Smoking Terrorism

I heard of someone tonight who takes delight in  inflicting terror on the anti-smoking fascists and their acolytes. His method is simplicity itself but seemingly very effective.

When he's in an environment that is no smoking such as a pub or restaurant that is quite full of customers. He sits down at a table and either during his meal or whilst having a drink, slowly takes out a packet of cigarettes and carefully extracts a cigarette. Then placing it between his lips, he then searches for his lighter oblivious to the attention he is then receiving. By the time he has found his lighter this attention has now grown in number which increases further when he lights his lighter and brings it to his cigarette. At this point he says it's sometimes possible to hear a pin drop. He then calmly extinguishes the lighter, takes the cigarette out of his mouth and whilst putting it away, then looks up at the audience he's attracted and smiles.

When feeling particularly mischievous, he puts an e-cig in his normal cigarette packet and pretends to light and smoke it. Need l tell you of the reaction of the anti-smoking fascists who think they are about to die?

l think he's just plain wicked and evil doing this and should stop it ... when he tires of doing it! :)


  1. The sad thing is, half of the people watching aren't watching "in horror" - they're just waiting for someone else to light up so that they can, too!

  2. yeah prob so anon. now if everyone did things like this the law would be unenforceable.

  3. There are no smoking and smoking ban signs in old photos dating from the turn of the last century. Women were particularly banned from smoking in public. Things reached a point were a daring few lit up in public and smoked, where they weren't supposed to. Eventually the bans came crashing in and as a result, tobacco advertising was along the lines of those who stand up and dare to take their liberties seriously are the ones who smoke. Thus was born the ideas of "I'd rather fight that switch" or "I'd walk a mile for a Camel."

    Until someone stands up, then others, then more, the smoking bans will continue and smokers will be pay higher taxes to be abused by society in general. Turn of the last century, someone brave finally stood up to the anti-smokers, but come this turn of the century, smokers apparently don't have the same fighting spirit as they did back then. "I'd rather fight than switch" advertising slogan back then would better be stated "I'd rather run, hide, duck, cringe in fear, turn my yellow back and pay my taxes whilst keeping my mouth shut" these days, in describing smokers.


    Party @ Portcullis House. You're invited!

  5. You only just caught on to this one? I have a pipe and it is now an instrument of exquisite torture.

    Firstly, take the pipe out of your pocket, place it on the table and wait for the conversation to quieten. Now wait a little longer, then look up at you fellow drinkers/diners and search for the ones with dropped jaws or popping eyes. Smile sweetly, leave the pipe on the table and begin a conversation. As soon as conversation resumes take out your tobacco pouch and repeat above procedure... you get the idea.

  6. The same idea has occurred to me. Actually I stopped smoking a couple of years ago but I hate the thought of being lumped in with righteous converts to the ban happy anti-smoking cause. Smoke if you've got 'em, I don't care, just don't bother to offer me one because I don't smoke anymore. But somewhere around the house there should be a pack of emergency giving up fags fags serving absolutely no purpose whatsoever. If I can find them then I'd get as much enjoyment of provocatively not smoking them at people in public places as when I used to light one up. And the beauty of it is the same pack will last forever without me ever having to contribute more tax to the government (jumping on a ferry isn't really an option here - the only ferry goes to Tasmania and I think the ciggie taxes are federal anyway).


"In the eyes of the Tribunal the review letter contained several preconceptions, prejudgments and non-sequiturs"

"the absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it"

"We therefore find that Mr Sked misdirected himself as to the Policy in carrying out the review and his decision is therefore one that no reasonable review officer could have arrived at."

... commonly known here at N2D as 'Skeds' ... that is to say these are Judges comments regarding UKBA Review Officer Ian Sked's reasons for rejecting peoples appeals against seizures.

Comments are now moderated to keep out spam and those with malicious intent. The author of this blog is not liable for the content of any comments ... period!