Yo! Nanny Staters: Fuck Off

I am a smoker. Over the years, I've been vilified, demonized, ostracized, pitied, hectored, shunned, and shamed.

OK. Sure. I'm an addict. All addicts deserve this treatment, I guess.

But what I -- and most other addicts I'd wager -- most object to is being treated like idiots.

We know.

We know smoking is bad.

It's expensive. It stinks. It burns holes in our clothes. It stains our teeth.

It makes us sick and if it doesn't kill us, will probably contribute to our deaths or long-term ill-health.

It may harm people around us, hence self-ostracization.

We know all that.

But we are addicted to nicotine.

We try to quit. Alternate nicotine delivery systems -- patches, gum -- have deficiencies of two main types.

1. They are not like smoking: no warmth, no fiddle-factor, no-"I'm having a break"-factor.

2. The nicotine dose is not adjustable to the user's mood and need.

The fiddle-factor is surmountable. The dosage problem is not so easy.

If I light a cigarette and decide I don't really want one now, I put it out.

If I put a patch on and immediately want to puke (which is what patches do to me), I rip it off.

If I light a cigarette and get involved in reading something and forget about the cigarette, it burns away.

If I chomp down on a piece of nicotine gum, get involved in reading something, forget about the gum and chomp down a few more times absent-mindedly, I want to puke (see above).

Enter e-cigs. Dosage is variable. With added fiddle-factor fun.

They're not perfect, but they are definitely a huge advance.

But guess who doesn't like e-cigs?

Big Pharma who wants to sell us patches and gum -- outrageously over-priced patches and gum.

And Big Tobacco who doesn't want us to quit smoking.

And Nanny Staters. Who, according to Sweetie, have an addiction problem of their own. They are addicted to telling others what to do.

Viz.

The optics of the e-cig concept: a controlled nicotine delivery system. Why would anyone expect that to be well received in the gen public?
— Dr. Brian Goldman (@NightShiftMD) August 26, 2014

I don't watch much telly any more. But I remember ads with people smugly patting their upper arms: "I've got the patch." Did people go insane over that "optic"?

.@NightShiftMD Why not? It's way better than the nicotine patch that Big Pharma makes a ton of $. I can't use patch because of indigestion.
— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) August 26, 2014

Oh but wait. Maybe patting the upper arm sends the "right message" whereas Nanny Staters worry about the "wrong message."

@AureliaCotta @fernhilldammit I don't disagree. But do billboards of famous people inhaling nic vapour send the right message?
— Dr. Brian Goldman (@NightShiftMD) August 26, 2014

You mean like this?



From the same source, a succinct summary of the issue.

No matter how you feel about the product or the industry, electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco and lack virtually all of harmful chemicals found in cigarettes. THEY SHOULD NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS SUCH or be limited by the same harsh restrictions. So far, no adverse health effects have been associated with electronic cigarettes, yet the alcohol industry is responsible for at least 80,000 deaths each year and the media seems unconcerned about their marketing techniques. Most people acknowledge that kids should not have access to these devices, but comparing electronic cigarette companies to the tobacco industry of the past is not only unfair – it’s inaccurate. Electronic cigarettes help smokers quit and expose them to significantly less health risks. For now, consumers have a wide array of choices and full access to these products, but if the government, pharmaceutical and big tobacco companies have their way, that may be a thing of the past.

My succinct summary: Fuck right off, Nanny Staters.

ADDED: from Anonymous in the comments: UN doing Big Pharma's bidding. Again.

Study of second-hand effects of vapours. No apparent risk.

Added: deBeauxOs' response as a non-smoker:

No reply from Dr Goldman yet.

We Can't Stop Here...This Is Wombbat Country!

(boihowdee, when blogger said it wasn't supporting my browser on this machine, it meant it. sorry. hopefully fixed)

This, is a wombat.
A busy little tyke, like all marsupials, in times of physical stress her ability to abort offspring is easily done, as she's usually already carrying it in an external pouch.  Marsupial infants can be artificially raised apart from a maternal lactating pouch long before they can independently survive, as they are already predisposed to a non-placental environment.

This, is a womb-bat.
A busy little tyke, when it comes to bearing offspring, he thinks human women are marsupials too! Isn't that cute?  But being the big, grown-up Conservative Boy he really is, he's economically responsible and still prefers human women to continue placentally incubating human offspring instead of forcing the government to transfer the wee human bairns to expensive, although Totes Possible, artificial care until their human ex-utero viability date is signed-off on by Responsible Overseers.

He knows convincing irrational human women not to depend on modern artificial convenience to shorten their personal investment in the genetic future of Canada may turn out to be very problematic, but the issue is likely to be solved by the expedience of making the recalcitrant hysterics solely bear the costs of the artificial intervention.  There will be a further economic savings in that other human women will consider abstinence to be the far more wily economic choice after seeing the financial consquences of transferring a formative-human to its new, inhuman abode.

Some will say that once a human woman has started internally replicating another human, nothing should interfere with the countdown of the already clockwork course of events that result in full term birth, but our 'Mr Smith Gone to Wombington' believes that in this modern age, there is no reason to punish women for being sexually active when there is massive, highly delicate medical technology waiting to welcome formative-humans by the thousands.  The connected operating theater time, wound recovery, and of course, expense, will be more than punishment enough.

Given enough time, as more medical technology developments occur, the human female infants put into care as a result of these human-saving interventions, when not adopted out, can be incentivized to pay off their pre-childhood debts by becoming out-source womb surrogates.  This will drastically reduce the number of medical technicians required to monitor a formative-human.

The organic option, will of course require seeing the institutionalized human girls are raised in a manner optimal to internally supporting a new human capable of being adopted out to human parents shopping for the best human product, but since the formative-humans will be matured under the moral guidance of faith-based organizations, as our busy Womb-bat has been, what could possibly go wrong?

What could possibly go wrong...
 What could possibly go wrong...
   What could possibly go wrong...

This episode of "Fatherland Who's Who" has been brought to you today by Woodworth Fertilizers, where you can call bullshit good for business, but until it's broken up and lets light through, all it does is choke anyone downwind.

Protecting the Innocent in North Dakota, Part 2

Well. Who knew Protecting the Innocent in North Dakota would turn into a series?

Today, we find out that the legislative body that voted to confer constitutional rights on fertilized human eggs is also fighting for the rights of smokers and bar owners.

Bars should remain as one of North Dakota's last outposts of public smoking, the state House has decided, although one lawmaker believes a citizen initiative will reach the smoke-free goal lawmakers avoided.

Representatives voted 59-33 on Thursday to defeat legislation, sponsored by Rep. Joyce Kingsbury, R-Grafton, that would have prohibited lighting up in bars and motels.

Dern tootin'! Smokers have rights! Business owners have rights! North Dakota ain't no dad-blamed nanny state!

Oh. Wait.

"Why should we become even more of a nanny government and tell business owners that are providing a legal product, in a legal establishment, with their own investment, how they should run their business?" said Rep. Craig Headland, R-Montpelier. "I believe it's time to draw the line."

Let's try that again:

"But it's totally fine to become a nanny government and tell women who are living their lives, in their own bodies, with their own livelihoods, how they should run their lives." said Rep. Craig Headcase, R-Montpelier. "Just who the hell do these broads think they are -- bar owners?"