Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Inspiring Smoking Ban Protest Poem

Today, my friend coyly admitted to me that he wrote poetry. I was impressed and after only 4 hours he came out completely. He had written a poem for his friends in the Coffee Shop. I publicly announce that Lee Jeffreys had a hidden talent that is now in the open!

Coffee Shop Magic! by Lee Jeffreys

Your daily routine can be somewhat repetitive with what you choose to do, but this can be changed with a little effort, for example who you talk to.

It's very easy to carry on and keep your old routine, but why not try the other side and see if the grass is in fact green!?

A few months back I was the same, tied to the same régime, in the coffee shop at 8 o'clock and out by 8.15.

One morning I decided to sit and watch the people who came in daily, all with a different story to tell Linda, the coffee shop lady.

Sat around I see people with the same idea as me, a doctor, his wife, a rival banker, and a gentleman called Lorie. A simple "hello & how are you?" soon turns to general chat, with one thing in common we're smokers and proud, you can be sure of that!

A spanner was thrown into the works of our newly found Clan, the government introduced it ("Bunch Of Bastards") in the form of a smoking ban! So out to the garden we all went with the elements sent to test, but one things for sure we're all still here, AS SMOKERS ALL KNOW BEST!

Doing the crossword with the good doctor and his wife as we sit there on our lunch, maybe I’m in a routine again, but who cares there a quality bunch!

Friends have been made, weddings attended and nights in London too, all this happened from a change of routine of which I chose to do!


Friday, September 21, 2007

Which Face isYours?

Beauty and the Beast


Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Scottish Smoking Ban Cures Heart Disease

Dr Michael Siegel says:

Also of interest, data obtained from ISD (Information Services Division) Scotland reveal that between 1998/1999 and 1999/2000, total hospital discharges for acute myocardial infarction (heart attacks) in Scotland dropped from 19,216 to 17,208, a decline of 10.4%. This large single-year decline occurred during a period in which the smoking ban was not yet in effect.These data also reveal that there was a steady decline in heart attack admissions in Scotland between January 2005 and September 2006 (the smoking ban was implemented in March 2006). From December 2005 to February 2006 (prior to the smoking ban), there was a 16.7% drop in heart attack admissions for the regions for which data were consistently reported throughout the study period.

Carlos Lopez says:

"I consider this article nothing short of propaganda and it is a shame such a great profession as the medical one has reduced itself to this level. I'm really disappointed by the amount of lies being spouted in this article and indeed at the antitobacco conference in Edinburgh. The most advanced studies have shown "passive smoking" to be nothing more than a mere irritant and I rest my case on those."

Charles Godwin says:

"I hate smokers. Serves you all right. Ha...ha...ha..ha..."

Freedom To Choose says:

"a ferociously one-sided article that neglects to mention the furore that erupted over the publication of yet more flawed heart attack studies, carried out with no control group and no attempt to show that tobacco sales had in fact decreased during the period following the introduction of the smoking ban in Scotland..."

I think, more of the same! This website does offer a chance to vote and comment on this article that reports the Scottish "Study" that claims a preposterous drop in heart attack admissions to hospital. I recommend we all comment and I'll mirror the comments here.


Sunday, September 16, 2007

Phil & Blad's Pin-Up

This angel magically appeared in Blad's inbox recently,so we have adopted her as our Blog Pin-Up Girl.
The mystery sender attached the picture with this message:
"I was out at the pub the other night and I recruited a new member to our group. I think she can be a real asset, particularly for video interviews.... "


The biggest social problem

Gian Turci of Forces International - Italy

Gian Turci
FORCES International

The biggest social problem today is not smoking, obesity or drinking. The fundamental problem is what almost everyone seems to overlook: institutional incompetence and corruption. So widespread is the problem, in fact, that most people take it as sort of “normal”, because any ethical and moral standard to measure it against has been utterly obliterated. In the case of smoking the problem is even more obvious: scientifically unsound propaganda is used to systematically “educate” people with what amounts to plain and simple false information. That falsehood is used to forward an ideology and to create a mentality that justifies horrors and social frauds such as smoking being denied employment or medical care, as in the case I am linked to. It is quite obvious that we are talking about a breach of a social contract that, when it was established, did not include at all behaviour control as a condition to receive public care. What is even more upsetting is that the victims of this sour deal are not exonerated from the taxation imposed for delivering the services they do not receive. Would you pay tax to City Hall for garbage removal if the garbage man would remove the trash of your neighbour but not yours? The corruption and incompetence of national and international public health institutions has become so endemic that it has turned to both a policy and an ideology, whilst an immense construction of assumptions and scientifically unsubstantiated hypotheses is constantly passed as solid science to further those policies and ideology. Let’s quickly go to the foundations of that construction. If those foundations do not exist (never mind being on shaky grounds), the rest of the building can stand only with the help of external crutches: your public money. In spite of the big claims, we all know that not even one death can be scientifically demonstrated to be caused uniquely by smoking. Furthermore, it is scientifically impossible to quantify the contribution – if any – of smoking to that death or disease. Finally, there is no disease that is unique to smoking. There are only questionnaire-based interviews on the basis of which statisticians attribute causality to masses of individuals -- but without ever being able to establish the actual cause. We are talking about epidemiology – which, in fact and by definition, cannot establish causality. As people actually die of diseases (but, except for accidents, disease is always the cause of death), the causality of those diseases lies in the interaction of hundreds of un-measurable factors, of which one may be smoking. It follows that the number of “tobacco-related” deaths claimed anywhere in the world is incommensurable – differently than what happens, for example, for polio, malaria or TB. Then it follows that the “cost to society” of smokers is also incommensurable, since you cannot count the “tobacco-related” deaths or diseases in the first place. But then it follows that the “prevention” campaigns are trying to prevent something that is incommensurable at a very high and commensurable cost to the public. It also follows that cigarettes are taxed at high and commensurable levels to “prevent” incommensurable damages. The conclusion is that what is presented as “science” by media and health authorities (but it cannot be science because it can’t establish causality) wants to measure un-measurable costs and deaths while the cost of the politics due to the adoption of that junk science is totally measurable – in millions or billions. But there is an even more horrific conclusion which , for most people, seems to be psychologically unbearable: the institutions are lying to us – deliberately. But a deliberate lie is a crime – especially when it bears costs for society and when it is spoken and implemented by public institutions. Laws against false or misleading advertisement, fraud and misrepresentation exist in every country of the world. Private institutions that practice deception are punished, but clearly, public institutions are not. Politicians caught perpetrating those crimes are finished in all democratic countries, but politicians who practice systematic fraud and say that it is “for your health” are heroes. It follows that fraud is legitimate if the claim is that it’s good for you – although a "fraud that is good for you" is a moral and logical non sequitur. It follows that it is “fair” that children are told lies in schools and that people are taxed to death on the grounds of junk science – and also blamed for the non-deliverance of social contracts because the state says it is their fault. It follows that it is OK that people die and suffer because they are denied operations in hospitals. It follows that criminals who make it to the chairs of “public health” have the licence to offend because they say that what they do is good and that they are “helping” you. If you find something morally wrong in this logic, reflect on that instead of thinking that it is flawless and inescapable. Especially, do something substantial against it. Just a hint: writing petitions and crying from websites or newspaper columns just will not cut it – for crime has never been a democracy and could not care less about your opinion.


Saturday, September 15, 2007

More on Smoker Refused Surgery

The Royal Cornwall Hospital

By Blad Tolstoy

One begins to wonder which planet the doctors at The Royal Cornwall who are refusing to operate live on. Before the corruption of the anti-smoking lobby took hold of the minds of once decent medical professionals, many smokers were operated on for broken bones plus a wide range of other complaints. In fact, smoking was once the pastime of the majority and if we cast our minds back to the history of WW2 and subsequent wars when the majority of the population smoked one is prompted to wonder how so many of them recovered so well from all sorts of major injuries. It's a good thing that the anti-smoking lobby was not very strong in those days or many people still around and healthy to-day would have been permanently crippled.

Nuttall himself makes the point: "I want to warn other smokers. We have paid our National John NuttallInsurance stamps all our lives and now we are being shut out of the NHS."

Nuttall is right and his remarks illustrate further the hypocrisy of these clinicians for we have commented a number of times on the money that smokers provide to the Exchequer. Not only do smokers pay their National Insurance contributions but also the government is richly benefited in terms of both the direct taxes levied on the sales of tobacco products plus the corporation tax levied on the profits of the tobacco companies. In fact, without such input to the public purse, the rest of the population would have to make up the shortfall in additional taxes. So whilst the doctors at The Royal Cornwall are happy to benefit from the input of smokers' money they are not prepared to play fair in return. This amounts to saying: "give us your money and sod off!"

Moreover, if these doctors think they are saving money in some warped and twisted way then nothing could be further from the truth for consider the cost of providing Nuttall with years of morphine supply. This drug is not the cheapest on the market.

So we name and shame you Royal Cornwall Hospital Truro. Your thinking and conduct are disgraceful and it is a good thing that there are still many decent doctors around who have not succumbed to the profoundly "sick" ideas that you have espoused.

Link to original article:


Friday, September 14, 2007

Smoker Refused Surgery

Smoker Refused SurgeryUrgent need to overwhelm this article with comments:

Smoking Builder Article

My comments as yet not approved:

I can only agree with these earlier comments. On the surface this seems to be an utter disgrace. Reading between the lines, I suspect that the smoking is not the only issue here. There may be some conflict between John and his medics as he refused surgery when it was advised, and most likely to succeed. He may even have been labelled as a "difficult" patient. This however compounds the issue because obviously none of these factors should be grounds for refusal of treatment. It is very likely that someone involved in the decision is an anti-smoker.

So the surgeons are reluctant to operate as there is only a percentage chance of success. This chance is statistically lowered because John smokes. However, it appears, if the report is taken at face value, that John is prepared to accept the risk. It should be John's choice not the surgeons. They have advised him, he has tried to stop and decided he cannot.


Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Visit Smoking Doctor on MySpace

I've been fiddling on MySpace and have come up with this. Why not give it a visit and see the excellent "Angry Man from the Bronx" video. Also the most perfect song by The Pretty Things called "All Light Up" will play if you have your sound on. It's also a way to find plenty of like minded people who don't mind speaking out...very therapeutic.

The url is but the title above works as a link too!


Friday, September 07, 2007

Freedom to Choose Launch New Forum

Freedom 2 Choose Forum
By Colin Grainger

It gives me very great pleasure to announce the launch of our new forum which can be found here:

The old forum, known to many as The Big Debate, was due to expire and we had trouble contacting the site owner so we had to make arrangements to move house. It was a fantastic opportunity to start afresh, build a new, more organised forum that members could navigate with ease, quickly find information on the fraud surrounding second hand smoke, and keep up with the daily news from our (one-sided) press. At the time of writing we have around 750 members, but, to be honest, we could do with a few more. Around 14 million would be nice. 30 million would be better.

Far too many of you good people, smokers, and tolerant non-smokers alike, have been hoodwinked. For almost five decades the anti-smoker zealots have ruled the roost. We have had enough. We say, “No more. We are fighting back”. We caved in when they “just” wanted flights of less than two hours to be smoke-free. We caved in when they wanted cinemas to be smoke-free. We caved in when they wanted trains to be smoke-free. We caved in when they wanted buses to be smoke-free. We caved in when they wanted offices and almost all work places to be smoke-free. And why not? We are nice people. We are friendly people. We are laid back people. We were happy to compromise with their reasonable demands.

Then they came for our pubs.
Then our clubs.
Then our restaurants.
And our bingo halls, our taxi’s and our cafe’s.
Now they want our cars. Now they want our football stadia. Now they want our parks. Now they want our beaches. Now they want our homes.

Being reasonable, being nice, being friendly, was our undoing. We caved in once too often and they took advantage. They lied to our government, and in turn, our government lied to us. Successive polls showed that 67% of people wanted restrictions, not an outright ban. HMG ignored the polls. They listened instead to the poison being whispered into their ears by liars who were paid to do the whispering by pharmaceutical companies. Incidentally, pharmaceutical companies are the only entity to gain from a smoker ban. Check their stocks. Sales of useless nicotine replacement therapy products rose by 285% in the two months following the ban. (For interest, these products have a documented long-term failure rate of 94%). The government didn’t even give us a fair hearing. They debated the smoker ban for less than three hours. Three hours! They debated the Iraq War for thirty hours. They debated the fox hunting ban for over four hundred hours. When asked, and believe me, we have asked plenty of them, your average MP has absolutely no idea what any of the junk science means. They don’t know that there has never been a single recorded death due to second hand smoke. They don’t know that the two biggest studies in the world have declared second hand smoke to be grossly exaggerated. They don’t know that of 75 original studies 51 say that there is “no statistically significant risk from second hand smoke”, and that the remaining 24 say that there is “a protective effect”. They certainly don’t know that 74 of these 75 studies were bought and paid for by the (so called) good guys. Only one was sponsored by a tobacco company. A shocking dereliction of duty, in my humble opinion. They leapt on a band wagon and they had absolutely no idea why, or what harm it would do to business, and to the social fabric of this nation. It was simply another law to add to the 3,000 they had enacted during ten years of Labour government. Just one more control mechanism. If you think for even one moment that your government would not lie to you, I would say, “Think Iraq. Think WMD”.

At this point you may be asking yourself what you can do about it. You can come and join us at the Freedom to Choose forum. Once there, you will be able to study the science we have amassed, at your leisure. You can attend protest marches. You can attend peaceful demonstrations. You can assist with our fundraising efforts. You can learn the email (or postal) address of every one of those bone idle MP’s who couldn’t be bothered to look at the science before hurling 14 million smokers and their friends out on the streets. You can sign our petition. You can get involved. You can DO something. You can fight back! You can help us to end or amend the ban.

Help us to restore choice. Help us to get our senior citizens back inside, where they belong. Help us to campaign for Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standards. Help us to prevent more kids from smoking by getting smokers back inside. Where they belong. We are human beings. We do not deserve this treatment. It is barbaric. We will not compromise on this. In short, we have had enough. The War on Smokers will end. We will make it so.

I look forward to welcoming you to the Freedom to Choose Forum.

Colin Grainger
Freedom to Choose


Sunday, September 02, 2007

Broons Britain

By Blad Tolstoy

Whether or not you are religious, the Bible has a lot to teach and reference to the Bible is particularly apposite where Gordon Brown - known to some as Gordon Broon - is concerned, for he is a son of the kirk.

The question has often been asked: why did Christ prefer to mix with sinners such as whores, tax collectors and publicans, as opposed to the great and the good? One answer is that it is only sinners who need the salvation that Christ can offer but another is that the sinners were simply more fun to be with. Christ was not particularly partial to Pharisees and Zealots for he found them intolerant, self satisfied and convinced of their own moral worth.

This is what many people find with todays puritans and post-modernist moralists who are the architects of the nanny state. Many of these people are boring, smug and self preening in their occupation of what they fancy to be the moral high ground.

Brown would undoubtedly seem to fall into this category for at the age of ten, when other boys were playing with Mecanno and reading Biggles, Brown wrote a paper on the dangers and damage of alcohol and smoking and expressed the prohibitionist hope that people would stop indulging in these pleasures.

Now many people would agree that such pleasures should be indulged in, in moderation, but as we can see with Browns endorsement of smoking bans - and no doubt the alcohol prohibitions that may follow - his zeal is not that of the newly converted but of one so nurtured from the cradle. He must indeed be happy that so many public houses are going out of business due smoking bans, as for him, this must be the perfect double whammy.

Unfortunately, however, Brown is not as moral as he probably considers himself. He claims his muse is prudence but the impression we receive is that it is really spendthrift.

This man as chancellor - and now as prime minister - is intent on bleeding the country dry with taxes, and those taxes which he extorts are never enough as large numbers will testify when they assess the continually deteriorating condition of many of our public services and institutions.

Britain now has a debt mountain of 1.3 trillion and star amongst Nu-Labours recent rip-offs of the less well off are the removal of the 10p lower income tax rate and the removal of the zero corporation tax levy on profits and surpluses of under 10,000 per annum. The latter has been supplanted by a 19% rate which will adversely affect many small clubs and community organisations which are not registered charities. So much then for Browns concern for the less well off.

With regard to the smoking prohibition issue with which many of the readers of this site are very familiar, this last week, in Browns Britain, we have been bombarded with new and exaggerated smoking mortality figures as the anti smoking lobby, desperate the shore up the publics declining belief in the dangers of second hand smoke, ups the hyperbole to new and increasingly hysterical levels.

To date, we have heard claims of 10,000, 13,000 and even 44,000 smoking related deaths per annum and, moreover, we know how such figures are obtained. They are obtained by taking records of anyone who smokes or has ever smoked and categorising any subsequent diseases or deaths with regard to those people as being smoking related irrespective of whether they are or not.

This last week heard figures of 13 smoking related deaths per hour bandied about as fact. If we get out the calculators that now increases the smoking mortality figure, at a stroke, to 113,880 each year. Small wonder then, that ASH, at the BBCs invitation, refused to debate the smoking ban issue publicly with Freedom to Choose this last week (28th August 2007), for they would have been confronted by Freedom to Choose's formidable media debater Bob Feal-Martinez, and the result of such a confrontation would have been the exposure of the junk that ASH and their cronies present as science.

That junk science should be the order of the day in this field and others (such as climate change) is of course, no credit to Gordon Brown either, for this man, in his puritanical zeal, is content to preside over a diet of lies and scientific subterfuge. Worse still, whilst castigating and discriminating against smokers, he is still content to take the enormous revenues generated by smoking taxes. These taxes, I shall add, are twofold: they consist of both the direct tax levied on the sales of tobacco products and the corporation tax levied on the profits of the tobacco companies.

Yes indeed, beneath the facade of every puritan lives a hypocrite.

Blad Tolstoy