Saturday, December 16, 2006

On their high horses

I found this article in the "Soundings" section of this weeks BMJ. Here, I reproduce it without their permission:

On their high horses

Contemporary society is preoccupied with risk reduction. Concerns about safety and security predominate in all realms of modern life, and the perception is that if people took fewer risks they would live longer, better, and cheaper lives.

People generally eat what they eat and resort to drugs because they find it pleasurable-The same applies to their sexual habits. The focus of health education is on persuading people to forgo self gratification for the sake of their physical and mental wellbeing.

But besides eating, drinking, and having sex, there are many other types of risky behaviour that people pursue because they give them pleasure and that are promoted by contemporary culture. Most sports and competitive activities entail risk taking. Indeed, the pleasure derived from the activity may be directly proportional to the inherent risk.

Recently, in writing about our hunter-gatherer ancestors, people have suggested that risk taking was adaptive and is therefore wired to pleasure in our genetic make up. Certainly the alpha male was and is a risk taker, and alpha males are thriving because of sexual selection: the female, in order to secure fitness for her offspring, prefers to breed with the "strong."

Once the strongest was the largest, the hairiest, the most cunning, the most circumspect male. Nowadays the strongest is the best informed, the most powerful, the wealthiest, the most famous. The female of the species still prefers the strongest male, for he is likely to turn her reproductive investment into success. But successful individuals are risk takers.

One wonders how society decides what kind of pleasurable risk taking is acceptable. Is there class prejudice in this? Mountaineering and horse riding are more dangerous than sitting in front of the television, eating fish and chips, and swilling beer. None of these activities is adaptive. The former pastimes are aristocratic, while the latter are perceived as proletarian.

Members of the health establishment are more likely to break their necks falling from rocks or horses than are the majority of the population, who are likely to indulge in more down to earth pleasures. Is this why the health police tend to target watching television and drinking beer rather than horse riding and mountaineering?

Imre Loefler - Former editor, Nairobi Hospital Proceedings, Kenya


Thursday, November 30, 2006



Monday, November 27, 2006

Smoking Petition

Here is a special little site where we can petition No.10 admittingly using their rules. But must be worth the effort of signing Brendan Padmore's smoking petition.

Click the No.10 logo to visit the petition.


Saturday, November 25, 2006



Friday, November 24, 2006

The Respect Tsar

For those of you unfamiliar with this person, this is Louise Casey known officially as, wait for it, "The Respect Unit Co-ordinator"(ooh, pardon me while I choke) and unofficially as the Respect Tsar. (Oh dear, what is NU-Labour's obsession with old Royalist Russia.) Anyway, this person is the "energy" behind Tony Blair's respect agenda which she drives forward with "almost messianic zeal"(do I laugh or cry?). Yes, this is the nation's number one supernanny and may God bless all who sail in her. What a stupid idea! Now have we ever been governed by such a pile of w**kers before?



Saturday, November 18, 2006

Submit Or Die You Swine!

This government is conniving at and supporting the policy by some NHS trusts not to treat smokers for any ailments at all unless the smokers either give up or submit to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).It has been pointed out already that smokers are the only people who do pay for their health care and several times over. See for instance my earlier article "Blackmail and NRT" also at this site.Such a policy means that Patricia Hewitt and the government are guilty of the following crimes:1) THEFT. They are stealing what is rightfully ours and for which we have paid in order to spend elsewhere and shore up their mismanagement of the NHS.2) FRAUD. They say we are entitled to health care like everyone else when plainly we are not. So they are trying to deceive us.3) WILFUL NEGLECT AND DERILICTION OF DUTY. By refusing to give us treatment, which we have paid for and are therefore entitled to, they are engaging in wilful neglect and dereliction of duty.4) ENCOURAGING DOCTORS TO BREAK THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH. We know the government doesn't keep its promises and lies continually but by conniving at and supporting this policy they are also encouraging doctors to do the same.5) ADVOCATING THE MURDER OF SMOKERS. Strong you may say but not a bit. Think on this. Firstly, part of the definition of murder is that it is unlawful killing. Secondly, you do not have to behave actively to be a party to a murder. By deliberately withholding something it is in your power to do and which you have a public duty to perform, if that is your conduct and someone dies as a result, and you know they will die, then you are guilty of murder. Consider now all the furore surrounding euthanasia. One of the ways to ensure a chronically ill patient dies is to withhold treatment. There is, however, where euthanasia is concerned, the factor of choice. In other words a key issue is: "should someone have the right to CHOOSE to die?" Where smokers are concerned such choice is not permitted and the policy boils down to: "either give up or use NRT or we will allow you to die". Blad Tolstoy.


Thursday, November 09, 2006

Parrot Squawking

It must be a necessary qualification to behave like a parrot to become a Chief Medical Officer or Surgeon General!

Thanks for the cartoon Blad.


Repace 3 - The Retribution

The only communication I'll ever need to have with Mr Repace!

Does anyone know whether I would be breaking the law wearing this shirt in the UK? I bought it in America.


Mind the mêlée of morons

Big Babies: Or - Why Can't We Just Grow Up?
by Michael Bywater (published by Granta)

Blad here. I have purchased this book Big Babies: Or - Why Can't We Just Grow Up? by Michael Bywater and I started reading it straight away. It's an extremely well written catchy read and I can recommend it, so if you can't afford to buy a copy, borrow one and devour it for I don't think you'll regret it. Anyway to cut a long story short I am reproducing below the review as written in the Daily Telegraph by Alexander Waugh on November 4th. Waugh welcomes the rallying cry of this manifesto against infantile submission to dubious authority. Here are his comments:-

'In the short walk between his aeroplane and reaching the outside world at Heathrow, Michael Bywater encountered no fewer than 93 separate notices telling him off for things he hadn't done or which hadn't even occurred to him to do. At Paddington Station he was particularly infuriated by a sign that read:

"Please be ready to move away with your luggage when you reach the top of the escalator," because, he argues "it implies that otherwise you wouldn't be ready to move away with your luggage but, instead, would stand there like a moron with other morons piling up against you so that eventually something has to give and you tumble back down the escalator in a mêlée of morons and get sucked into the mechanism and ground into a hamburger...or, if not, why the need of the notice?"

Once on board his train at Paddington, Bywater found another 25 notices to infuriate and depress him. These ranged from a complicated safety warning "with pictograms designed presumably for those who cannot read the accompanying text, but which are entirely meaningless unless you can read the accompanying text," to exhortations of "Shhhhhh: quiet zone," a company mission statement - "transforming travel" ("although from what and into what is never revealed") and another pictogram on the litter bin showing "what appeared to be a miniature T-shirt flying upwards from a woman's hand."

Being bossed and patronised are two sensations that most sophisticated adults would sooner do without and yet we are bossed and patronised, by the media, by politicians, by business, by advertising agencies and the public services, more now than at any other time in our history. Why should this be? Well, according to this sharp, very funny and slightly disturbing new thesis, we have ourselves to blame. By "we" one does not of course refer to Michael Bywater but to that large and dismal mass of our adult population that is psychopathically inert - to people who, according to Bywater, are "consumers without discrimination;" to people who "believe or reject what they are told, not by the application of reason, but according to whim;" people who "are torn, always, between a tense but vaporous individualism and a sheepish yearning to belong;" people who are "ill at ease with ambiguity or complexity and, by some brute instinct, loathe those who aren't in the same boat." He means all those maddening British twazzocks who live in the proud delusion of being free and autonomous, yet who, at the same time are "submitting, inch by inch, to a busybody tyranny that controls, restricts, surveys and admonishes."

It is hard to know which group should be more despised: that which bosses and patronises with its impudent warnings of that which feebly acquiesces. But one thing is certain: neither is likely to read Big Babies, for it is far too intelligent, witty and original to appeal to any of these infantile minds. So poor old Bywater's sermon, despite the almighty swing of its conviction and charisma, is likely to be preached only at the converted.

In his final pages, the author offers a solution of sorts - a short list of ways in which to avoid becoming a "Big Baby" oneself. His advice includes not to fuss about food and religion, to ignore fashion and celebrities, to be suspicious of administration, to cultivate the art of communal eating etc, etc, but the lively and intelligent minds who are going to read this book are the very people who already know this. We need something more if Bywater's important message is ever to lodge itself into thicker skulls and effect a change. But what?

A little direct action perhaps? Now, at least. we have a rallying point. Bywater must be our leader. Big Babies our bible. My family's services are offered in any capacity. Now, let's get out there, take up our sticks and cudgels, put on hobnail boots and start kicking in a few of Nanny's pretty little pictograms...'

Alexander Waugh


Repace 2 - The Reward

We are delighted to announce the award of the Alfred E Neuman Prize for Literature to James Repace for his book Tornado Winds.

Read enthralled as Repace, a master of the science fiction genre, twists and contorts the laws of physics and chemistry to create the illusion that a small amount of tobacco smoke in the atmosphere is a deadly toxic substance removable only by tornado force winds. Repace provides the perfect horror story scenario for a blasé paranoid society hungry for sensationalism and shock. A must for your bookshelf!

Warning: this book is not for the gullible or children aged below 24 and carries an "R" rating.

Bladimir Tolstoi (Literary Critic for Hipster Magazine)


Saturday, November 04, 2006

Is Smoking a Choice or an Addiction?

Just thought I'd wax lyrical about whether smoking tobacco is a choice or an addiction. I think it is both in different amounts in different people. In no small measure dependent on some genetic material. However, I refute the widely held belief that nicotine addiction is as rife a problem as we are led to believe. Primarily it only matters if you choose to stop smoking and even then its importance is over stated.

Tobacco use becomes a choice because it exists. Put another way a legal choice because it is legal (different but similar statement). If it was illegal it would be a different choice dependent on the same and some additional genes, which influence our tendency towards illegal behaviour.
No doubt the tendancy towards liking smoke or smokers has some genetic basis as well as indeed being an anti-smoking lobbyist must have some flawed genetic trait. Also the likelihood of being harmed by tobacco has some genetic basis whereas the likelihood of being harmed by passive smoke has no genetic basis other than the genes governing gullibility and unfavourable personality traits.

It would appear that something within those prone to depression and other forms of mental illness are more likely to chose to smoke..genes again. This is rewarded by the relief of the symptoms of mental illness, particularly anxiety. Arguably it becomes less of a choice in these individuals. So the choice angle is complicated enough and not easy to simplify for the case of legal arguments.

It would apear that a substance in tobacco can produce a state of craving that substance..Nicotine. So smoking is labelled as addictive. The habit of putting something in one's mouth is thought to have some psychological addiction. I would rather explain this simply by habitual behaviour.

Addiction perse is not a problem unless the addict wishes or must stop the habit so can only be used as a relevancy in those people. Morphine, which I prescribe on a very regular basis, is said not to be addictive when used to treat pain. The proof for that is easily available. It does however cause withdrawal symptoms in these people when the drug is no longer necessary. Withdrawal symptoms are a physical reaction by the body to the absence of the substance and occur in addicts but are not synonymous with addiction.

So nicotine withdrawal causes cravings and withdrawal symptoms but that does not mean the individual is addicted to nicotine.

Addiction is usually diagnosed on the presence of addictive behaviour and it is diffficult to apply this thinking to tobacco users in my opinion. Perhaps when it is illegal to smoke it will be easier as addictive behaviour will be easier to recognise. Going on the game to fund your tobacco habit for example.

Smoking for me is a choice and I do it because I enjoy it. I don't see myself as addicted to it because it isn't a problem to me. I do so in full knowledge of its potential to harm me and not to harm others.

Oh and by the way, I have just read something in New Scientist. This is only tenuously connected but worthy of note...

Professor of Medicine of the University of California, Drummond Rennie has coined the term "Astroturf" rather than "Grassroots" to describe organistions that practice the business of "Disguising an orchestrated campaign as a spontaneous upwelling of public opinion".
This term fits well with ASH. Is "Astroturfing" an illegal activity?


Repace 1 - The Revelation

Read this wonderful email to and fro between Bob Feal-Martinez, Leader of Freedom to Choose and James Repace, self-styled passive smoking "consultant".

The main difference being that Bob does it for truth and Repace does it for money. Perhaps that explains Repaces shortage of vocabulary..he wasn't getting anything out of it!

It is a sad indictment of Repace's fraud that he can't even be bothered to argue his position with a credible opponent who even makes it clear he will disclose the correspondence!

I look forward to ROUND 2, way to go Bob!

Here's a little collaboration from Blad. This is how he see's Mr Repace's vocabulary!!


Sunday, October 29, 2006

Blackmail and NRT

Smokers will be denied life-changing operations unless they agree to kick the habit, The Daily Mail revealed on October 23rd.

According to The Mail, cash-strapped hospitals say patients will not be given treatments such as hip and knee replacements until they try to give up. Those who fail could be denied treatment all together.

Managers in Norfolk and Newcastle, where trusts are millions of pounds in debt, say smokers are at a greater risk of complications and the move will help save them money on further care. But critics accused them of putting its finances before the health of its patients - and warned it could lead to surgeons being "browbeaten" into breaking the Hippocratic Oath.

The move will hit patients of Norfolk Primary Care Trust which is £50 million in the red and provides healthcare to the residents of Norwich and surrounding towns and villages. Newcastle-Under-Lyme PCT in north Staffordshire, which is £1.4 million in debt, has taken a similar decision.

So what are we to make of this story?

I am not a Communist but I do believe that there is something useful in Lenin¹s advice which is that if people don't understand something one should explain to them patiently time and time again.

Do smokers cost the NHS more? Well, the government revealed this year that whilst smokers are 'estimated' to cost the NHS £1.7 billion a year, they nevertheless pay in direct taxes on tobacco products the sum of £8 billion a year. That means that each smoker pays for his or her health care costs 4.7 times over which means they are already paying for other people's health care too.

Add to that £8 billion in direct taxes the yearly taxes levied on the profits of the tobacco companies and, at a conservative estimate, that £8 billion easily doubles. So let's say in continuing conservative terms that smokers contribute, through their habit, £16 billion to the economy. That means in health care terms they pay for themselves 9.4 times over. That's a very generous deal from the smokers and imagine what would happen if that £16 billion disappeared. There would be a very large hole in the finances of the treasury which would have to be made up by additional taxes being levied on the whole population.

Under the circumstances, the hospitals who want to deny patients treatments if they smoke should not be doing so for smokers are the only people who DO pay their way in health care costs.

This hypocrisy is scandalous and reflects the fact that these unscrupulous managers want an easy target or scapegoat to justify their actions which are not only unfair but wicked. One should have no hesitation, in fact, in designating them to be scoundrels jumping on the bandwagon of what they perceive to be a fashionable trend with easy victims.

But wait, we cannot leave the story there for what we are also seeing is an attempt to blackmail smokers into giving up a legal product and against their will in many cases. Why? Well, we notice that workers are to be given nicotine patches (NRT) instead of cigarette breaks and, by the same token, we also know that similar schemes offering NRT to patients are now commonplace in the NHS. How convenient, for if the government wants to stop people smoking it¹s going to have to make up the loss of revenue somewhere and what better way than by persuading people to use and then buy NRT? NRT is now a multibillion dollar industry.

At this point it is important to say that it is high time that the relationships between NRT vendors and the government and the NHS were fully explored. We must ask who is getting the perks and kickbacks from promoting NRT?

Why? Well for one reason it's not ethical to get people addicted to NRT patches and as time goes on we hear of this happening more and more and for some people there are very unpleasant resulting effects. Nor is it right to persuade people to buy or partake of products whose efficacy is highly dubious. Remember, the basis on which these patches are sold is that whilst it is the nicotine in cigarettes that causes one to become addicted to them, it is the nicotine in patches that takes that addiction away. This is self-contradictory mumbo-jumbo.

Next, someone taking the trouble to sift through the website of The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will discover that even they admit NRT to have a success rate of only between 3% and 6% and that only after tracking people¹s progress for one year. Similar American websites list an overall 7% success rate over a six month period. Subsequently, it is not unreasonable to conclude from one¹s own experiences and those of acquaintances who have used these products that the longer the period monitored the lower the success rate. Might it then be sensible to suggest that the NHS saves some money by not wasting it on NRT, unless of course much of this product is supplied free by the vendors in the hope of generating an even larger future market.

Finally, what we are currently witnessing is a government that has failed to manage the NHS effectively and there are many areas in which this writer can see how cuts can be made within the existing framework in order to save money. To begin with there are far too many health quangos which do not seem to performing any useful function other than lining the pockets of their employees. Then, there are the silly health schemes on offer like personal health trainers/consultants as opposed to what we really need such as more nurses and useful hospital staff such as cleaners and porters. Add to that the costs of obsessive 'heath and safetyism', the excess of well salaried managers and bureaucrats and we start to tally up some considerable savings.

Blad Tolstoy.


Sunday, October 22, 2006

Topical Pub Sign



From the government that brought us hypocritical buzzwords like "respect" and childish slogans such as "Cool Britannia" smokers have had to put up with pre-pubescent NHS insults which state that "smokers stink" (nah-nan-na-nan-nah) and that "smokers are impotent".

Here are two examples of the latter infantile waggishness:

Contemplating these works of art, one wonders how much further this government is prepared to go in supporting corrupt medical non-science in its desire to add to Tony Blair's crumbling legacy. To begin with, if there is a risk of smokers becoming impotent as a result of their habit that risk cannot be very great as can be proved by the fact that during World War II an estimated 85% of military personnel smoked and an estimated 65% of the rest of the population, yet despite this, following that war there was a baby boom. In addition, subsequent heavy smoking generations produced millions of offspring.

These facts, however, are of no importance to the anti-smoker crusaders or to a government intent on cynically shoring up its popularity at any price, even if that means telling us more lies. We should also like to point out to Tony Blair that this nonsense hardly constitutes showing people respect either and if he wants respect from the smoking population he will have to learn to show it himself. No respectee, no votee!

We have become tired of being insulted, lied about and bullied so we have started producing our own responses but these responses are accurate. So perhaps our viewers would like to enjoy this new anti Labour NHS poster which reveals the truth. Whilst Nu-Labour tries to vilify smokers this belies the fact that its real concern is with its own impotence.

Finally, along with the mendacious anti-smoker movement, whenever criticism is received concerning the Lysenkoism utilised to promote smoker bans, the government's response is to directly or indirectly permit the issuing of yet more far fetched claims regarding the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke. This is ham fisted ineptitude for, increasingly, more and more smokers, libertarians and pro-choice activists are becoming aware of the truth concerning the great second hand smoke scam by learning the science and digging beneath the surface to the corruption that ultimately sustains the anti smoker crusade. Yes indeed, there will be a reckoning and for these creatures of dishonesty and hatred it is later than they think!

Blad Tolstoy


Nitric Oxide Gene

Forces front page reports on a pivotal scientific discovery which has been ignored by the anti-tobacco lobby and the medical press. The significance of the discovery of a gene which smoking appears to down regulate cannot be overestimated. The gene is involved in the production of nitric oxide.

The effect of smoking on the gene could explain the known reduced incidence of Parkinson's Disease in smokers. The understanding of neurological degenerative diseases and their prevention and treatment could be majorly advanced if this area of research was afforded the priority it deserves.

However Parkinsons Disease like arthritis is a poor relative when it comes to the Public Health Brigade and the Charities. It is a crippling and personally disastrous condition. The is no hidden agenda to produce massive funding. So in effect such ground breaking and potentially life enhancing work will be held back because it is a benefit of smoking.

As the Nanny State clearly is in the advanced stages of Dementia perhaps its time it paid a little more heed to more responsible funding of science and less attention to the powerful anti-smoking cult. It may then be able to think more clearly and remember we live in a free democratic society.


Friday, October 20, 2006

Lord Harris of Highcross (1924-2006)

"The evidence against the dangers of passive smoking remains in my view unequivocal. The imposition of a ban on smoking in so-called public places represents a triumph of prejudice and propaganda masquerading as science. It has no place in a free and tolerant society and must in the long run risk bringing science itself into further dispute." Lord Harris of Highcross, Chairman of Forest 1987-2006.


Sunday, October 15, 2006

Posted by Blad


Call to War

Dr Peter Stuyvesant, 74, honary shadow propaganda minister for the Doctor's Against Bad Science party has used very strong language in his appeal to ASH and other anti-tobacco morons to desist being slightly undesireable members of society. You have to say he presents a very powerful argument.


Tuesday, October 10, 2006


The Trouble with Medical Journals

Dr Richard Smith has written a book. He was the editor of the BMJ for 13 years and as such his opinions should be noted. He may have an axe to grind or he may simply be revealing his inside experience and learned views on the matter. He is absolutely right though and I know. The quality of the published research in many journals is transparently poor. Many articles incompletely outlining the methods used to reach their conclusions. This particularly applies to the description of statistical methods which have become increasingly ellaborate and confusing.

It has already been suggested that abstracts of articles make claims that are not supported by the results and ignore findings that go against the authors' or funders' agenda!

Three cheers to Dr Smith and a definite book for our shelves!
Link in the title of this article to Amazon for everyone to find out more and purchase.
Follow this link to go to a good article about the book: Life Style Extra.


E-Mails From An Irish Journalist

We have great pleasure in reproducing these e-mails from Irish journalist, researcher, friend and fellow pro-choice activist John Mallon. John wrote to The Central Statistics Office of the Irish Republic in order to discover what actual statistics were actually available on deaths from smoking related illnesses. What did he discover? Read on.

E-Mail 1


Having read yet again the statistic from the Office of Tobacco Control that 7,000 a year die in Ireland from "smoking related illness", I decided to query the "Central Statistics Office" here and get the actual figures. These are my questions with their response underneath. It is informative indeed when pro ban politicians throw around scary stats, to know that there is no formal foundation for them. What the answers from here tell us is that there is NO PROOF in Ireland that anyone has ever died from smoking, much less ETS. It might be worth looking at the stats in your own areas:

(Next, we see the questions posed by John and the answers he received.)

I am researching figures and statistics for a project around smoking in Ireland (only). What I am seeking is accurate mortality figures for smokers. Your data suggests that you collect "cause of death" among other things. It would help me greatly if you could let me know:

Q1. Is smoking ever listed as a cause of death?

A1. Smoking is frequently mentioned on death certificates. However, our data are based on recording the 'Underlying Cause of Death', according to the World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases, version 9 (ICD-9), and Smoking will never be picked as the Underlying Cause of Death. The death will be recorded as due to Lung Cancer (e.g), or whichever cause is also mentioned on the death certificate.

Q2. Is there any separate register of smokers and from it, how they died?

A2. Not that I know of.

Q3. Is there any accurate mechanism to show smoking related deaths.

A3. No, for the reasons mentioned above. We can give you data on how many people each year die from Lung Cancer, Ischaemic Heart Disease, and other causes which 'may' be linked to smoking. However we don't currently have figures on how many of these deaths were among smokers. You can find estimates of deaths due to smoking at (pages 51 and 52), a publication produced by the Statistics section of the Department of Health and Children.

Q4. Is there a listing of deaths from "environmental tobacco smoke"?

A4. Not that I know of.

Q5. The other statistic that I have been having difficulty is the percentage of our people who do smoke. I cannot remember if it was a question on the census form but, do you have any figures on this.

A5. You can find information on percentages of smokers in pages 93 and 94 of the Department of Health and Children publication linked to above. These refer to 1998.

Joseph Keating
Vital Statistics
Central Statistics Office
Skehard Road
Tel: +353 21 453 5121
Fax: +353 21 453 5555

I thank you in advance for any hard facts you can furnish,

John Mallon

E-Mail 2

When we asked John if we could use his e-mail for this blog, he replied:

Be my guest but, more importantly, I suspect if you check the same data in the U.K. I believe you will find that (shock horror), there are no figures AT ALL from independent sources that actually show a single death from smoking. And, of course, there has not been a single verified death from ETS. Smoking "contributes" to illness and death but is not solely responsible for it.

ETS is merely an irritant.


Friday, October 06, 2006

Posted by Blad


Al Gormless - Charlatan, Scoundrel, Liar, Fool!

Al Gore's latest is hard to believe"

From The Daily Trojan (Student Newspaper of the University of Southern California)

Daniel McFawn
Issue date: 10/5/06

In the world of politics, politicians say some blatantly stupid phrases. So many nonsensical sayings have been uttered that day calendars can be made every year with new quotes for all 365 days, or 366 for those leap years.

Recently, while at the United Nations on invitation from his pal Kofi Annan, former senator, vice president and self-appointed global warming warrior Al Gore added yet another phrase to that lengthy list. "Cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to global warming," said the greenhouse gas fighter.

Despite the alleged role of millions of automobiles, thousands of jet liners, industrial ocean tankers, emerging industrial economies and third-world pollution, cigarette smoking, said Gore, is enough to have the landmass of Greenland run "a real risk of splitting in two, and, if that happens, substantial parts of Manhattan, Shanghai and Bombay will disappear."

Keep in mind that this is the same Al Gore who accused the Bush White House of using "fear tactics" with the war on terror.

Following his numbing three-hour speech at the United Nations on the bane of mankind and all life on Earth, Gore answered questions about his future political ambitions and then opened boxes of his book, "An Inconvenient Truth," to sell to the U.N. audience.

What heightens the degree of the statement's absurdity, aside from its sheer ridiculousness, is the fact that Gore worked on his family's tobacco farm growing up. While running in the Democratic presidential primary in 1988, Gore said, "Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."

Furthermore, one month after Gore's sister died from lung cancer in 1984, he received a speaker's fee from an American tobacco company. The next year, he voted against three bills to increase taxes on cigarettes and tobacco and favored a bill to allow major cigarette producers to purchase discounted tobacco. He did all of this while accepting campaign contributions from major tobacco producers.

The hypocrisy does not end there. While showing his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," at the Cannes Film Festival on the French Riviera, Gore rode in his caravan of black General Motors sport utility vehicles only a couple blocks from his hotel to the festival. This is the same person who called for the end of internal combustion engines worldwide in his 1992 book, "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit."

In the state of California it is illegal to smoke in a public building or commercial venue. The smokers that the state has relocated outside are now contributing "significantly" to global warming. According to Gore's logic, it seems that California is now promoting global warming and the death and destruction that go along with it, rather than curbing it. This seems quite odd. Where do environmentally conscious smokers now go? This is very bad news for hippies.

Regardless of what kind of opinion one holds on the issue of global warming, it is quite hard to take Al Gore seriously given his hypocrisy, obscure statements and downright absurdity. This is now especially true with the addition of the global-warming-cigarette-smoking statement. He has ridden his passionate pony of global warming thinking that he is King Arthur when he is closer to Don Quixote. This new quote will undoubtedly end up on a day calendar of stupid phrases. But let's just hope that day is within the next nine years and 110 days, which is when the apocalyptical fiery wrath of global warming will commence, according, of course, to Gore himself.

Posted by Blad


Sunday, October 01, 2006

Rhodri Morgan

In the second of our Support the Welsh Against Smoker Bans series we depict Rhodri Morgan. This man, now head of the Welsh Assembly, commenced his career as a cretin, rose rapidly to the rank of buffoon and rapidly reached the pinnacle of imbecility as state socialist nanny.

Keen on smoker bans, here we have a picture of Rhodri taking his place in the Assembly in full national costume to discuss that auspicious yet laughable and lamentable document the Report of the Committee on Smoking in Public Places. What a pile of junk science and dishonest manipulations of evidence from start to finish!

Yes, in common with his Nu-Labour political masters in Downing Street, Morgan thinks it's fine to vilify and discriminate against smokers and then to ask for their votes. They really have got to be joking! Who votes for someone who insults and discriminates against them? No-one!

However, very bad news for the anti smoker lobby this week, for now up on the web is the new site organised by Dr James Enstrom entitled The Scientific Integrity Institute which is designed to encourage honest appraisals of epidemiological findings. Certainly, now we have one of the two famous men - Enstrom and Kabat - who carried out the largest study ever, wanting to put the record straight by reinforcing the fact that the findings of their study showed no relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in never smokers in California. For those interested the link is here:

Also, this article from The Telegraph is excellent too and cited by Enstrom:

Likewise this one by Michael Fumento:

Lastly, take a look at these two by Dutch writer Henry R Sturman:

This cartoon has been undertaken in response to popular request from my friends: Meirion, Pete, Sian, Meic, Gogi, Wil, Jim, Tara, Gwillt, Henry, Gwyn, Eifion J, Eifion R, Jac, Simon, Rob, Enfys, Dave, Daf, Jason, Eric, Gwynfor, Sion, Bethan, Bill and Nia and is also in sympathy for all those publicans and cafe owners who will find their businesses irreversibly damaged or destroyed by Wales' coming smoker ban. The Welsh Ass will have a lot to answer for.

Is that the Devil at Rhodri's elbow?

Blad Tolstoy.


Monday, September 25, 2006

Portrait of a Bloody Fool

You might be forgiven for not knowing who this bozo is but for your information he is Dr Brian Gibbons of the Welsh Assembly and a keen proponent of a smoker ban for Wales.

You may know that the Assembly - known for short in widening circles as 'The Ass' - intends to implement its smoker ban on April 2nd next year, the day after All Fools Day and an appropriate time for fools to implement such a ban too.

Indeed, for as the Assembly falls over itself to show it has balls (in an atrophied kind of way) by beating England to the draw over implementation of a ban, it has failed to take into account the immediate effect this will have on pubs in Wales' border counties. Clients of these pubs will immediately pop over into England to do their drinking and socialising thus causing an instant and drastic loss to income from trade.

Many of us read the Assembly's Report of the Committee on Smoking in Public Places and we know what a deeply flawed piece of nonsense it is presenting several of the usual pieces of junk science and misinformation. We also know that the Ass took the word of tobacco control organisations over that of trade bodies with regard to ban damage. Small wonder then that Gibbons and his antismokerist chums (which include Wales' head buffoon Rhodri Morgan) should fail to consider the immediate effect on border county pubs that implementing a ban before England will have.

Moreover, it may surprise some that bans should be proceeding at all when one considers the negative effects of the bans in Ireland and Scotland. The ban in Ireland is already a fiasco with 624 pubs gone, 12,500 jobs lost and smoking rates up. Likewise, with Scotland and already, losses add up to 65 pubs and 5 bingo halls closed and all this by the end of the first summer. No wonder many Scots are not looking forward to the winter.

Next, we may consider, following the Assembly's Report plus the McFadden Critique of that report, precisely what Gibbons - a doctor - knows about interpreting epidemiology given the crass literature on which the Ass based its decision. All I can say is that if Gibbons is that much of a bloody fool I'm glad he¹s not my physician. Oh...I forgot, he and his chums are on a holy crusade so they may be deliberately ignoring the truth in accord with the common practice of antismokerism. (Still glad he's not my physician.)

Many years ago, the Archdruid -WKRP George - described the Welsh as "a nation of warring nightingales." This is a delightfully picturesque description and the Welsh, by en large, may still truly be such. However, Wales' Assembly is a stable of braying donkeys.

Blad Tolstoy.

P.S. You may notice that Gibbons has yellow teeth and he isn't even a smoker.


Friday, September 22, 2006

Walkers Crisps

You will find the picture links to BHF and the title links to Walkers.

Walkers accuses BHF of "scare tactics".
We told you so!

So wot's the difference?
Food is a necessary item but fags aren't, but crisps are not essential.

So wot are the similarities?
Crisps are nice, so are fags?

R crisps addictive?
I expect I could prove that and food certainly has disorders and addictive characteristics.

I wander wot the equivalent volume of oil would be associated with the yearly intake of chocolate?

Well done to Walkers for speaking up and another black mark for the British Heart Foundation.

Who says crisps are bad for you anyway?


Wednesday, September 13, 2006

NHS smoking stinks video adjustment

Click the link above to see my first attempt at improving the stinky video!
Just for you Blad!
Happy holidays!


Sunday, September 10, 2006

You Stink!

I find this new NHS advertising campaign offensive. I also don't know how it marries with the current financial health of the service to be spending so much on income-negative propaganda when doctors and nurses are being made redundant.
How come this is acceptable language for an advert on national TV when we are tip-toeing our way through politically correct details such as Muslim patient wear in the NHS?


Wednesday, August 30, 2006


Keith having a strum...God, if that's what smoking does for your skin I giving up the passive stuff right now! At least the artists of the world are trying to get the message across. Well done Keef and Mel, keep it up! Oops I'd better send some viagra! Ha! Lol!


I am denormal

For many the term "denormalisation" is puzzling to say the least. Ask most ordinary people what it means and they won't know.

Those of us who have thought about it and do know what it means no doubt ponder to themselves why a perfectly good existing term "abnormal" could not have been used instead by being extended to form the word "abnormalise?" This we could all have worked out and known that it signified some process whereby things were taken out of the category of "normal."

An immediate problem springs up from the word denormalise when we consider the terms of self reference that someone who may have undergone the process of denormalisation would have to use.

"Are you denormal" we should have to ask him and to which he might reply: "No, I am not denormal" or alternatively, he would proclaim: "Yes, I am denormal, but I know that I am and I am ashamed/proud."

Or imagine if you discovered your girlfriend was a cannibal and so you gave her the boot. When asked: "Why did you give your girlfriend the boot?," you would reply: "Because she's denormal".

Now this is fascinating so let's conjugate it:

I am denormal
you are denormal
he, she or it is denormal
we are denormal
they are denormal

or negatively,

I am not denormal
you are not denormal
he, she or it is not denormal
we are not denormal
they are not denormal.

Linguistically and from an intuitive perspective then, this word truly sucks. It just doesn't run in the mind and is rather like a prototype skipping elephant.

The picture becomes clear, however, when we consider why all the problems couldn't have been avoided by the use of the word "abnormal" as the root of activity. If the anti smokers had spoken about "abnormalising" people the public would have become suspicious or not have liked the sound of the language. Hence the word would have been a non-starter. So, the word had to made nicer and so people were to be...denormalised. Yes, yet another example of warped and twisted minds at work and if you think this one is going to catch on for posterity well, have you ever heard of the square wheel?

Blad Tolstoy.


Wednesday, August 23, 2006

"Got to keep the peace"

A gentleman, a patient, asked me for a light. He must have seen me walking over from the smoking corale. He asked me and I obliged directly in front of the main entrance of the hospital. He was a miniature santa claus in physical appearance, a greying beard and white hair, quietly spoken and showing signs of being a dermatology customer, wearing white gloves and sporting a vivid red rash on his arms, in place of his traditional yuletide robes.

"of course I said"
"we're supposed to go over there aren't we" he replied, continuing "we'd better keep the peace"

How gentle a perspective and how admirable under the circumstances!


Friday, August 18, 2006

Interheart Study

Heres the Interheart article for your perusal.
Follow the link in the title.


Tally ho, chocks away!

It looks like Blad and I have some very serious plans for The Big Debate's judicial review to succeed. Here Blad illustrates just how we are going to help. You had better be worried anti's we're on yer tail. Bandits at 8 o'clock!!!


Thursday, August 17, 2006

Campaign for an Independent Britain

I would strongly recommend visiting the Campaign for an Independent Britain website at the link in the title or here. They are a campaign organisation with an obvious remit. They have an excellent amount of information to help you decide whether to sign their petition. I certainly have signed and have no doubt as to the wisdom of my decision.

The chairman of the CIB is Lord David Stoddart of Swindon who is an independent peer known well to The Big Debate Team and so also to me. He has had a long career as a labour MP but is very disillusioned with the present labour government. He makes his own mind up on the issues and has been a stalwart in the opposition to the smoking ban part of the "Health Bill". I have met him and he is an impressive and charismatic man who commands my respect unconditionally.

Go on, give him a visit and sign that form.


Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Whistle Blowers

A serious allegation from the Mirror. I've been suspended in the past, and I can confirm that the investigation and reinstatement process is a very lengthy one. The reason I was suspended was quite a controversial area which the medical profession are currently trying to get some more modern guidelines about. I went out with a patient and we have been very happily married for 5 years now. Her then husband complained to the trust and they said they had no option but to suspend me and that it was somehow in my best interests. I had about 6 months pay for staying at home which was certainly in my best interests!
Better be careful what I say here!!!


Monday, August 14, 2006

Bunchball Games


Electro convulsive treatment

This is an early morning posting as I shall be home late and knackered later. Today I shall start off by going to the Pysychiatric Hospital adjacent to the General Hospital, where I shall anaesthetise some people for ECT. It does really work, I see it every week. The people we treat are in a very bad way indeed, not drinking, basically given up and they get better.
Some debate recently in the Basingstoke Gazetteand Hospital Doctor and BMA news Review about smoking bans and nuthouses. Ban expected soon at my psychiatric hospital and I shall have to walk almost to the other hospital. There will be a road between the hospitals where I can smoke.
Anyway psychiatric patients are to have some exclusions especially if the are not voluntary patients. One thing that I found amusing was that another exception will be "those not capable of making informed consent to enter a quiting program". It strikes me they are saying that all smokers are mentally ill if they dont' consent!


Sunday, August 13, 2006

Posting paucity

My apologies for the lack of regular blog entries. I shall attempt to rectify. Have been busy trying to construct Smoking Cafe . Must have lots to report especially on the hospital smoking ban. I will get some pictures of how the front of hospital looks with us all standing around. Have seen some pathetic scenes of patients for example using a zimmer frame to get to a smoking allowed zone. The hospital management have delegated the organisation of the policing to a submanager who has delegated it to one of the car parking attendants. Car parking charges are up and the particular attendant (Lionel) is a right little hitler. He makes people walk to the other side of the road when they are smoking. Its laughable.


Saturday, August 05, 2006

Cult of Smoke Haters

It is with great pleasure that I pass on this delightful interpretation of our smell conscious enemies.


Smoking Cafe

You may have seen the site redesign and the wonderful logos above. Well the main change is the addition of a legislation proof virtual cafe with a Chat Bar and a Forum. I hope all of you will visit and have a relaxed or serious chat with each other and lets develope our flourishing community some more.


Ken Denson

It is with great sadness that I learnt of the death of Dr Ken Denson last week. Although I never met him I will sadly miss his infrequent emails. He was a great man who spent his time in conventional hospital haemotology but was hounded out by petty minded colleagues. Some conflict occurred between his business interests and his work. He invented a standard current method for monitoring the treatment of patients on Warfarin. The International Normalisation Ratio (INR) is still the benchmark for this area of medicine.
His business involved supplying epuipment for laboratories. After he left the NHS he founded his on institute, Thames Haemostasis and Thrombosis Foundation, and developed his interest in the epidemiology surrounding passive smoking. He died in his 80's of a cancer unrelated to his smoking. What a man! May he rest in peace. God Bless.


Saturday, July 22, 2006

Dump ol' Demon Eyes

The people who did this didn't realise at the time what they had produced as it was just designed for propaganda, but how true it has turned out to be with Blair's police state. Also visit link in title.


Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Blair's Legacy

It was with more than a little wry amusement that I read of Cherie Blair accompanying her husband to the G8 Summit in Russia. This wonderful democrat of a woman then took advantage of the situation to go and meet some Russian civil and human rights protesters.

This might seem commendable if her husband was hot on preserving civil rights and freedoms in Britain but he is not. With the approach of a smoking ban we also have our fears confirmed that Blair's government intends to install lackeys and snoops to enforce it and, furthermore, a snoops' hotline so that those of a tell-tale disposition may have an orgasm.

All of this is of course in addition to all the other elements that he has put in place to spy on and harass the great British public. Under the circumstances then, Mrs Blair's commiseration with those attempting to defend civil rights in Russia is hypocrisy of the first rank.

Moreover, we may recall too, that Blair spent some time in his youth as a cheap jack promoter and salesman - and yes, it really shows for behind the thin glassy essence of his smile there hides a petty dictator and superficial cad.

Having said that, as Blair both bores and irritates us with his swansong (and the fat lady is also waiting in the wings to sing) we have to consider what his epitaph, nay, tombstone, might read. On reflection it will probably say something like the following:

Here lies Tony Blair

Prime Minister 1997 - 2007

Otherwise known as King Rat the Snoopers' Friend

"He turned a once great and free country
into a police state"

Yes, that sounds about right.

Blad Tolstoy


Monday, July 17, 2006

Consultation launched on smoking ban guidelines

By Michelle Perrett

The government is asking the public and trade for their views

The guidelines for next summer's smoking ban in England and Wales have been unveiled by Public Health Minister Caroline Flint.

A consultation which runs until October 9, has been launched today on the guidance, which gives full details on what will be accepted as an outside smoking area.



Travel Lodge - Pets & Smokers

I think this may be of some interest and help to your members.

It may not {yet} be a huge problem in England, but this is a real headache for we Scots - below is a copy of an email I've sent to both FOREST and Travel Lodge: no reply from either as yet, but I'm sure it's a dilemna being faced by millions of people across the UK.

Dear Sir/Madam;

For your interest, and to perhaps save your members the same kind of frustrations which I've just experienced, I would highly commend the Travel Lodge group, who have hotels throughout the UK, and rooms from as little as £15 per night. And yes, that's per room - not per person!

When I recently tried to plan a trip from Scotland to London, I'd hoped to break the 10 hour car journey by stopping overnight somewhere in, or near, the Lake District.

Problem: Both myself and my wife are smokers, and we have two labradors. Two weeks of internet searches later, I still hadn't found a single hotel or B&B which would accommodate both smokers and pets.

Time after time, I encountered sites which proclaimed "Smokers welcome. One well-behaved pet allowed", or alternatively {and much more commonly}: "Up to three well-behaved pets welcome. Smoking strictly prohibited throughout the premises. Smokers may use the car park".

I was on the point of abandoning our trip completely - having searched for hotels and B&B's anywhere within 15 miles of the M6 between Carlisle and Morecambe, when I came across the Travel Lodge website.

Although the standard room rate {sleeping up to 4 people} is £47 per night, 'SuperSaver' rooms are available for only £15 if you can book at least 21 days in advance. Even if this isn't possible, many hotels offer 'Saver' rooms for as little as £26 - still a massive saving over standard B&B rates of at least £27 to £40 per person, per night.

Granted, breakfast isn't included at these prices; however most places have adjacent 'Little Chef' type facilities, and many do offer dining facilities for an additional charge.

My only complaint is that Travel Lodge impose a fee of £10 per pet per night, which I think is a bit excessive; however having said that, a total cost of £35 per night for two adults and two dogs - in a room where you can have a coffee and a cigarette - is more than acceptable: it's positively unique!

Hats off to Travel Lodge then: without them our trip south to visit our daughter simply wouldn't be happening, and pending government-imposed legislation which will make it impossible for them to continue to offer these facilities to travellers, there is no question whatsoever that they will benefit significantly.

With over 13 million smokers in a national population of less than 60 million {at least 30 million of whom are either under 18, over 75, registered as being severely blind or disabled, or don't actually mind smoking}, it goes without saying that places which fail to cater for both smokers and pet owners will be the first to see a downturn in trade.

Hope this information is of help, and lastly I should add that I have no association whatsoever with the Travel Lodge group, other than as a very satisfied customer.


John Hughes.


Sunday, July 16, 2006

Business Online and Angela Merkel

Sir ­ Angela Merkel has now shown her anti-smoking credentials (³Germans fire up smoking row², 25/26 June) In doing so, the German Chancellor proves she is no more intelligent and no less gullible than all politicians who have already flirted with assaults on the smoking minority of their electorate. I don¹t suppose Merkel has much opportunity or inclination to read the scientific press or properly educate herself by making thorough research into the subject. If she did she would find the scientific organisations sadly lacking in any quality of accuracy having been taken over by the World Health Organisation (WHO) agenda to improve public health by demonising smokers.

The role of the pharmaceutical industry is only too plain to see. It has the most to gain and is rolling in the profits from smoking cessation aids. These drugs are close to useless in assisting smokers to quit and have many side-effects.

The time has come for some more original thought on the subject of smoking and public health. Passive smoking has been used as a weapon in pushing the public health argument, but it just doesn¹t stand up to scientific scrutiny. The risks to the health of smokers are very real and these risks are added to with the marginalisation they are now experiencing. Apart from it being the honest route for informing public policy, it must make more sense to use real arguments rather than junk science.

The record of effects from smoking restrictions and higher taxation on tobacco in the USA and in Ireland and now Scotland show that they are impotent, just like nicotine patches in achieving the goal of reducing smoking. Smoking is not the pariah it is made out to be and is not easy to give up. The only way to stop smoking is to make it illegal and to suffer the real effects of alternative taxation.
Dr Phil Button
Associate Specialist in Anaesthesia & Pain Relief

Sir ­ Smoking bans are the latest craze amongst politicians ­ and bigots. They are based upon what is probably the biggest scam of the last 30 years. The scam promoted is that second-hand smoke [passive smoking] is a deadly toxic substance. It is not, and such claims are founded on junk science.

You state in your article that one of the reasons why Germany has been loath to support smoking bans is because of monies from tobacco companies pumped into the country¹s political parties. So what? A great deal of the money behind smoking bans comes from major pharmaceuticals ­ namely Glaxo, Novartis and Pharmacia and Upjohn in Europe and Johnson & Johnson in America ­ all of which are front rank merchants of smoking cessation products. Glaxo, Novartis and Pharmacia and Upjohn are also the principal funders of the World Health Organisation. Aside from the fact that smoking cessation products are very expensive, and have dubious effectiveness, it is small wonder then that the WHO has failed to concentrate adequately of communicable diseases and become so obsessed with the fashionable social diseases of first world countries. After all, these are more lucrative for its pharmaceutical masters.

It is small wonder too that Angela Merkel should attempt to shore up her popularity by jumping on the latest populist bandwagon. Such bandwagons are the place of mediocre politicians. Germans should resist the smoking ban mania, for such bans are vindictive, unreasonable and unacceptable in a civilised world that believes in choice.
John Gray
Ewloe Green


Saturday, July 15, 2006

Smoking Willie


Response to Blad

Blad makes an interesting point. He suggests that anti-smokers display psychopathic tendencies and that might eventually have some deadly consequences. I find Blad's theory quite plausible and can see the anti-social qualities in ASH spokes people to whom he refers. Whereas Blad's assertions are based on a real understanding of the subject my knowledge of psychology is based on rudimentary undergraduate studies and behavioural observations. Nevertheless my observations are consistent with Blad's.

I have had personal contact with two evangelical anti-smoking individuals who were clearly displaying antisocial behaviour, whilst attempting to convert me. They disobeyed standard rules of social engagement and their behaviour was commented on by smokers and non-smokers alike as unusual. This behaviour if repeated could attract the label "Sociopathic Personality Disorder" which I believe is the more up to date term used to classify psychopathic tendencies. It is so coined, to make clear the anti-social behavioural manifestations sufferers display. A natural result of these people having power is social legislation such as is passing through parliament, where the rules of social engagement are to be changed. The rules will exclude smokers from socialising normally and make it acceptable to persecute them as they will be recognised or categorised as different. The new social category of smoker has already become a fact and the legislation will benefit those who would like to see us on the wrong side of the law. We will inevitably break the law and so become legitimate targets for hatred as common criminals.

I wander if this situation is bought about by the anti-smoker believing that the smoker is infact the sociopath. They believe this if they believe we are harming them and our children with our environmental tobacco smoke. This is an interesting observation as it means that anti-smokers are far from sociopathic, but socially responsible. However this does not fit in with the observed behaviour of the anti-smoking evangelist who breaks rules getting their message accross. In deed the anti-social behaviour being manifest is the continued attempts to misrepresent the scientific facts about environmental tobacco smoke and so influence social legislation corruptly.

I believe that the anti-smoking movement displays the characteristics of a cult leader and that it is attempting to brainwash the public to become cult members. Many have succumbed and joined the movement. They should not be blamed as they are vulnerable and it is up to the strong to rescue them from the clutches of the cult. I believe cult leaders of the past have been demonstrated to have various psychiatric disorders. These are primarily personality disorders and probably sociopathic. Having said this the diagnosis of personality disorder exists only to explain abnormal behaviour.


Tuesday, July 11, 2006

The extreme to which the anti-smoker movement may be prepared to go

We all know about the book advertised on ASH's American counterpart's website (ASH US) which tells the story of someone deliberately poisoning cigarettes (this has happened at least twice in the UK and the actions are considered to have been influenced by this book).

We likewise know of ASH US's proposals (now followed) to prevent smokers from being hired by employers and to have children removed from their custody even if they are the natural parents on the basis of child abuse. All of this facilitated, of course, by hate politics and exaggerated claims about environmental tobacco smoke.

It has also been remarked quite clearly and on numerous occasions by numerous people that ASH US's ultimate goal is to criminalise smokers (now happening). It is also a fact that ASH UK always eventually follows the example of their American counterparts if albeit a few years later. We should not be surprised then if ASH UK follow suit on this one too.

However, I contend that not only has much of the anti-smoker lobby completely lost a sense of honesty, perspective and rational thinking but that some of its major players are exhibiting psychopathic behaviour.

Classic attributes of psychopathic behaviour are no sense of morality or social structure and also power complexes and the drive to commit violence. In addition, the psychopath shows no obvious signs of mental illness or abnormality. Many of you should be able to fit some of these criteria to certain major players in the US anti-smoker lobby (and maybe some in the UK too).

If we now also consider Surgeon General Carmona's report, this is geared to stir up even greater hatred towards smokers based on fear. So much so, I also contend, that the final "logical step" of the anti-smoker lobby will not simply be to criminalise smokers but to advocate that they be killed. ("Murdered" might not be the appropriate term as part of the definition of murder is that it is unlawful killing.)

This will be the final move - from psychopathy to homicidal psychopathy.

Whether or not SG Carmona is aware of this (in which case he's truly evil) or whether he's just stupid I don't know but ASH US are already advocating this vicariously through the book advert. I now think that is only a matter of time, give it a couple of years or so of more lunatic and irresponsible hype, before ASH US and others openly advocate or openly support the killing of smokers based on the "kill the bastards before they kill you" principle.

If you think I'm crazy then start to check out psychopathic personalities and disorders.

If we reach the point I have outlined, and it will probably happen in America first, then people will have only two real choices. To go along with it or oppose it. I can't see any third alternative.

It¹s truly grim and sick whichever way one looks at it.

Blad Tolstoy.


Saturday, July 08, 2006

German Smoking Airline Planned

Lovely little news story seemingly not reported very much. Although in fairness I heard it on News 24's "Fast Track" program this morning. There's more in the BBC link in the title of this post. It looks like a rich man is making a point and we will all have to travel to Tokyo at great expense to enjoy the facilities. However an encouraging development and a blow for freedom.


ASH Supershit

By Blad


Thursday, July 06, 2006

My new image

Courtesy of resident artist and philosopher Blad Tolstoy:


Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Killer Asthma

The Sun has even pointed out Viscount Simon's severe health problem.

"Their Lordships are due to give the final seal of approval tomorrow to the most draconian ant-smoking laws in any major country. But the deceit and bogus evidence of stub-'em-out fanatics have nothing on Viscount Simon. He told peers that if he is driving on a motorway, with his windows closed and ventilation shut off, and is passed by a driver smoking a cigar "I will have an asthma attack" and need to use his inhaler as well as "numerous other things." If his windows are open "it is likely that I will have to stop and that the paramedics will have to come very quickly as I will be very ill." Clearly the Viscount needs more than paramedics to clear up this problem."

I wish the Viscount well and good luck in his search for the correct diagnosis.


Friday, June 30, 2006

Smoking and Identity Survey

Received this communication via Belinda from Anna Rabinovich a Research Student at The Exeter University Psychology Department:

"I was wondering whether I could ask for your help once again. We are doing another survey now that aims to clarify and support the findings from the first one regarding smokers' reactions on smoking bans. I would like to ask you to put the link up once again. However, ideally we want people who did not take part in our first survey participate in this one. Do you think it would be possible to add something saying "please fill this in if you didn't take part in Smoking and Identity survey" to the link?"

All pay a visit and participate is my view! Hit the title to link to the survey.



FORCES have published an excellent 2 page document, which it is our duty to circulate to the world. Please visit their site and follow their instructions.

Then read on below as Professor Blad Tolstoy has some very interesting philosophical thoughts to impart...


Freud, Antismokers and the Removal of Children

Having been a perceptive psychologist there are times in this day and age of drier analysis when Freud still remains useful.

With regard to the antismoker movement Freud enables us to gain some invaluable insights into the condition of a group of people who for the most part are suffering from a profound neurosis if not a psychosis.

The reaction of the fervent antismoker to the smoker is one that Freud would have described as being typically neurotic, in that, confronted by the smoker, the antismoker will no longer consider or contemplate that person as a human being with many facets and a personality but simply as something vile to be avoided or eliminated without further regard.

Key to the personality of the antismoker is the reaction to the phallic symbolism imparted by a cigarette. Cigarette smoking, in addition to its erotic connotations, represents a supremely adult activity, namely, the ability and willingness to take a calculated personal risk for the sake of pleasure, life enhancement or reinforcement of the libido. Therefore, in vain will the antismokers manage to destroy the sexual connotations and allure connected with smoking, for these occur naturally and were not initially the product of the film industry although the latter probably highlighted these attributes and made them unambiguous in the mind of the public.

In terms of personality, many fervent antismokers come across as being repressed or essentially prissy and hence give the impression of lacking something. Freud would probably have considered them to suffer from a castration complex and thus, when confronted by the cigarette's phallic and pleasurable significance, their angst is stimulated twice over: firstly by the strong phallic aspect of the cigarette and secondly, by their sense of personal inadequacy when confronted by immediate personal risk.

The fervent antismoker has more bad news in store for if we look at the evidence Freud would have unquestionably dubbed them as also being "anally retentive".

Let us consider then the manner in which despite the frequent criticisms of and the real holes to be found in the arguments and evidence that purports to show that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), in the quantities in which we normally experience it, is a deadly toxic substance, the antismoker movement just cannot let this idea go and subsequently can never enjoy the pleasure of relief and creativity.

Instead, this movement simply repeats time and time again the same flawed arguments and studies rather like a constipated person who, unable to obtain the necessary toiletry relief, nevertheless insists in pushing and pushing in the erroneous belief that he or she will produce a "genuine" faecal pellet. This breeds an intense frustration and stymies the eventual development of new and free flowing ideas.

The resulting frustration generates an even greater hate of the substance that the antismoker is fixated with.

The attack on tobacco smoke - both primary and secondary - should be seen as an obvious one. The antismoker hates and fears the phallic and risk taking significance of the cigarette and smoking and, by inevitable natural extension, those who use them. Therefore, not satisfied with the fact that smokers may pay painfully for their pleasure and satisfaction, the antismoker is driven to declare that the projected "offspring" of the cigarette - the secondary smoke - is a vile and dangerous offspring. By so doing the antismoker is able to diminish the potency of the phallus.

If you think I am joking I am not and now the picture becomes truly interesting.

Let us then consider that emphasis that has been placed by the antismokers on the diminution of potency and fertility caused by smoking. We know that after a period of very heavy smoking during the Second World War there was a baby boom. In addition, subsequent heavy smoking generations produced millions of children. Under the circumstances, if there is the risk of infertility caused by smoking it cannot be a very great one any more than can be the risk to the children of parents who smoke for we search in vain for all the damaged and dead babies and toddlers. Moreover, if we used irresponsible causal reasoning, as does the antismoker movement, then tobacco is a blessing for it has assisted us to be fertile. Consider the huge increases in population that took place in Europe since Sir Walter Raleigh first brought tobacco back from America.

Things become sinister however, when we further examine the current trend of the antismoker movement to advocate the removal of children from parents who smoke on the grounds that those parents are child abusers.

Such removal, to the anti mind, indicates the perfect proof of their position.: "see, we have taken your children away so you have no children for everyone knows that smokers are impotent and infertile."

By the same token, they can point to the couple who don't smoke and who, subsequently, are permitted to keep their children and say: "see these are fertile because they do not smoke".

This is probably the pinnacle of satisfaction for the anally retentive antismokers for it enables them to reorder the world in line with their dreams: it is like the constipated person who manufactures turds out of papier maché and who then asserts: "you see, I am not unnatural for I too am a creator!"

Such thinking would seem to go hand in glove with the idea that the antismoking movement can also play God for the inadequate always have great dreams. Furthermore, it has already been well noted that as time has gone by and the criticism of the antismoker penchant for exaggerating small levels of risk has become louder, they should make the ultimate claim that there are no safe levels of ETS.

This now elevates their claim to the status of a law of nature and formally presented the proposition has the nature of: For all A then B.

Whereas one may see how such a propositional format may be suited to the fact that all metals are good thermal conductors, where ETS is concerned it is difficult to see how such a tenet could hold as the elements contained in tobacco smoke are not unique to it but shared by many other substances. Hence, I contend confidently that if this claim were subjected to rigorous and honest hard-nosed scrutiny by physicists and chemists it would not pass muster as a newly discovered law of nature. Rather it is the case that what we have here is the supreme conceit of a strangely twisted movement that thinks it can play God - a role for which is creatively unsuited and at which it is failing miserably.

Blad Tolstoy.


Thursday, June 22, 2006

Action Group

I think we need a Smoker's Action Group as well as our blog and yahoo now. I think the time is right. We need an administrator, a PO Box address and donations of about £200 from each committed member. If we could get about 100 members that would be about enough to make a start and pay the administrator. The we can MARCH!


Sunday, June 18, 2006


It was my birthday on the 15th June and BLAD sent me this delightful card. My word someone's full of venom! Nice one BLAD!


Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Letter To The Daily Mirror

Dear Sir

I have only just read your paper of 7th June 2006 as I am abroad on vacation. I could not let your Voice snippet on the House of Lords and smoking bans go unchallenged. The House of Lords is effectively using its moderating role to attempt to change a complete injustice and I say three cheers and long may the Lords continue. It is a shame that there lordships have worked so hard on this issue and may still not have much influence. I am specifically aware of the dedication of some of the noble lords involved to their country and to their citizens. It is the first time I have seen my representatives doing just that for me. My constituent MP refused to represent me on this matter.

The Mirror must really try and get it's facts right when making such blatant, stark and sweeping assertions. In fact it might be better if ignorami did not comment on that which they know zilch about. It's fine for the Mirror to have an anti-smoking position but a different matter to peddle outright untruths whether they are supported by corrupted organisations such as ASH or indeed "campaigners" who should know better. The Mirror should be starting from a point of view of accurate reporting of fact not on being an organ for a single issue propaganda group.

There is no such repeatable idea that 600 hospitality workers die of passive smoking. That widely spread piece of crap is wholly inaccurate because there is no supportable evidence that passive smoking does any significant even measurable harm.

Banning smoking in public places like pictures on fag packets will have no effect on the health of the nation as smokers who wish to continue to smoke will do so whatever. The only effect will be to further denormalise smoking and demonise smokers. These are the spoken and written aims of the anti-smoking groups and that cannot be a healthy way to treat people. This will produce as it has already done a group of 13 million people in the UK who are alienated and trodden over. That could quite reasonably lead to civil unrest and a great deal of depression and suicide. Wake up and smell the plumes of smoke rising from smokers. We will not keep quiet for much longer.

The government may well firmly believe that there is evidence for clear health risks from second hand tobacco smoke exposure when they have quite clearly been deliberately misled or are completely naive. Then why if so clear about the risk do they not make tobacco illegal. That would be the only correct way to proceed if the risk was as bad as ASH and the Daily Mirror believe. I will tell you why. The government will not do it as it would be political suicide to loose 13 million voters and because the country's economy would require a replacement for the billions in tax that are robbed from smokers for enjoying a perfectly reasonable pastime. This would most seriously effect the NHS, which I am proud to work for and support doubly over any non-smoker with my extra taxes. I also know that by smoking I am not causing any extra cost to the country especially as it may cause my early death and so cost the country less in health care.

I know that the Mirror's traditional stance is to take shots at the Lords but you have got it seriously wrong on this occasion. I hope this does your circulation appropriate harm.

Yours charmed as always...


Friday, June 09, 2006

Roy Castle & The Lottery

Hi friends, from sunny orange flavoured Florida, USA.
I am fully internet enabled over my O2 GPRS phone line after some teething problems all sorted out by O2 Data Support. I sit in the sun on my laptop and blog to the world! Must watch the bill!

I had to post this cos I'm sadly annoyed and I want you to know!
I was jotting down the lottery numbers the other day as Eamon Holmes entertained me on BBC1. Hoping for millionaire status to relive all my problems and the worlds. announcement was made about a lottery donation and I lost the plot. Roy Castle's Foundation thingy has been awarded a lottery grant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am hopping mad and I don't know what to do. I only suggested to Blad the other day that if we put all our various charity donations towards smoker's rights then we would be rich. It turns out I'm supporting Roy Castle's Family's misguided foray into health politics. Fuck! Sorry!

Surely time has come to redirect the money?


Friday, June 02, 2006

Did I hear right?

NSAIDS (ibuprofen and diclofenac) increase the risk of heart attack in high doses. Well that's the headline but the study is about COX 2 inhibitors, that's drugs like Vioxx to you! Ibuprofen and Diclofenac (COX 1 & 2 inhibitors) are the main competitors to the newer COX 2 drugs which offer a marginally better gastro-intestinal side-effect profile, but it seems that all the Vioxx like drugs make you 42% more likely to suffer a vascular event (heart attack, or stroke). Sorry slipped into BHF language then. I mean of course a relative risk ratio of 1.42. Beginning to sound all too similar me thinks and then it is confirmed. Apparently the Ibuprofen (Nurofen) and Diclofenac (Voltarol) not only increase your risks of gastro-intestinal bleeding but have a 20%(1.2 RR) increased risk of giving you a vascular present too, but only at high dose. A Prof of whatever also introduced as BHF type on BBC news reassures us that its not too bad really. Have to way the risks and benefits apparently, only 1-5 out of 1000 or so will get a vascular event.

These new fangled drugs never get a look in with me anyway and I got stomach ulcers on the old ones so I only give them if I'm sure I'm not going to do any harm (Hippocrates). I really really hope arthritis research will attract more attention and funding as these poisonous drugs are all we've got.

But there again what does this work actually say considering the relative risk ratios are not dissimilar to much passive smoking tripe we hear about and below the magic 2 that epidemiologists strive for to even indicate an association? Its bin on the telly and the radio all f**king day......why?


50% enclosed

I love maths, always have, I know the universe is fundamentally explainable with maths. But how about trying to work out how to define and calculate "50% ENCLOSED". I thought initially it could be that a simple approach was necessary and we would treat the subject as a number of faces. If all the faces were covered then that was 100% enclosed. But what about the floor and what if a face had a window or a permanent grill. I hope someone in the offices of power is having a go at this too.

I took a leap because I wanted it to be thorough and allow for all circumstances. I first considered the result was dependant on perspectives. Two perspectives to be clear. The first was whether the place was enclosed from the position of production of smoke or the point of passive consumption of smoke, I decided that the consumption point was the whole point of the idea. The result of adequate enclosure was to increase passive smoking. The second perspective was static or dynamic and without any 3d shadow of a doubt dynamic was the complicated answer. The "enclosure quotient" grew and was now dependant on the position of the passive inhaler in the area.

I now considered units and naturally as the influence of enclosure was on flux or rate of change of air volumes then the quotient would be a ratio of the SI unit litres. I could soon see the Button Enclosure Quotient Constant (BEQC) being delivered.


Day 3 at the Smoke Free Hospital

The grassed and wooded area at the front of the hospital has become my regular meeting place with my work colleagues. We do so as not to incur the wrath of we know not whom and out of fear of "disciplinary action". The car park attendants, my mate Lionel included, have been told they are the smoke police. I talk to everyone but one by one it seems I find out something new about these people. People I once talked to freely I now have an urge to assault and others I feel are allies. The segregation of my friends has commenced. I now have two types of friends, those who wander how I'm managing now they've closed the smoking room and those who are showing increasingly violent opinions and feelings towards the people who have done this to us. One colleague related how he had got so angry yesterday he had gone home at lunch time and phoned to tell his boss he wouldn't be coming back for the afternoon as he might hit someone.

Day 2 as a result of having to display my doctorial smoking habit in the light of day at the bus stop outside the hospital I met a strange lady. I was chatting to 4 other colleagues inhaling on similar white sticks and this extremely fat lady started talking to herself whilst looking at me. We are only 100yds away from the mental health services hospital and so it is not unusual to meet this behaviour and anyway health service staff themselves are in the habit as well. She seemed to be communicating her pleasure derived from the very thing that caused my unusual and defenceless placement and despite her rambling and disconnected style of oration I got the distinct impression she was trying to make me and my troup feel embarassment. "Excuse me but we're not actually interested" was my lame interjection which I later found out was rather approved of by my trench mates. It was at that moment that I remembered my last such exchange and simultaneously some form of personal abuse issued as if by reflex from the calorifically challenged marauder. Apparently I am smelly and undesirable. I could only think of an enormous black pot bubbling over next to a rather sleek cordless upright slimline kettle. Well forward into battle it is. Platoon! Attention!!



I have written this abbreviation every working day of my live and more importantly I have asked countless people if "they get short of breath". SOB, medical acronym for "Shortness of Breath", means something completely different to me now. I had no real idea what I was talking about but, I am now short of breath and I understand.

At 47 I now get "SOB" when I get a cold and my chest feels "tight". My lungs don't work well at the moment. I have to consider whether I should stop smoking. Naturally all my colleagues have a predicable response to my enquiry. However you know I'm not actually sure what I want to do. I now remember many patients with much worse SOB than me that still smoked. I hasten to add I have never nagged!

The symptoms are scary and unpleasant but still I reach for my cigarettes and enjoy the flavour and the mellow contemplation, which strangely facilitates the decision making process. Is it the addiction thing I hear about that makes me go on?

Just got back from pharmacy with two inhalers and course of steroids. Too embarassed to go to GP. Lets see if the treatment works and during my next fag I might come up with a new idea.


Tuesday, May 30, 2006

British Heart Foundation

Lovingly created by BLAD

our resident cartoonist.