And then they came for…

They came first for the smokers, and I did not speak
because I’m not a smoker
Then they came for the drinkers, and I remained silent
because I don’t drink
And then they came for the salad dodgers, and said nothing
because I quite like a plate of greens

When they finally came for me there was no one left to speak up.

With apologies to Martin Niemöller

Smokers first, and the world’s authoritarian control freaks and their healthist useful idiots have persuaded enough people that smokers aren’t quite human that they felt able to move on to drinkers. They’ve got their teeth into alcohol and, despite their denials to the contrary, seem to be following the same anti-freedom model that they did with tobacco – there are already dry areas appearing, the beginnings of warning labels, talk of restricting alcohol advertising (doubtless replacing it with more of the tax funded anti-alcohol campaigns). They’ve even invented the concept of second hand drinking, presumably because it sounds good and was a success against smokers. You can be sure that more alcohol denormalisation is around the corner.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you’re that certain then just criminalise tobacco and alcohol and be done with it. Won’t hurt me, I don’t drink or smoke. Won’t hurt a lot of those people who’ll quietly produce their own under the radar, or at least not too much. But if you think it’ll produce a sober, non-smoking population of fine upstanding and hard working tax cows citizens then enough with the salami slicing, just make both products illegal. Go on, you government chickenshits, do it. I fucking dare you to. I fucking dare you to do without the tax revenue. I fucking dare you to increase other taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and then increase them even more due to the additional expense of policing yet more contraband. I fucking dare you to recreate Prohibition era violent crime and add it to that of the drugs trade, with the added bonus of getting the illegal tobacco trade involved as well. I’m starting to think that a society that stupid and intolerant and evil simply fucking deserves what it gets. Go on, do it…

Except they won’t, because they’re not that ignorant of history. They’re hoping that a little freedom lost each day won’t set the scene for modern day Al Capones in the same way that just criminalising tobacco or alcohol probably will, though if the illegal drugs trade is anything to go by, not to mention the increased incentives for tobacco smuggling and illegal alcohol production, this is just as much a fantasy. So the salami slicing continues, and smokers and drinkers have been joined by salad dodgers and now meat eaters.

Small quantities of processed meat such as bacon, sausages or salami can increase the likelihood of dying by a fifth, researchers from Harvard School of Medicine found. Eating steak increases the risk of dying by 12%.

Oh, here we go. I don’t want to be picky here, motherfuckers, but I’ve run this calculation many times to be certain and I found that everybody’s risk of dying is exactly 100%. Your risk of living before that final certainty happens is something else entirely.

The scientists said that the government’s current advice that people should eat no more than 2.5 ounces (70 grams) a day, around around the level the average Briton already consumes, was “generous”.

I had no idea there was government advice already. I wonder what’ll be next? Age restrictions to be allowed to purchase something with red meat in it? A red meat ban in public places such as restaurants and pubs (if there are still any pubs left)? Meat packaging is typically plain already but maybe this kind of thing will be banned.

Click for source

And of course there’s the associated scare, that it’s just an unhealthy part of a generally unhealthy lifestyle.

Scientists added that people who eat a diet high in red meat were also likely to be generally unhealthier because they were more likely to smoke, be overweight and not exercise.

Assuming for the moment that this is anything more than mere assertion, because there’s bollock all in the article to suggest otherwise, so fucking what? What call do I have on anyone else to be healthy? If it doesn’t affect me what right do I have over what they put into their bodies or how they attempt to extract the maximum amount of enjoyment from their few decades of existence? I wonder if, on the QT, these people acknowledge this because they quickly unleash the big gun, a claim that in fact your steak supper is hurting other people.

In an accompanying editorial Dr Dean Ornish, of the University of California, San Francisco, said that eating less red meat could also help tackle climate change.
He said: “In addition to their health benefits, the food choices we make each day affect other important areas as well. What is personally sustainable is globally sustainable. What is good for you is good for our planet.”

More unsupported assertion, and frankly I have a hard enough time believing that the net activity of our entire species has any measurable, let alone meaningful, effect on a system depending on the interaction of, among other things, roughly 5 quadrillion tonnes of air, 1½ quintillion tonnes of water, half a billion square kilometres of surface area of varying substances and albedo and 2 octillion tonnes of fusing hydrogen. If someone really believes that getting everyone to stop eating bacon butties and lamb chops has any significance I have a bridge I’d like to sell them. In fact I wonder if it’s even seriously believed by the people saying it – in their shoes I’d be looking for something that sounds better than “Well, if you die earlier you won’t be contributing taxes for as long, d’you see?”, which I suspect is really what a lot of government healthism is about. They already say they can’t afford to treat everyone who’s sick, so any illnesses that they can claim are self inflicted through lifestyle choices such as smoking and drinking and being a certain amount above the standard human weight (if there isn’t an official standard human weight already I expect there soon will be) are beginning to go untreated, and bugger the fact that people have paid for healthcare in advance.* Getting the hump because some people cark it before contributing all the tax they might have done, which will happen more once economic pressures force the retirement age to be revised upwards, is almost the same thing. How dare you drop dead through enjoying your life before having completed your allotted amount of tax producing labour for the st… ah, I mean for society!

Go fuck yourselves sideways with a meat tenderiser.

I’ll leave you with the positive side of meat eating. Paid for by the industry of course, and not to be taken completely seriously, but perhaps with a grain of truth in it all the same.

* I wonder if one day this thinking will also apply to people with fucked knees and jogger’s nipples from exercising. Hey, exercising regularly is a lifestyle choice too, you know.

Advertisements

Posted on March 13, 2012, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.

  1. “Go fuck yourselves sideways with a meat tenderiser.”

    Amen!

    *must remember to get a couple of steaks out of the freezer before I leave for work*

  2. All scientific results like these all have unintended consequences. Just witness the recent news that the five-a-day campaign has lead to an increase in tooth decay – all that sugar in the fruit. Scientists might have a very high intelligence but they can also be totally stupid at the same time.

  3. Hummmm, come on, second hand smoke does cause all kind of health problems, I think it is stupid for smokers to smoke in Any public place especially restaurants or work smoke areas that are a closed in area!! Smoke hurts the lungs etc!!And smokers do not care!! If i had a nickle for every child living with smoking parents who smoke in their home, who has children who have earaches and other health issues constantly because of their second hand smoke!! Ask any doc!!and how many accidents are caused by people drinking and driving while drunk? I lost friends because of both. Cancer and because of a stranger driving while drunk and killing three innocent people!! I have never lost anyone because of eating meat etc.. teeth decay is caused from NOT brushing after eating sweets etc.. Overeating will cause illness too..but those are problems that hurt the person doing it, not the people around them. Smoking restrictions and drinking restrictions are made because it hurts or harms people who are in its path…Smoke travels into others area, I have seem smoking mothers smoking while holding a baby, their ashes falling into their babies eyes!! the baby screaming!! when I tried to alert the mom? she told me I was seeing things!! My dad was a smoker, he never smoked in our home or car!! Or in anyones house!! But most smokers get pissed if you tell them to not smoke in certain areas!! I have a friend, she has cancer, still smokes like a freight train, Has children, who are always sick with earaches etc.. she smokes in the car, thinking they cannot breath her smoke… really??? Come on!!!
    She will die from her habit!! and her kids will most likely too.. I get tired of smokers and drinkers whining because a right has been taken away from them..
    the only reason it is not illegal is because the sale of both brings in a lot of money..

    • second hand smoke does cause all kind of health problems,does it really? i never noticed it causing problems,maybe its just in your brain rinsed mind,as for smoking causing cancers any positive proof?? not speculation, PROOF.Guillible idiots like you need removing from society,i suspect you fall for all the other scams as well like global taxing err warming.Do look up AGENDA21 it might educate you as to what is coming.
      I get tired of smokers and drinkers whining because a right has been taken away from them.. Really so you don’t believe in Rights,well i don’t think you should have a right to your opinion so GO Fuck yourself you lentil eater.

    • The whole second hand smoke thing has, I feel, been blown up out of all proportion. There are now people claiming that passive smoking is more dangerous than smoking smoking, which doesn’t even pass the giggle test. I mean, if exposure to second hand smoke is worse for me than the smoke I inhaled back when I used to be a smoker then why don’t I just start smoking again? I know the argument is that you breath in unfiltered smoke, but even if it was true that you breathe in more smoke than someone actively drawing on a cigarette then it would still be true of that smoker as well – they’d be smoking and passive smoking at the same time. This kind of convoluted and illogical nonsense should be a huge warning flag that it’s all about advocacy and control rather than health and freedom. However, for me the ETS scare jumped the shark even before that. It’s not a health issue, it’s just an annoying smell, and I find that moving upwind of a smoker or just taking a pace or two backwards is enough for it not to bother me anymore.

      I think it is stupid for smokers to smoke in Any public place especially restaurants or work smoke areas that are a closed in area!!

      Why isn’t it up to the owners to decide that, and in turn their potential customers can decide whether or not to go in and spend money there? Freedom of choice. You say it’s stupid, so presumably you’d go and spend money in non-smoking establishments. Good for you and good on them too for being sensible businesses catering to the majority. But why penalise businesses that want to cater for minorities such as smokers? Most people drive cars but we don’t ban motorcycle dealerships. Most people are straight but we don’t ban gay pubs and clubs. So why do it to pubs and restaurants that want to attract what we might call the smoky dollar? They’ll end up hiring either smokers or people who don’t mind the smoke as employees and their customers will be the same. Nobody’s forcing people who dislike smoke to work or spend money in these places, and even before the ban many businesses successfully catered for both by having a large non-smoking area and, often in an entirely separate room, a smoking section. It worked and there was no need to change it apart from vindictiveness and control freakery. That the British pub trade immediately went into a decline from which it’s not recovered is something at least half the nanny staters are still in deep denial about. I suspect the rest aren’t in denial but don’t talk about it much because they want the same thing to happen to alcohol.

      I get tired of smokers and drinkers whining because a right has been taken away from them.

      This is a regular theme with me. If it was to stop with smoking you might have a point but as I said in the post, smoking was only the beginning. We are all a target for our right to do (insert something you find enjoyable) to be taken away from us, and the means by which it will be done and the tactics used to persuade everyone else that we must stop doing whatever it is will be exactly those divide et impera tactics used against the smokers. This is something that drinkers and people who like takeaway food are finding out right now. And now consuming red meat is coming under fire. What will be next? Potentially anything. What will be eventually included? Potentially everything.

      Surely you must see the pattern repeating over and over again. Surely you can see that for you and I and other non-smokers the smokers were worthy of our support for one simple reason – while the nannies and control freaks were attacking the smokers they weren’t attacking the rest of us. We could have kept up that happy state of affairs indefinitely, but enough of us were persuaded to betray them that victory has been all but declared over tobacco and the nannies have moved on to white wine and red meat. Niemöller had it exactly right except that it today it’s not communists, unionist and Jews but smokers, drinkers and red meat eaters.

      It looks like you’re posting from the US so I can’t think of anything better than to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: We must all hang together or we shall all hang – or at least see various liberties forcibly taken from us – separately.

  4. XX people should eat no more than 2.5 ounces (70 grams) a day, XX

    Thats not worth lighting the fucking fire for!

    Or are they going to suggest that, because of the risk of adding to “global warming” due to all the people lighting fires for paltry amounts of meat, that Private houses are to be banned from having kitchens, and all food will be cooked, served, and consumed in communal cook houses?

    Or perhaps I should not give the fuckers ideas….

    • No, perhaps you shouldn’t.

      By the way, the already ridiculous amount escaped my attention, but not Mrs Exile’s when she read the post later and said something quite similar to you. She pointed out that probably every steak that’s ever been sold has weighed more than that and you could easily exceed your weekly allowance with one reasonably good restaurant dinner, especially if the starter had meat in it as well. I was too busy getting wound up over the fact there was a government recommended allowance at all to notice how fucking low it is.

      • Aye. Weights and measures are a perticular sore point of mine, since I have to note every spoonful because of diabetes.

        Just take a look at what firms THINK constitutes a “portion”. They must think they are feeding bloody sparrows.

        As to the “Communal kitchens”. It would not be the first time such, or similar, has happened. In the middle ages, it was forbidden for people to grind their own grain, cook their own bread, or weave their own cloth. It all had to be bought from the “Pacht”, whereby the money went straight to the land owner. Different reason, but still not without precedence.

  1. Pingback: Odd coincidence « The Angry Exile

  2. Pingback: Smoke Day ends, but smoking lives on. | underdogs bite upwards

%d bloggers like this: