in mindlessly engaging in a first-ever opportunity to discriminate against an identifiable group without repercussion, indeed being praised as a ‘good citizen’ for this.
The ‘right to clean air’ argument now used is the argument previously used by aware members of the public against various powerful, government-linked industries pouring out billions of tons of pollutants annually and resisting the reduction in profit involved in lessening the levels of toxins released which not only create skyrocketing health issues suffered and paid for by the public, but are destroying the very Earth – this attempt by the public at gaining public/environmental protection from industry abuses twisted by industry into diversionary attack against the smoking public, in a successful PR attempt at distraction and legislative control by industry as well as in the traditional transference of blame for disease causation.
And every time anybody takes advantage of the government-backed anti strategy to attack the vulnerable among us, they bring us ALL another step closer to utter disaster, slavishly doing the bidding of toxic industry’s in focussing on the wisp of smoke before their eyes and ignoring the log-jam of often invisible hazard it’s used to conceal.
I can understand why you swear at them…
Hi, Derek,
lucky I happened across mention of the URL thing – my posts are usually packed with references.
I do feel obliged to point out a possible inaccuracy apparently unnoticed all these years.
First, if he was a little fucking girl, he’d quite likely smoke at least during sex, metaphorically speaking…
(OMG I can smell sex – my lungs could get clap)
You covered a lot of essential points in your answer and pinned the heart of a strategy also using created smoking issues as a diversionary tactic intended to separate each population into divisive and powerless segments, each looking for someone more vulnerable to blame, rather than at the actual lucrative health and other industry threats, including those directly to civilization through this very PR technique, denormalizing the acceptance within democracy of each other as equals and substituting a petty, obsessively self-centred outlook and tendency to claw at and demand restrictions on each other rather than dealing with real, impending doom.
Divide and conquor, because if it’s OK to separate and rank people as ‘worthy, worthier and worthless’ according to monetary value and influence, rather than equally entitled to equal rights, treatment and opportunity, being of equal intrinsic human worth, then it’s OK for those fiscally worth most to do as they please to all below, all the way down.
Also, I hear a lot of comparison between tobacco smoke and combustion engine exhaust, stating that predominately the same or similar components are present in each.
Not just from people ignoring the industrial toxic flood to complain about one of all objects splattered in the rush, but from many of those trying to bring concern back to actual threats rather than distractions being used against us in a multitude of ways.
With regard to the health effects of vehicle exhaust, diesel presents the worst threat, with commercial uses having evaded the degree of emission reduction achieved in passenger vehicles – and with the tiny, deadly, solid-cored diesel particulate, bearing up to 18,000 adsorbed chemicals including the two most carcinogenic known, capable of remaining in the lungs until after death, with lung cancers found in the areas of highest diesel particulate concentration in rare independent study.
According to http://www.scorecard.org/env-rel…hap_diesel.html
‘Diesel emissions are the predominant source of cancer risk in Scorecard’s assessment of hazardous air pollutants. Inclusion of diesel emissions in EPA’s National-Scale Assessment of Air Toxics has totally transformed our scientific understanding of which chemicals and pollution sources are responsible for the largest part of the air toxics problem. Previous analyses (like EPA’s Cumulative Exposure Project) have focused only on hazardous air pollutants listed under the federal Clean Air Act and did not include diesel emissions. Now that estimates of diesel particulate concentrations are available from NATA, it is clear that the cancer risks from diesel emissions are about ten times higher than the cancer risks from all other hazardous air pollutants combined. For the U.S. as a whole, the average cancer risk associated with diesel emissions is 580 per million – 80% of the total estimated cancer risk from all hazardous air pollutants (740 per million).’
‘Using monitoring data collected from ten stations in the South Coast Air Basin during 1998, the SCAQMD estimates that the average carcinogenic risk in the Basin is about 1,400 per million people, with a range from about 1,120 in a million to about 1,740 in a million among the ten sites. This risk range is consistent with Scorecard’s cancer risk range for counties in the air basin: 630 – 1,500 per million.’
The above does not include extensive non-cancer risks, ranging from damage to the unborn to asthma, also being carefully attributed to tobacco smoke in widespread PR by various interests.
No wonder the EPA, with so many political appointees from fossil-fuel and other industry interests, had to be forced to release such results.
(You’ll have to cut-and-paste and Google the top lengthy title (a later re-release was evidently censored) of Pennfuture to find, since posts with more than one URL are held back for however long – and I haven’t seen these specific points made here yet???
I probably won’t be back this way again.
The following was evidently estimated prior to the work EPA refused to do being conducted as described in the article above by a less industry-controlled group.
‘PennFuture Claims New EPA Report Fails to Warn that Diesel Exhaust Poses Greatest Air Toxics Risk: U.S. Has Eight Times Greater Cancer Risk from Diesel than the Risk from the 133 Air Toxics Reported in EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment’
‘Pennsylvania Eighth Dirtiest State for Lethal Diesel Pollution’
‘Carlisle, Pennsylvania – Clean Air Task Force (CATF), Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture) and the Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania called on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to “tell us the whole truth,” in response to EPA’s release of its National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) today, estimating that people in the US, as a whole, are exposed to a risk from 133 toxic air pollutants that is 42 times the one-in-a-million risk of cancer that EPA considers safe. However, EPA declined to estimate the risk of exposure to diesel exhaust despite their conclusion that “diesel exhaust is among the substances that the national-scale assessment suggests poses the greatest relative risk.”
‘CATF found the nationwide average lifetime cancer risk posed by diesel exhaust to be 365 times greater than EPA’s “acceptable” level of one cancer in a million and over eight times higher than the risk of the 133 air toxics tracked by EPA combined. CATF quantified national risk from exposure to diesel exhaust using EPA’s NATA diesel exhaust concentrations combined with a cancer risk factor developed by the California Air Resources Board.
‘Clean Air Task Force senior scientist, Bruce Hill said: “Today’s data from EPA shows that diesel exhaust poses a greater risk of cancer than all the other air toxics EPA tracks combined, yet nearly all 13 million diesel engines in use in the lack emissions controls. The single most important step in reducing cancer risk from air toxics is to reduce diesel exhaust, and today’s retrofit technologies can reduce particulate matter exhaust from many diesel engines by 90 percent,” he added.
‘ “The data in this report is grim enough, but the information EPA withheld on diesel exhaust is even more alarming,” said Heather Sage, director of outreach for PennFuture. ” Pennsylvania is the eighth dirtiest state for lethal diesel pollution. We need to take action now to protect our health and lives.
‘ “Diesel exhaust poses a greater cancer risk than all the other air toxics emitted in Pennsylvania combined, with 456 Pennsylvanians per million getting cancer from diesel pollution,” she continued. “Congress should act this year to fully fund the Diesel Emissions Reductions Act’ so that we can begin now to clean up ‘s-and the Commonwealth’s- dirty diesels. At the state level, we are calling for regulations to limit unnecessary idling from diesel vehicles, especially trucks, and for the state to require clean or retrofitted diesel engines for all state-contracted work, as well as other actions.” ‘
(Diesel is only one of many industrial/product hazards known to be causing health problems/premature death/ecological damage attributed instead to victim blame, specifically to personal choices of smoking, diet and exercise, despite all historical and scientific proof otherwise.)
And so Pennsylvania got a diversionary smoking ban…
Endless ‘smoking-related’ diseases could have been prevented if the personal choice/smoking scapegoat hadn’t been allowed for use over what’s approaching the past century in protecting toxic industry from spending some of their profits on essentials like compensation to sick/dying workers, emission reduction and safer alternatives…