Not knowing where I might find a Righteous to blow smoke at from what would be an unwanted cigarette (and, to be honest, not knowing where they are after all this time) I settled for yelling 'they have a right to self pity because they are fucking persecuted, you authoritarian cunt' at the monitor instead. I wasn't made any happier when I clicked the link and saw the headline about smokers needing a stronger nanny, which seems to be this Cosmo character's theme.
Last week there were two nannies in the news. Nice Nanny McPhee (as portrayed by Emma Thompson in her new film) and the other nanny that nobody likes: the nanny state.Oh, do we ever fucking know her, but not as well as Cosmo who can probably see her in his shaving mirror by the sounds of things.
Do you know her? She’s that bossy cow who treats us like naughty children and is always telling us what to eat, drink, smoke, think and do.
Nanny was under attack on Wednesday from smokers who were angry because 20 of Britain’s leading doctors called on her to prohibit smoking in cars and in parks, playgrounds and beaches where children are at risk from passive smoking. This follows a new report by the Royal College of Physicians, which claims that passive smoking is “a major cause of death and disease in children” — deaths which could be entirely avoided.Sure, some of them said that. Others have pointed out what a festering load of crap and bollocks it all was. But stand by for Cosmo's killer blow: won't somebody think...
And what do smokers say to this sensible idea of saving children from lower respiratory tract infections, middle-ear disease, bacterial meningitis and sudden infant deaths?
“Bloody nanny state! Infringing our civil rights!”
Sick kids, dead kids — they don’t even come into it. No, smokers see themselves as the real victims here.... of the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren.
Fuck me, he resorted to that one pretty early, didn't he? Look, Cosmo, when they're talking such transparent shit as fucking Nth hand smoke you know they're batting a very sticky wicket. On the other hand they're saying what you want them to say and what gives you and people like you the excuse to run other people's lives. How fucking empty must your own be for this huge need to see other people's being controlled?
Of all the causes worth fighting for, is the right to smoke in front of your children really worthwhile? I don’t think most smokers with kids actually want to subject their children to a car full of smoke, but they have an addict’s paranoia that they won’t get their fix.Won't somebody think of... hang on, haven't we done this already?
Listen, first, as per your own words, the smokers are smoking in front of their kids. Theirs, okay? Not yours, and despite what your Beloved Nanny at whose skirts you worship might think, not the fucking state's either. Ultimately they will stop being the smokers' children except in name and become, morally and legally, their own selves. Your Beloved Nanny won't fucking like that much either, but the point is they'll then be able to tell their parents to take their smoky fags and piss off or, more likely, go get their own car. Secondly, as I've already mentioned, there's a lot to doubt about the whole second hand smoke theory. I've been not smoking for long enough that I don't like the smell - though I could tolerate it long enough to drag my way through a fucking carton if stuck in a room with you, Cosmo - but I find it completely implausible that it can possibly be doing me any harm in the open air. In a car? Well, I was in a smoker's car just a few days ago and I dealt with it by winding down a window. Not quite open air but fucking near as, and the idea that his smoke was worse then the traffic fumes in the Melbourne CBD is just ridiculous. Yes, the fact that I opened the window shows I found traffic fumes more pleasant to put up with than the fag smoke, but I'd have done the same if one of us had farted. Are you going to demand a fucking law for that as well?
Actually, I don’t mind people who smoke.You're so convincing when you say that, Cosmo. It's just like when people say that they're all in favour of free speech before adding 'but' and a reason they want the right to speak freely curtailed to fit in their world view. Me, I'm just in favour of free speech, so despite hating what you have to say about smoking and doubting your claim that you don't mind smokers I support your right to say it. In turn I can call you a cunt.
Indeed, some...Wait, wait, wait, wait. I hadn't finished.
You're a cunt.
There, carry on.
Indeed, some of my best friends are smokers.Yeah? I wonder if they all consider you a friend of theirs. Again, this all sounds a bit self justifying along the lines of 'some of my best friends are gay/black/disabled/have extra ears/are immigrants/can't swim'. Usually that precedes a reason why they think anyone who's a gay, black, disabled, immigrant should be thrown into the sea, and if they have extra ears be fucked in one of them. I suspect this is leading to a similar conclusion.
What I don’t like is the spurious arguments they employ to justify their addiction.Oh, so the you're on the side of the ones who say they just like it, yes? No, of course you're not, but let's remember that sentence for later on. You'll see why.
Smoking used to be regarded — even by smokers — as a filthy habit. Now that habit has been invested with a kind of moral worthiness — it’s become a civil rights issue, one that anyone who cares about liberty should support.And if you can't understand why then someone needs to write Niemöller's well known poem on a cricket bat and twat you across the eyes with it until the message sinks in. Today it's smokers and it's for the chiiiiiiiiiiiildren, but you can kiss your favourite Pinot Grigio goodbye because tomorrow it will be booze in case your kids grow into alkies. Then it'll be your car because some Luddite miserablist is droning on that your chiiiiiiildren must have the same world their ancestors knew (including their ancestor's favourite features such as malnutrition, disease, being cold, being hunted by wild animals, being hungry all the time and, finally, an infinitely long rest from all the other shit by the time you're 40 or so). Then it'll be the bicycle you bought to replace your Audi because too many chiiiiiiildren are being skittled crossing the road by all these fucking cyclists that appeared overnight. Then it'll be monitoring your internet in case you change your tune and start to complain that you only drove the Audi once a week, you buy free range carbon diwotsit, and you only drank your Pinot after the kids were in bed. You'd be wrong of course, because it's not just you. It's other people. Because a few will get shitfaced, or not buy fair trade organic carbon, or not watch where the fuck they're going on their push bikes all must lose the privilege. Yes, suddenly it's a privilege, not the right you always thought it was.
What then, Cosmo? Would you see where it all began or would you still be muttering that it would have been just right if only they'd stopped with smokers?
But smokers, like all addicts, care only about their liberty.And? So fucking what? Why should they not care about their liberty? Actually, what the cunting fuck do you expect? 'Hey, you really can't prove that we're harming anyone but ourselves, but why don't you come over here and stop us anyway? And while you're at it why don't you just take a huge, steaming, wet dump over the concept of private property rights for fucking everybody?'
Do smokers want to know why we want to stop them smoking in public places such as parks and beaches? Because it would be nice if on sunny days we non-smokers could lay on a small strip of grass or sand and not have a fag butt go up our noses or crushed into our ears.Oh, please. Are you seriously telling us that you've lain down in a public place and ended up with cigarette butts in your nose or your ears? This wouldn't be the kind of spurious argument that any right thinking person would agree merits a dislike of the people making it, would it?
What I don’t like is the spurious arguments they employ to justify their addiction.Sorry, Cosmo, say again?
What I don’t like is the spurious arguments they employ to justify their addiction.One more time, you odious, authoritarian cock socket.
What I don’t like is the spurious arguments they employ to justify their addiction.So unless you've invented the sport of Extreme Lying Down and can show an earhole full of dead Bensons it sounds awfully like you're justifying your addiction to bullying other people with a spurious argument.
Critics of the nanny state always claim that adults must be allowed to make their own choices and that the government should stay out of people’s personal lives. But the state has an obligation of due care for the welfare of the citizen...No. It. Doesn't. It has assumed such an obligation regardless of the wishes of the 60+ million citizens, that's all, and fuck anyone who didn't agree. Look, if you or any other individual want it to do so for yourselves that's fine - in a libertarian society there'd be nothing to stop you getting together and forming your own socialist society within it, but I'll bet I can guess which one would turn out to be the freer of the two. But what gives you the right to drag everybody else with you including those who can and will get on with their lives themselves if left to it?
... that’s why we have police, and firemen and a National Health Service.Well, the police are there to prevent crime and I suppose that inasmuch as it's in everyone's interests that they do that well you could call it due care for the welfare of citizens. But again, is it an obligation or has it simply been imposed? In either case they do a piss poor job of it partly, I have little doubt, because of your Beloved Nanny's regulations and partly because it's actually an impossible task. 143,000 cops for 62 million people? Come on, ten times that many wouldn't be enough. But if everyone could exercise their right to prevent crime to themselves and those around them - effectively exercise it, that is - then 143,000 cops could be enough to prevent most of what's left over and investigate the remainder more thoroughly than is usual now. Of course that would mean letting the citizens have the tools they need to do that**, and that would never do for your Beloved Nanny, Cosmo.
As for the Fire Brigade, what's to stop a private fire fighting company from starting up and offer cover to subscribers? Well, other than the existing state monopoly? In the absence of a state service you can guarantee there would be private fire fighting services*** in the same way there are private security guards, the inability of the state monopoly on policing to actually prevent crime leaving a gap in the market in which they can operate. And speaking of operations the same goes for the NHS and private health insurance, and incidentally if the NHS is an obligation of the state it's one they were happy to ignore until 60 or so years ago.
And when an individual does make their own arrangements does the state cease demanding money for the services it's no longer obliged to provided, the individual having taken care of things themselves? Does it fuck! That's not an obligation, that's fucking demanding money with menaces: the threat of violence and the loss of freedom for failing to pay for services you don't need and won't receive.
I notice that right-wing critics of the nanny state never call for the legalisation of drugs on the grounds that adults should be free to choose to be addicts or not.Okay, first mistake here is to equate right wing with anti drugs. You can be both right wing and for legalisation. Second is to think of political views as being on a line which leaves no room to be left wing on some issues and right wing on others, much less find a position between authoritarianism and libertarianism. And thirdly, for Christ's sake go read some fucking blogs, you lazy arsehole. There are plenty of right wing types calling for this because they are right/libertarian.
See? Now legalise drugs you nannying pricks.
But the idea that we are living in a Britain where personal freedoms are curtailed as never before seems bizarre. I never hear young people complain about the nanny state. Why? Because they’re all out of their heads on booze or stoned on weed and having a wonderful time.Right up to the point your Beloved Nanny steps in and has them dragged off to the cells. The fact they're not complaining about your Beloved Nanny beforehand is hardly relevant if they're raped on cider prices and cannot buy pot legally. Because of your Beloved Nanny, Cosmo.
[There is] an entire generation of young hedonists who today enjoy the kind of decadent lifestyle once limited to the aristocracy. Tell the young about your fears of the nanny state and they will laugh in your face.Maybe you should have gone to fucking Specsavers, Cosmo. How can you talk such unmitigated horse shit? There may be lots of wasted young things who don't take your Beloved Nanny seriously enough, but does that mean that she doesn't exist? Look, I'll try to explian it in very simple terms: being unafraid of a tiger does not make it safe for you to go and tickle its balls. Or, coming back around to smoking, are you telling me that talk of legislating what people do in their own homes - because of the chiiiiiiiiiiildren, natch - isn't some justification for fear? Your Beloved Nanny has so much previous that to ignore it you probably need to be as shitfaced as these young hedonists because, given half a fucking chance, your Beloved Nanny is going to raise the price of their booze to stratospheric levels and confiscate their blow. You know this, Cosmo. You know it, and I know it, and in their hearts many people know it. Sadly many of them are doing what you have done by speaking out against something they don't do or don't like in the misguided belief that it would stop there.
Maybe we need to get a new nanny in the mould of Nanny McPhee — because the one we have is just not up to the job.
Or is it misguided, Cosmo? Could it simply be that you have fought already and that you've won the victory - the victory over yourself. Because, Cosmo, from where I sit it looks very much like you love Beloved Nanny
* UPDATE - An explanation of giving up fags fags might be in order, though I expect many will guess what I mean. When I gave up smoking I figured that bearing in mind my bouts of going crazy from lack of fags during previous attempts - not actually lack of smoking but just not having any to hand if I really, really wanted one - it might be a good idea to buy a pack with the odd intention of never actually opening it and using the contents. I doubt I'm the only one and I feel that in a way I did use them, just not to smoke. The use I put them to was just to be there so that I knew I had them. I don't remember getting rid of them or throwing them away so somewhere around the house is a full or nearly full (I may have caved in at one point and had one or two) pack of B&H.
It's probably all full of dead insects and spider shit by now.
** Cosmo and his Beloved Nanny would probably take this to mean guns, but I'm thinking along the lines of legal tools as well. A much stronger presumption of innocence and the recognised right that the defence of one's home, one's property or oneself is not a crime and an act of aggression but a response to crime and aggression.
*** 'Ah, but,' says Cosmo's Beloved Nanny. 'What if they start setting fires on purpose to drum up business?' Well, there police are still there and with millions of citizens taking responsibility for crime deterrence in their own immediate vicinity I'd expect that the police and criminal justice system could deal with some corrupt firies using Mafia business tactics.
