View Full Version : Are Smokers the New Gays ?


Fareast
14-12-2006, 22:58
Before the Wolfenden law was passed, back in the '60's, Gays were very much vilified by a large section of society.

They were prosecuted, isolated, spied upon and scorned by all ' right-thinking ' people, who ' only had the country's moral health ' in mind.

They were called the most awful names and usually gathered together in small groups, shunned and pushed away by the mainstream. Many extreme anti-Gays openly expressed the wish that Gays should die painfully for their foul and unnatural way of life.

Does this ring a bell with smokers ? Now, it's o.k to be gay--------in fact it's often a criminal offence to express strong anti-gay sentiments.However, smokers are now in the Gays' former social position. After the smokers are largely stamped out, I wonder which will be the next group to take their place in the minds of the Control Freaks and Mouth-Frothers? Drinkers ? Overeaters? Car-Drivers for Pleasure? Gamblers? Adulterers?

It's odds on that some group will be next in line and, anyway, I suppose it takes peope's minds off terrorism, crimes of violence, high taxation, state wastage, state corruption, widespread bad health, poverty and other minor problems.

redrobbo
14-12-2006, 23:04
.....I wonder which will be the next group to take their place in the minds of the Control Freaks and Mouth-Frothers? Drinkers ? Overeaters? Car-Drivers for Pleasure? Gamblers? Adulterers?



You omitted Chavs! :hihi:

MickeyBarnes
14-12-2006, 23:08
I know I have to step outside work if I want a quick puff :D

You can give up smoking though, you can't give up being gay. Besides the two things are completely different.

Non-smokers dislike the smell, and don't like smelling second hand smoke as its unpleasent and unhealthy. Thats all. People don't wish smokers to die because of it though!!

cloudybay
14-12-2006, 23:18
Before the Wolfenden law was passed, back in the '60's, Gays were very much vilified by a large section of society.

They were prosecuted, isolated, spied upon and scorned by all ' right-thinking ' people, who ' only had the country's moral health ' in mind.

They were called the most awful names and usually gathered together in small groups, shunned and pushed away by the mainstream. Many extreme anti-Gays openly expressed the wish that Gays should die painfully for their foul and unnatural way of life.

Does this ring a bell with smokers ? Now, it's o.k to be gay--------in fact it's often a criminal offence to express strong anti-gay sentiments.However, smokers are now in the Gays' former social position. After the smokers are largely stamped out, I wonder which will be the next group to take their place in the minds of the Control Freaks and Mouth-Frothers? Drinkers ? Overeaters? Car-Drivers for Pleasure? Gamblers? Adulterers?

It's odds on that some group will be next in line and, anyway, I suppose it takes peope's minds off terrorism, crimes of violence, high taxation, state wastage, state corruption, widespread bad health, poverty and other minor problems.
Sorry Fareast but Murderers, Paedophiles,Marriage Wreckers and Pot Noodle eaters come far lower down the line than that heinous crime of smoking. I have had to resort to securing a top secret underground bunker to enable me to have a little puff. Even he didn't like it . Fortunately, I'm off to a far more enlightened country shortly..............unfortunately, I'll be back.

seriessix
14-12-2006, 23:25
Are old gays the new smokers?

Meaks
14-12-2006, 23:29
What about smoking the pink cigar?

cloudybay
14-12-2006, 23:31
What about smoking the pink cigar?

Can I have an ickle puff?

nuttygirl
15-12-2006, 08:33
Before the Wolfenden law was passed, back in the '60's, Gays were very much vilified by a large section of society.

They were prosecuted, isolated, spied upon and scorned by all ' right-thinking ' people, who ' only had the country's moral health ' in mind.

They were called the most awful names and usually gathered together in small groups, shunned and pushed away by the mainstream. Many extreme anti-Gays openly expressed the wish that Gays should die painfully for their foul and unnatural way of life.

Does this ring a bell with smokers ? Now, it's o.k to be gay--------in fact it's often a criminal offence to express strong anti-gay sentiments.However, smokers are now in the Gays' former social position. After the smokers are largely stamped out, I wonder which will be the next group to take their place in the minds of the Control Freaks and Mouth-Frothers? Drinkers ? Overeaters? Car-Drivers for Pleasure? Gamblers? Adulterers?

It's odds on that some group will be next in line and, anyway, I suppose it takes peope's minds off terrorism, crimes of violence, high taxation, state wastage, state corruption, widespread bad health, poverty and other minor problems.


Sorry, but what a complete load of b*llocks. (Sorry I felt that word was appropriate considering the illogical nature and stupidity of that comparison).

1. Being gay is a nature/sexuality. Smoking is a CHOICE.
2. Being gay does not harm anyone else. Smoking DOES.
3. Being gay has not been 'stamped out'. NOR HAS SMOKING. There have simply been restrictions for EVERYONE'S wellbeing.

I think someone is taking things a little too personally, or maybe just needing a nicotine fix... lol.

Stop trying to get on the bandwagon of 'persecution' :rolleyes:

Darbees
15-12-2006, 08:39
Control Freaks and Mouth-Frothers? Drinkers ? Overeaters? Car-Drivers for Pleasure? Gamblers? Adulterers?

It's odds on that some group will be next in line and, anyway, I suppose it takes peope's minds off terrorism, crimes of violence, high taxation, state wastage, state corruption, widespread bad health, poverty and other minor problems.It's not a good comparison as being gay has become accepted and smoking is the other way round and has become less acceptable in that time. Car-drivers and fat people are already under attack, when the smokers are beaten next July the focus will turn onto fatties as the battlelines are already being drawn up. It's easier to stop smoking than to stop being fat though.

NEKRO138
15-12-2006, 08:44
Sorry, but what a complete load of b*llocks. (Sorry I felt that word was appropriate considering the illogical nature and stupidity of that comparison).

1. Being gay is a nature/sexuality. Smoking is a CHOICE.
2. Being gay does not harm anyone else. Smoking DOES.
3. Being gay has not been 'stamped out'. NOR HAS SMOKING. There have simply been restrictions for EVERYONE'S wellbeing.

I think someone is taking things a little too personally, or maybe just needing a nicotine fix... lol.

Stop trying to get on the bandwagon of 'persecution' :rolleyes:

What she said. Smokers are now playing the persecution card and it's as pathetic as their habit.

upinwath
15-12-2006, 10:12
I don't like fags.


<ducks under chair while waiting for misunderstandings :hihi: >

The_DADDY
15-12-2006, 10:36
Sorry, but what a complete load of b*llocks. (Sorry I felt that word was appropriate considering the illogical nature and stupidity of that comparison).

1. Being gay is a nature/sexuality. Smoking is a CHOICE.
2. Being gay does not harm anyone else. Smoking DOES.
3. Being gay has not been 'stamped out'. NOR HAS SMOKING. There have simply been restrictions for EVERYONE'S wellbeing.

I think someone is taking things a little too personally, or maybe just needing a nicotine fix... lol.

Stop trying to get on the bandwagon of 'persecution' :rolleyes:
Wind your neck in love, hes only making his thoughts heard.
Typical of a woman to girl all tetchy, time of the month is it?:loopy:

slimsid2000
15-12-2006, 13:22
Before the Wolfenden law was passed, back in the '60's, Gays were very much vilified by a large section of society.

They were prosecuted, isolated, spied upon and scorned by all ' right-thinking ' people, who ' only had the country's moral health ' in mind.

They were called the most awful names and usually gathered together in small groups, shunned and pushed away by the mainstream. Many extreme anti-Gays openly expressed the wish that Gays should die painfully for their foul and unnatural way of life.

Does this ring a bell with smokers ?

In a word, no. I don't recognise this so called persecution of smokers. As far as I am aware all that the new law will require is that people leave a room before smoking and go outside to do it.

Perhaps going to the toilet would be a better annalogy, ie it is more pleaseant for others if you leave the room, do what you need to do and then return rather than do it there and then in front of everyone else.

Just a thought.

King Rat
15-12-2006, 13:42
In a word, no. I don't recognise this so called persecution of smokers. As far as I am aware all that the new law will require is that people leave a room before smoking and go outside to do it.

Perhaps going to the toilet would be a better annalogy, ie it is more pleaseant for others if you leave the room, do what you need to do and then return rather than do it there and then in front of everyone else.

Just a thought.

Look at some previous topics on SF, , some media general public & the views of a lot of people, also see how so many people in general are jumping on this silly bandwagon of blaming cig smokers for everything like global warming, Co2 emmisions, radiation & asthma etc.. It is getting totally silly ridiculous and I think Far East has a very valid point.

Fareast
15-12-2006, 14:45
I didn't say that smoking had been stamped out or offer any opinions about what I think about Gays. The whole point of the post was to point out the similarities between how many people used to regard Gays and how they regard Smokers at the moment.

Plenty of posters in the past have used the same fanatical language about smoking as a lot of people once used to do about Gays. Just as gays were once physically isolated and scorned, so now with smokers. I don't think all that is too difficult to follow.

There seems to be a certain type of person [and we witness this on S.F. as well as in the big wide world], who seems to go all hysterical and over the top when they talk about behavior they don't approve of. Strangely, it's only certain types of behaviour that gets them to go purple with rage and dance up and down with eyes blazing and fingers pointing.

The demon drink was once so hated by certain groups in America that it was totally banned for 11 years. As I said, gay behaviour is now more or less accepted amongst most people as once it definitely was not accepted. Maybe smoking will come full circle, too, one day? In the year 2025, we may well see 'Proud to be Smoking' badges and massive parades where smokers will dress up as cigarettes, pipes or cigars.People will celebrate being a smoker. Just as Gays have their Judy Garlands, Shirley Basseys and Elizabeth Taylors, we smokers could have Humphrey Bogart, Marlene Dietrich or James Dean for our icons.

So, smokers, nil desperandum, when all the Mouth-Frothers are chasing the Fatties, we may be able to sneak back, light up and watch that lovely blue smoke hit the ceiling.

Darbees
15-12-2006, 14:57
So, smokers, nil desperandum, when all the Mouth-Frothers are chasing the Fatties, we may be able to sneak back, light up and watch that lovely blue smoke hit the ceiling.Going to be a long wait methinks. If smoking were banned completely as with prohibition there would be an incentive for people to promote smoking illegally and create an illegal black market for money as with alcohol then and illegal drugs now. As it is or will be next year there is no incentive to do that and so the only way that smoking will ever get back on the increase is if it is criminalised. Same argument as that for legalising drugs. Keeping it legal but under some sort of control gradually reduces usage but it will never stop it completely and so theoretically both sides of the fence should be happy.

Banjo Griner
15-12-2006, 14:59
But what about obese, binge-drinking, happy-slapping chavs with millions of kids even though they're only 13 themselves? How will they be regarded in 30 years time? As the norm, or will they be banned? And buses - are they gay? They certainly smoke.

Darbees
15-12-2006, 15:01
But what about obese, binge-drinking, happy-slapping chavs with millions of kids even though they're only 13 themselves? How will they be regarded in 30 years time? As the norm, or will they be banned? And buses - are they gay? They certainly smoke.In 30 years time there will be another 2 generations of them and therefore the same number as now cubed. So hopefully by then they will be illegal too.

Banjo Griner
15-12-2006, 15:29
Good point: stupid people breed twice as fast as intelligent people. Scary thought.

BasilRathbon
15-12-2006, 15:34
Good point: stupid people breed twice as fast as intelligent people. Scary thought.


And really intelligent people look into the future and choose not to breed at all......

Darbees
15-12-2006, 16:00
And really intelligent people look into the future and choose not to breed at all......Indeed so in 30 years there won't be any extra intelligent people but Kevin and Chantelle will have bred 15 kids who by then will breed 15 each = 225 plus the 17 breeders= 242 chavs. Even if they interbreed it would over 50. So things are looking grim until sterilisation based on IQ and socio economic group comes in.

purdyamos
15-12-2006, 17:57
How many people have been beaten up or even murdered solely because they smoke? How many people have been ostracised from their families or been made homeless because their family found out they were secret *puffers*?!

Not really the same thing.

Darbees
16-12-2006, 10:31
How many people have been beaten up or even murdered solely because they smoke? Don't need to murder them, they do that for themselves.

Fareast
16-12-2006, 13:06
Yes, indeed, Darbees, we are martyrs to a greater cause.

We smokers, together with rock-climbers, explorers, pot-holers, drinkers, gays, gluttons, car-drivers and many other poor souls who risk life and limb daily, all have one thing in common. We do things which we enjoy doing, knowing that we might well suffer for it.

I think the smokers amongst us are on a bit of a higher plane than some other groups though ; don't you think ? Whereas, say, Gays, who catch Aids or Rock climbers who injure themselves and put their rescuers' lives in danger, don't seem to pay towards their special treatment [other than normal taxes], we poor smokers have to pay about 5 times in tax than what our hospital treatment costs.

Still, I suppose we can bear it, with a smile and a merry quip. In some ways I envy those lucky folk who always ' play it safe ' but even some of them 'kick the bucket' at a young age, despite all their precautions. Life is definitely unfair for a lot of people. Perhaps some are just born luckier than others ?

Pauly
16-12-2006, 14:03
we poor smokers have to pay about 5 times in tax than what our hospital treatment costs.

Yes it's a shame you have to force those horrible cancer sticks on yourself 10-20 times a day and so inconsiderate of those non smokers to die from your second hand smoke too! Poor you. :roll:

Fareast
16-12-2006, 15:07
Yes, of course , you are quite right, Pauly, in general ; just one or two details gone adrift ! For some of us it's 30 times a day that we risk our lives, so we are much more considerate than even you thought us to be !

I haven't seen the authentic figures for passive smoking deaths. Can you recommend any evidence we can look at, to absolutely confirm what you say? One or possibly two reports would be enough to be going on with.

I suppose if anyone does pass away as a result of passive smoking they will be buried next to all those people who have been killed outright or had their lives shortened by [at leisure] car drivers; all those others whose lives have been shortened by street pollution or, for example, pollution caused in the manafacture of cars;all those who have been killed or whose lives have been shortened by being attacked by people under the influence of alcohol ; those poor souls who have died rescuing various people from mountaineering, swimming, sailing and other activities that people often follow without 100% care ;those people who have been infected by Aids which is often set off and spread by anal intercourse which is largely a gay activity so we are told.........and there may well be others....................

May they all Rest in Peace .

Darbees
16-12-2006, 15:41
Yes, indeed, Darbees, we are martyrs to a greater cause.

We smokers, together with rock-climbers, explorers, pot-holers, drinkers, gays, gluttons, car-drivers and many other poor souls who risk life and limb daily, all have one thing in common. We do things which we enjoy doing, knowing that we might well suffer for it.


That's fine and I couldn't care less if people do things which are dangerous and harmful only to themselves. I'm an ex smoker so obviously I'm especially self righteous and I stopped because I didn't feel that the trade off between health and pleasure was worth it. Having made that decision I don't want to have to inhale other peoples smoke and for THEM to compromise MY health for THEIR pleasure, that is selfish. However I don't seek to stop other people smoking so long as they keep it away from me, they have all the information, whether or not they think it is risky or worth the risk is their business.

Obesity/gluttony is a different issue because the risks associated with that do not directly physically affect others. There may be a financial and emotional cost to society but it does not directly affect strangers in the same way as smoke does.

Rock-climbers, explorers, pot-holers, and car-drivers take something of a risk but it's only a risk whilst they partake in it and there is no risk the rest of the time.

Gay risks is a different issue altogether and I don't want to invite controversy by speculating on that one. :rolleyes:

Fareast
17-12-2006, 00:40
But when rock-climbers, swimmers, pot-holers and motorists have accidents and/or need rescuing, the lives of other people ARE often put at risk. This is particularly so in the case of motorists.

In a perfect world, we would all be able to drive cars, smoke, drink and go mountaineering and the only risk would be to ourselves. Unfortunately, because we live in a inter-active society, in general, this is not the case.

In the case of motorists the negative spin-off from their activities is pretty obvious-----a tired, careless driver, a child in the rod, a nasty death or accident. The same with alcohol------too much to drink, late home, a quarrel, a fight ......etc.....A lot of pleasurable behaviour has its own bad effects. In the case of smoking, I'm not sure at all that it has been proved conclusively that passive smoking causes death. For example, the man who first claimed to have discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer [a world expert, one would think !], said that there was no proof linking passive smoking to lung cancer.I would rather my clothes pong of smoke than get hit by a car or attacked by a drunk.

However, in the case of smoking there always seems a disproportionate howl of rage and bile from certain non-or anti- smokers whenever the subject is mentioned. If you don't believe me, just take a look through previous threads on this topic.

Could it be a class thing ? Nearly all the middle-class drive cars and have "drinkies" but now the heaviest smokers are the working class. Government propoganda, too, has contributed to the hysteria.The British public must be one of the most gullible in the world when it comes to listening to " experts ". Dr. Goebbels would have had a field day in modern Britain !

Banjo Griner
17-12-2006, 00:46
Could it be a class thing ? Nearly all the middle-class drive cars and have "drinkies" but now the heaviest smokers are the working class. Government propoganda, too, has contributed to the hysteria.The British public must be one of the most gullible in the world when it comes to listening to " experts ". Dr. Goebbels would have had a field day in modern Britain !
Well, middle-class students (going on recent examples) certainly regularly smoke, drink AND do recreational drugs... but perhaps you should rephrase to 'now the working class are the heaviest smokers'. That would be 100% accurate. Also, the 'howl of rage' you mention is probably just the counter-argument which every argument has. It's just that smokers tend to be a bit more precious and narrow-minded about their chosen struggle.

cloudybay
17-12-2006, 01:04
But when rock-climbers, swimmers, pot-holers and motorists have accidents and/or need rescuing, the lives of other people ARE often put at risk. This is particularly so in the case of motorists.

In a perfect world, we would all be able to drive cars, smoke, drink and go mountaineering and the only risk would be to ourselves. Unfortunately, because we live in a inter-active society, in general, this is not the case.

In the case of motorists the negative spin-off from their activities is pretty obvious-----a tired, careless driver, a child in the rod, a nasty death or accident. The same with alcohol------too much to drink, late home, a quarrel, a fight ......etc.....A lot of pleasurable behaviour has its own bad effects. In the case of smoking, I'm not sure at all that it has been proved conclusively that passive smoking causes death. For example, the man who first claimed to have discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer [a world expert, one would think !], said that there was no proof linking passive smoking to lung cancer.I would rather my clothes pong of smoke than get hit by a car or attacked by a drunk.

However, in the case of smoking there always seems a disproportionate howl of rage and bile from certain non-or anti- smokers whenever the subject is mentioned. If you don't believe me, just take a look through previous threads on this topic.

Could it be a class thing ? Nearly all the middle-class drive cars and have "drinkies" but now the heaviest smokers are the working class. Government propoganda, too, has contributed to the hysteria.The British public must be one of the most gullible in the world when it comes to listening to " experts ". Dr. Goebbels would have had a field day in modern Britain !
How I adore Fareast and his reposts. I just love him as his views concord with mine.

artisan
17-12-2006, 01:07
But when rock-climbers, swimmers, pot-holers and motorists have accidents and/or need rescuing, the lives of other people ARE often put at risk. !

Just a quick point here.
Rockclimbers, Potholers, Mountaineers and other people in the same class, are not putting anyone elses life at risk, who are not in the same class.
The mountain and cave rescue teams are made up of people who are active in the sports, and are the acknowleged experts.
They are not a group of people kept on a shelf for special duties, but people who are out on the fells, and caving etc. every day.

NorbertColon
17-12-2006, 01:10
Just a quick point here.
Rockclimbers, Potholers, Mountaineers and other people in the same class, are not putting anyone elses life at risk, who are not in the same class.
The mountain and cave rescue teams are made up of people who are active in the sports, and are the acknowleged experts.
They are not a group of people kept on a shelf for special duties, but people who are out on the fells, and caving etc. every day.
True - volunteers who have risen to a position of respect and expertise within their subject of interest, and have chosen to support that interest for their less experienced peers, who will in time take over.

The impact on ambulance and hospital services is negligible when compared with football and other common sports.

cloudybay
17-12-2006, 01:16
Just a quick point here.
Rockclimbers, Potholers, Mountaineers and other people in the same class, are not putting anyone elses life at risk, who are not in the same class.
The mountain and cave rescue teams are made up of people who are active in the sports, and are the acknowleged experts.
They are not a group of people kept on a shelf for special duties, but people who are out on the fells, and caving etc. every day.

Total drivel. I know many cave rescue people and they are the same idiots who choose to put themselves at risk in the first place.

NorbertColon
17-12-2006, 01:21
Total drivel. I know many cave rescue people and they are the same idiots who choose to put themselves at risk in the first place.
Harsh CB, harsh.

Those people put their lives at risk to save others as well, and most of them - while they may have 'pushed the limits' when they were younger and less experienced (as I did), are mellower characters by the time they get involved in rescue.

cloudybay
17-12-2006, 01:27
Harsh CB, harsh.

Those people put their lives at risk to save others as well, and most of them - while they may have 'pushed the limits' when they were younger and less experienced (as I did), are mellower characters by the time they get involved in rescue.

And thank God they do....................I've never criticised them...............but they are still idiots !

artisan
17-12-2006, 01:43
Total drivel. I know many cave rescue people and they are the same idiots who choose to put themselves at risk in the first place.
Who is it that you think does the cave and mountain rescue then cloudybay?
It is those very people you are speaking of, no one else is capable of the job.
I was a member of DCRO (many years ago now:hihi: ) and you were only selected if you were top notch, as it were.

cloudybay
17-12-2006, 01:51
Who is it that you think does the cave and mountain rescue then cloudybay?
It is those very people you are speaking of, no one else is capable of the job.
I was a member of DCRO (many years ago now:hihi: ) and you were only selected if you were top notch, as it were.

My friend's do it, my colleagues do it and thank God they do............brave but still stupid.

NorbertColon
17-12-2006, 13:08
My friend's do it, my colleagues do it and thank God they do............brave but still stupid.
I can recall many a caving exped that would be viewed as stupid by the less adventurous among us - I suppose the same applies to base jumping, free climbing, or any dangerous sports.

Not as stupid as smoking though.

GabbleRatcht
17-12-2006, 13:20
I don't like fags.


<ducks under chair while waiting for misunderstandings :hihi: >

This made me laugh.
When working in America and I say " I'm going off to roll a fag " I get some strange looks. Completely different connotations. :hihi:

sheffdan
17-12-2006, 14:16
I have to wake up with a puff every morning. I should stop.

saxon51
17-12-2006, 17:18
[QUOTE=MickeyBarnes]I know I have to step outside work if I want a quick puff :D
You can give up smoking though, you can't give up being gay. Besides the two things are completely different.[QUOTE]


Make yer mind up lad. :hihi: :hihi:

'Sucking on a fag' also springs to mind. :o