Smokers change their buying habits.

If the likes of ASH think that by putting the display of tobacco products behind shutters in supermarkets would deter smokers. I can tell you that it has actually had the perverse effect of making it quicker to buy those products.

Before shutterday^TM  as an example I would visit my local supermarket to buy a newspaper. Having picked it up I would head for the tobacco counter to pick up a packet of twenty ciggies. In front of me would be a couple of people buying tobacco and with small baskets of shopping which were processed at that counter. Delay five minutes.

In fact there is now less of a delay.

At the well known supermarket near my son’s house the behaviour of the supermarket and the tobacco buyer has changed. At that counter only tobacco products are processed. No baskets allowed. And that the trend of tobacco shoppers has changed to buying multiple packs.

Both times I’ve been there not one person has bought less than 100 at a time. Both times I was served by the same member of staff who knew intimately where each brand was situated behind the shutters.

So ASH if you thought you could inconvenience smokers, then I’m afraid you’ve actually made the buying experience BETTER.

Hands Off

Bugger off nanny

Hypocrites R Us

Just goes to show that the left doesn’t know what the right are doing. Best do your homework first before you start pontificating.

A council with one of London's strongest anti-smoking policies has bowed to pressure to reveal nearly £1.5 million it invests in tobacco firms.

Of course they didn’t want the truth out in the open.

But during an Evening Standard investigation into the payment of more than £160 million by London council pension funds into cigarette-making firms, the authority tried to obstruct publication of its holdings in such companies.
Officials eventually conceded the council directly owns £1 million in RJ Reynolds, maker of Camel cigarettes, through its pension fund. Further inquiries showed it invests nearly £500,000 more in other cigarette companies including British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco.

Redbridge Council. Hang your heads in shame.

Me. I just laugh at the hypcrites

Retread - the Desperate Cigarette

This entry eloquently demonstrates why you really shouldn't take up smoking.

Take one cigarette paper, one filter (if you have one) and one ashtray. Remove a butt from the ashtray, hold it above the paper and roll it between your thumb and forefinger so that any remaining tobacco falls on to the paper. Remove another butt from the ashtray and repeat until the paper is covered with tobacco. Place the filter at the end of the paper, roll the paper, light the cigarette, inhale and instantly regret it.

Why?

At some point many tobacco smokers will have experienced the 'retread', a second-hand cigarette that is usually rolled in the days immediately preceding pay-day or giro-day, and that carries with it the shame, desperation and lack of forward-planning that characterises the psychology of those of us addicted to tobacco. These characteristics manifest themselves as follows:

Lack of Forward Planning

A retread is rolled when a smoker has run out of tobacco and has also run out of money, preventing the purchase of any more. The smoker generally doesn't notice the imminent tragedy until it's too late. At no point during the previous week or so does the smoker think 'Oh, tobacco's a bit short, best stock up while I've still got some cash'; it's not until the hand reaches to the bottom of the packet to find only crumbs that the severity of the situation becomes apparent. The lack of forward planning is inherent in any smoker - we all know that in the long term smoking isn't going to do us any favours but we carry on regardless.

Desperation

A retread is constructed by scouring ashtrays and attempting to amass enough tobacco from the butts contained therein to cobble together a new cigarette. A retread is never pleasant and a rational person would rarely smoke one out of choice, but desperation can do terrible things to rationality. Being a combination of ash and dry tobacco, a retread burns badly, hurts the throat and, during construction, makes a terrible mess under the fingernails. The smoker can only hope that they can find a nail brush and that there are some filters left.

And some papers.

Shame

The natural successor to such an act of desperation is shame. Rummaging around ashtrays in search of a final drag lacks dignity. Rummaging around the ashtrays of other people is even worse (though that is generally localised to the early hours of parties). As the tobacco comes from the end of smoked cigarettes it has already been coated with tar and nicotine, making the retread a nasty affair and leading to a horrendous cough the following morning, reminding the smoker of the depths to which they have sunk. A retread smoker is rarely a proud smoker.

Oh No Not Again

A seriously bad planner might find themselves retreading two-three days before getting paid. This can lead to retreads of retreads and even retreads of retreaded retreads, which are as ghastly as they sound. It's a humbling moment when you find yourself eyeing up the ashtrays, knowing that the same thing happened last month and will no doubt happen next month, re-treading the retread path.

Just a thought

You know those supposedly disgusting pictures on cigarette packets that proclaim my imminent despise demise. (See above).

Who pays for them? Is it the Tobacco companies or we, the tax payer? If it’s us, I want my money back as I never even look at them. Bloody piss poor advertising if you ask me.

Don’t even think about buying property in Wales.

Not if your a smoker.

Dr Tony Jewell, chief medical officer for Wales, said that stopping people lighting up in their own homes would protect their children from the dangers of passive smoking.

and.

'It could be seen as the final piece of the protection picture or at least adding to the growing public consensus on the social acceptability of smoking.'

I suspect they will do one of those surveys in Wales in the near future. One of those that is phrased like this.

“Should smoking be banned in homes for the sake of the cheeeldren?”

Of course they’ll get an 80% yes vote for that.

So then they’ll produce a law which they won’t have a hope in hell of enforcing.

I don’t live in Wales but if I did I’d just love a state sponsored, No smoking enforcement officer, to just try it on. It is my property and it is nothing to do with the state with what I do within it within reason. (Obviously murder is slightly over the top).

What has become of this country?

I need to sit down in a darkened room.

With a cigarette.

Thanks to the Angry Exile for this

Smoking on a ship.

Ten years ago I served on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) ship “Fort George”. This type of vessel was configured to carry a cargo of ammunition, fuels which included diesel and aviation spirit (Avcat), and dry stores. There was no smoking allowed on the open decks for the obvious reason that there could be pockets of inflammable gases.

That last bit always had me slightly bemused as the ship’s original fit was to have included a vertical launch anti air, missile system situated in the middle of the ship (The silo is still there, they just ran out of money). Imagine firing a metre long projectile with a white hot tail of incandescent gas smack bang through the ship’s gas envelope. If you were the enemy you’d only need to pretend to attack. Your target would self destruct for you.

I digress.The then smoking rules allowed you to smoke anywhere inside the Accommodation, Office areas, the Bridge and the MCR (Machinery Control Room). 

Slowly but insidiously change happened. Firstly smoking in multiple occupancy offices were banned. Next came a ban on smoking in alleyways, and the MCR and the Bridge. After that smoking in bars was outlawed if food was served. FFS, that was snuck in because we had packets of crisps on sale.

And finally we were not allowed to smoke in our own cabins in case the steward sued over passive smoking. (Yes, Officers still had stewards). That was the final straw for me. I could have worked on, but instead I thought Sod you and retired. (Which I don’t regret as the march of regulation was bordering on the farcical).

The point of this post is, If you remember my first paragraph about no smoking on deck, you’ll be as bemused as me that the only place where smoking is allowed now, is a designated area on the open deck.

What really pisses me off is that in all the conflicts I’ve been involved in, (Aden, the Falklands, Gulf wars one and two and Angola) passive smoking would be the last thing on anyone’s mind.

But Hey, we live in a world of irrational fear.

In a nut shell political correctness trumps health and safety.

*Lights up ciggy*

Smokey Drinkies under threat

Leg-Iron beware.

TIME has been called on a phoney pub landlord after planning chiefs demanded his shed-cum-pub is demolished.

However he did go a bit over the top.

Dean Goodearl built a timber, Swiss-style chalet in his back garden in Pimpernel Way, Chatham, and turned it into a bar, complete with drinks optics and beer pumps.

He has now been ordered to remove the chalet, and a fence which separates it from the rest of his garden.

Mr Goodearl, 23, kitted out his 8x6m makeshift pub with a dartboard, plasma TV screen, pool table, glitter disco ball and a one-armed bandit.

It has ornately framed Georgian-style windows and double doors opening onto a wooden veranda, which was complete with a bin especially designed for cigarette butts.

Mind you it is my favourite council’s decision. Medway.

Ciggy Busters. The follow up.

I missed this article on Friday in ThisisKent.

Angry bloggers and pro-choice campaigners have been setting the internet alight with their disbelief at Ciggy Busters, an anti-smoking film created by pupils at The Hundred of Hoo School.

I admit to being one of those Bloggers that found this stunt offensive and ill conceived. As I’ve said before. If I and like minded people went around pulling Burkhas off Muslims I would expect to be pilloried for it. And more than likely arrested.

And from another Blogger.

Blogger John Buck wrote in a letter to The News: "Smokers have reacted so strongly to these events as they are tired of being treated as third-rate citizens.

"Smoking is still a legal activity, taken by personal choice yet smokers are bombarded daily by the righteous who want to impose more and more restrictions.

"People I have discussed this issue with have compared the actions of these children to that of the Hitler Youth and I do not disagree."

And.

Phil Johnson, chairman of Freedom to Choose, the largest pro-choice organisation in the country, described the project as "highly irresponsible".

He said: "The whole thing was a totally, utterly, ridiculous stunt aimed at a minority faction of 25 per cent and it is sending out the wrong message to kids.

"It is the victimisation of a minority group. Whether we want to smoke or not is a freedom of choice."

And he ends with this.

"The disgusting thing about it is A Better Medway have been part funding the thing. What did they want to fund – civil unrest?"

I would hope that all those who took part. the school, Margherita Gramegna, the Police, and Better Medway all have a long think before they try another stunt like that one.

Oh and I haven’t forgotten you Rachael Noxon. Just because you have locked your webpage away. I’ll still remember your name.

I didn’t expect anything else

I’ve just received a reply from Medway plod concerning the letter I wrote concerning the Hitler Youth students from the Hundreds of Hoo school in Medway, about their “Ciggy busters” stunt.

It’s what I was expecting. Absolutely nothing. If the students had been ripping burkhas of muslims, I expect dear Margherita would be in the dock in the Old Bailey by now.

As received, below.

 

Dear Mr. Filthy Engineer

The Medway Hate crime unit have spoken to Margherita Gramegan at length about the issues that you have outlined. It has been explained that the project has offended several people.

She has taken on board what has been said, and will be more mindful in the future.

Should you have any further queries then please don't hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely

Sallie Baisley

DS 10142 Baisley

Footnote:

They really should proof read their mail before sending.

From the original reply. "A Betty* Medway, should read, “A better Medway”. (I wonder who Betty is?).

Sallie can’t even spell the miscreant’s name right. It’s Gramegna, not Gramegan.

Pah

Ciggy busters. – The apologist

Go on give this twat a pasting if you are a smoker.

Musings from Medway

Left wing ******

UPDATE: He's getting a pasting in his comments section.