Thursday, 25 November 2010

Hire me

Thanks to all who listened to and commented on last night's show, which can be listened to here for 7 days. I'll have some final thoughts on libertarian paternalism later today but first I have a broken boiler to attend to.

As a quick aside, however, I see the BBC has described me on its website as:

Chris Snowdon: Smoker and author of 'Velvet Glove Iron Fist; A History of Anti-Smoking'

Does this suggest that smoking is now so rare and exotic that it's worth calling attention to? (There are only 1.2 billion of us after all.)

Or is smoking now classed as an occupation? If so, I'd just like to say that I'm available for work, I have my own lighter and I'm prepared to travel.

14 comments:

Trooper Thompson said...

It must be very rare for people to admit it.

Maybe you should be grateful they said 'smoker' and not 'disgusting smoking addict' or 'pitiful victim of the tobacco cabal'.

Bucko said...

Hopefully, after the 2011 census, "Smoker" will be classed as a religion.

Then we can all get tax free status ;-)

Leg-iron said...

Bucko - maybe the 'religion' question will have an 'other, please specify' option.

How many would have to write in 'smoker' before they could no longer ignore it? Then we could have smoker churches where smoking inside is not only allowed, but compulsory.

Large Melot Please said...

@Leg Iron

Not forgetting Communion should be taken with either a 14 year old single malt, an 82 Petrus or a pint Old Peculiar.

ChrisB said...

I'm constantly amazed at the claims supporting tobacco display bans and plain packaging.
If the idea is to take tobacco out of sight of the young might it be too much to ask for the logic behind Government forcing the smoking ban on us thus legally 'Nudging'(booting) previously hidden tobacco into full view?
What better advert for smoking than the jovial camaraderie of the newly denormalised outside pubs.
In all my years I cannot remember when any of the denormalised ever promoted smoking before they were 'nudged' to do so.
Don't they realize that smokers were valuable allies in smoking reduction but are now part of the people's response to the 'Big Society'.

*** @Large Merlot Please .... Surely promoting a 14 year old malt is encouraging underage drinking!!!

Bucko said...

Leg-Iron - 10,000 need to put "Smoker" in the religion field for it to be recognised as a religion.

Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, but in the great scheme of things the appearance of cabals of smokers outside pubs was a temporary inconvenient truth to be dealt with by first banning smoking outside of such establishments and then (as is currently being debated in Los Angeles) anywhere where people might gather. Give it time; irrespective of what happens with plain packaging for cigarettes, it's the smokers who may have to wrap themselves in plain packaging so as not to be outed!!

Anonymous said...

I'm just going to put in my two cents about making cigarette packages plain to deter young people (like myself) from smoking. I did not start smoking because of the packaging, I started because of the product IN the packaging. This will have no effect of smoking rates but will give government more room to intrude into the private sector.

Anonymous said...

As anon 14.45 says, a temprorary inconvenient truth. The anti tobacco industry claims the packaging is the last advert for cigarettes. What we all know is that we, the smokers: Joules Holland, Simon Cowell, Chery Cole, Wayne Rooney, Robbie Williams, Keith Richard, Carlo Ancelotti are the last and best advert - far better than a grey and gold packet with a diseased lung on one side and smoking kills on the other, so the next logical step is to ban any visible smoking. I'm confident that before that happens, mass flouting of the ban willcause it to have been amended.

Anonymous said...

should be temporary and Jools.

jredheadgirl said...

Ha! I'm available for work too:-)

timbone said...

Chris, you know it, I know it, and 99.9% of household germs know it. When they say smoker, that immediately sets a precedent for your contribution to made as difficult as possible. If 'a smoker' in a discussion manages to get a valid point across, it is because they are a front for the tobacco industry.

I always remember Bill Gibson telling me about a discussion he had on Scottish radio with Shiela Duffy of ASH Scotland. She interrupted him with, "yes but you are a smoker". Poor Ms Duffy was thrown a bit when he informaed her that actually he was not!

junican said...

I wondered how long it would be. I see that MS (from which my wife suffers) has now been blamed on smoking. See DT 25th Nov page 2. Actually, the little headline says 'exhaust toxin...', but the first sentence immediately mentions 'tobacco smoke' as a source of this toxin.

A couple of weeks ago, there was a similar small column which claimed that smoking is linked to Alzheimer's. A couple of days ago, I saw the same thing reproduced as a significant headline on an inside page.

No doubt we can expect the same thing in a few days regarding MS. I am looking out for it.

Anonymous said...

Chris,

Do you smoke? I only ask because, for some reason, I was under the impression that you were a non-smoker. Not that it makes any particular difference – other than to anti-smokers.