The following post is drafted by Gasdoc from an idea supplied by a new member of the blogging team called "PearlyQueen".
This is the way to design a study so that you can tell if anyone died due to smoking:
To start you will need to clone a man and woman. You will only need two pairs of subjects, but it is essential that they have identical genes and identical lives. From the test tube, these two couples must live together and everything they do must be identical. They must eat and drink the same stuff and follow the same paths of education and vocation. They must live in the same house and go absolutely everywhere together. There will always be a flaw in the work as they will not be able to sleep in the same bed. It is probably better that they do not smoke but if one was to do so then they must all smoke exactly the same amount and make of tobacco. They should of course all do this at exactly the same time and place.
The next stage of the study will occur after both couples have fallen in love, married, coincidently conceived and given birth to identical same sex infants. It would be best to plan for these deliveries to be by caesarian section at the same age of gestation and by non-smoking, equally qualified obstetricians with the same training or at least adhering to the same written protocol, which must detail the anaesthetic and surgical technique.
At this stage it will be necessary to decide whether you wish to examine the effects of smoking or passive smoking.
So, if the keen epidemiologist would like to contact me, I will further elaborate on the details of the next stage of the study.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The following post is drafted by Gasdoc from an idea supplied by a new member of the blogging team called "PearlyQueen".
Thursday, January 24, 2008
by Blad Tolstoy
A few days ago, we introduced you to the writings of Ed Contoski.
We are delighted to announce that Ed has written a new article
entitled: "Secondhand Smoke: the “no threshold” Scare".
As usual it's extremely well presented with some very useful
references which I'm sure many of you will latch on to and make
good use of. See Ed's article at:
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
I should like to introduce for your reading pleasure the work of Ed Contoski, and in particular, to draw your attention to his book entitled: MAKERS AND TAKERS.
Contoski has had a varied career and is a former director of planning for an internationally renowned environmental consulting firm doing business in over forty countries. He is a superb writer who presents his readers with and easy and fluid style which manages to encapsulate a highly specialised knowledge of many subjects.
He says the purpose of writing his book and blog is to defend individual rights against the broad assault of ever expanding government. Tobacco is just one of the areas where freedom is losing ground to government regulations that seek to control every aspect of our lives.
MAKERS AND TAKERS shows how the creation of both wealth and human progress depends on the free choices of individuals -- not government command and control. In it, Contoski explains and documents the contrasting results of freedom and government regulation. And as a review from Second Renaissance Books stated: "He demolishes the entire regulatory apparatus of the state."
Neither logic nor history shows society benefits by expanding the role of government at the expense of liberty and individual rights. But the proponents of regulations have been winning the war against freedom by relying on alarmism based on misinformation and sometimes downright fraud. Unfortunately, the public is generally not able to identify these, particularly relating to the scientific issues. The politicians do no better, particularly when they are less interested in facts to begin with than in trendy causes aligned with the ideology of Big Government. Contoski also writes a blog which is designed to provide little-known facts and analyses on important issues that are not well understood by the public -- in fact, are generally counter to what the public has been fed -- in the hope that truth will triumph.
For those interested in becoming acquainted with the writings of Ed Contoski, (who is, incidentally, a non-smoker) then please check out the following links:
For books, including MAKERS AND TAKERS, see: http://www.amlibpub.com/top/publications.html
For the Blog, see:
For Free Essays, see:
(Includes some excellent writings on the antics of the tobacco control movement.)
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
At the moment, in the UK and throughout the world, the hospitality and entertainment industries are in crisis. The smokingbans have been devastating for trade but the antis promised that when the smokers were kicked out they would be replaced by hordes of non-smokers. These people never materialised. They never do, and what we have is yet another anti lie and pseudoeconomic forecast. Here then, is a typical sign found on the walls of many establishmentsi in America. Enjoy looking at the picture for out an out rebellion against smoking bans is well under way in the UK!
Monday, January 14, 2008
People have heard of Burke and Hare the infamous body snatchers and a couple of days ago Gordon Brown informed us that his government was considering nationalising our bodies. This referred of course to his intention to meet the organ donor crisis by proposing a policy of presumed consent and that people would have to opt out if they didn't want their bodies to be used.
Many people have been outraged by this proposal and for a variety of different reasons. However, others infavour, have stated that in opting out one is hitting the wrong people, namely, those in desperate need of organ transplants. This latter point of view has some substance. However, the same point of view can and will be used quite shamelessly for the purposes of emotional blackmail.
With regard to smokers (and this blog is primarily for them and their tolerant friends) they pay not only their National Insurance contributions but billions in extra tax that the government gains not just from the direct sales of over the counter cigarettes but also from the corporation tax levied on the profits of the tobacco companies. (The latter fact pertaining to corporation tax is frequently ignored even by pro-choice activists.) It is interesting then, that there are those who say that should smokers refuse to make their organs available they would be heartless, BUT, the same people are not also out making the point that the government's expressed intent to disallow smokers NHS treatment, despite the fact they have paid for it many times over, is not only heartless but fraudulent and criminal. If one had a contract with a private health provider who then tried to deny treatment, that provider would find itself facing both civil and criminal actions: the civil being breach of contract and the criminal being fraud and theft.In addition, it may edify people to know that there have already been cases in the US of smokers' lungs being given to needy recipients. So when it comes to organs, then anyone may be considered as a donor including the "filthy' smokers.
Weighing all this up and considering the position in the round, I shall not be prepared to allow the government to help itself to my organs and will opt out of any such government scheme. With further regard to this point the only organs of mine they may have are my old mouth organs (harmonicas).
Penultimately, there has been plenty of furore in the recent past about surgeons in children's hospitals just helping themselves to the organs of other deceased children. The furore should have happened as there is something singly and intuitively disturbing about others helping themselves to someone's body parts without their express permission. Aside from the fact that organ donation should be a matter of freedom of choice, death is a painful time for most relatives and loved ones and the fact that this government now intends to regard such a time as an opportunity for a spare parts organfest is revolting. In addition, a presumed consent policy will be wide open to abuse. I can tell you a thing or two about what goes on in teaching hospitals from experience, but to tempt certain clinicians with the possibility of allowing or facilitating the death of A so that B, who may be considered a more cost effective option, may live, will be too much of a temptation for some to overcome.
Lastly, there can only be one way that organs may be obtained and that is with the clear consent of the donor or, at the very least and in very special cases, the donor's nearest and dearest. If there is a current lack of donors, then as someone has already observed, the government should stop wasting so much money on quangos and certain health fascist organisations and spend that money, instead, on educating people on the merits of organ donation.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
This takes the biscuit! Read and weep!
I saw the coastguard, Paul Waugh (age-whatever) interviewed on ITN news. What a lovely guy and what prats are the Maritime and Coastguards Agency. Anyway, he's resigned, and won't be restrained by Health & Safety anymore. Keep on rescuing Paul, we love you!
Monday, January 07, 2008
Tonight, Frédérique Dupont took part, as Freedom to Choose's representative, on the French parliamentary TV programme named "Ça Vous Regarde" (Here's Looking at You) to discuss the newly implemented smoking ban in France.
The discussion was the usual arrangement with a member of the French Tobacco Control service and a former Minister of Health on one side, whilst on the other were a member of the French Association of Tobacconists and a very good looking, young and passionate libertarian lady.
The discussion was fairly well conducted but, as usual, the "gentleman" from the Tobacco Control Service told the usual nonsense, supported by the politician, as to why smoking bans need to happen. The interesting thing about this person was the set of his mouth which did not inspire confidence, In addition to which, he looked remarkably smug. Actually, he looked architecturally suited to his role of a habitual liar, a fact confirmed when in response to Fréderique's well-researched list of pub and bingo hall closures following the UK bans, he dismissed her and Freedom to Choose as nothing more than being in the paid service of the large tobacco
That this smug and mendacious piece of shit should try that unimaginative and defamatory stunt should come as no surprise to anyone who has been involved in fighting smoking bans for tobacco control could never make progress without telling lies. However, the tactic did not go unnoticed by a watching Freedom to Choose member who left the following comments on lcpan's site for all to see:
"Professeur Dautzenberg est menteur. Je suis de pays de galles et Freedom to Choose n'est rien a faire avec les grandes companies de tabac. Il a besoin de corriger ses expressions."
(Professor Dautzenberg is a liar. I'm from Wales and Freedom to Choose has nothing to do with the large tobacco companies. He needs to correct his remarks.")
No further comments followed this one at the time the programme closed.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
This week, this country received an announcement from Gordon Brown that demonstrated clearly the final disjunction between the state and the people of Great Britain. We no longer live in a representative democracy but an authoritarian tyranny. Make absolutely no mistake about that.
What was this announcement of Brown's that marked such an important and dangerous shift?
I refer to his announcement that the precautionary principle would be paramount with regard to the treatment of National Health Service patients. Under this "new" approach (one in fact long touted by Public Health), smokers, heavy drinkers and the obese will be banned from
NHS treatment. Brown also announced new plans to draw up a Health Service constitution clearly outlining "rights and responsibilities for patients.
Rightly, there has been some furore over these proposals as they will undermine further not only the concept of the NHS providing free care for all but also that it will be able to continue to offer truly universal care.
However, there is much more than this, in that, smokers (in particular) and also drinkers and those who may eat more than the rest of us, have already paid for their health care over and over again. Not only have these groups paid their National Insurance contributions they have also paid substantial amounts in extra tax to the treasury.
In looking at this issue, I shall consider the case of smokers for it is smokers I know most about. In 2006, the government announced that although smokers are supposed to cost the NHS £1.7 billion for the treatment of smoking related diseases they contribute £8 billion in tax from sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Some will add to this the VAT which increases the revenue even more to some £10 billion.
Now with regard to that last point, I have no proof personally that the government is not including VAT in its calculations, but what I do know is that the tobacco companies are also charged corporation tax on their profits as is normal for any business. This means that for whatever figure the government quotes with regard to tax gained from sales of cigarettes at the shop has to be added the very weighty sums gained from corporation tax.
But, there is more. As more and more commentators are noticing, the smoking bans are having a disastrous impact on the hospitality and entertainment industries. Many pubs, clubs, bingo halls, cafés and even restaurants are already experiencing substantial damage and, at the present rate, not only are thousands of pubs lined up for closure, but in a few months time we may well see the end of ALL bingo halls and working mens' clubs. Indeed, it is smokers that keep very many people in business and employment.
Let's move on though. Given that smokers and many of the groups to be discriminated against have paid for their health care many times over, if it were the case that such "premiums" were paid to a private health provider and that provider then stated that it had no intention of honouring its commitment to its clients, then that provider would open itself up to legal actions of two kinds. Firstly, it would be open to being sued in a civil court for breach of contract, and secondly, it would be open to criminal prosecution for fraud and theft.
This government has chosen then, to behave like a company with criminal intent. But because it is the government it considers that when IT engages in this kind of conduct it should somehow be free of any normal moral constraints or obligations. It should not be and in any decent country there should never be one law for government and one for the people. However, this government no longer cares about the welfare of its people. It is now under the thrall of one of the most corrupting and evil influences of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, namely, Public Health. Nowadays, Public Health is not interested in anybody's health; it is interested in an agenda of power and social control. Be under no illusions about that and in supporting such an agenda, this government, under its bible thumping leader, has chosen to act like a criminal. Let it be branded as such and let everyone be aware that yet more interference and attempts to control our behaviour will manifest themselves very shortly.
Wake up Britain. Wake up! Watch "Hairy Chestnuts" YouTube video below.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
I have seen and read the judgement in the Italian courts in favour of two Italian bar owners. It seems to state that it is wrong to fine the private owners of a bar. All they are obliged to do is display signage and warn smokers that they shouldn't. It seems also to state that the Act or a part of it is annulled as a result of this judgement.
I have not previously posted on this as I have to confess a degree of unease whilst reading these long, rambling, legalese containing documents. An unease that I am not infact a speaker of the english language. An unease that I may not be seeing the "Kings new clothes", unlike my more intelligent readers.
It certainly, would seem to be a good thing. But if anyone is more able than me to interpret or translate this document, it would be a great service to all. Please an anyone tell us what the document says in plain English and if there are any possible positive implications for us cold and isolated UK smokers?
The document is available to read at this url, kindly provided by our Netherlandish Freedom Fighters...Read Italian Judgement here...
Graphic by John AKA Smoked
Here's an unusual new years graphic from a MySpace "friend". He seems to promote a particular type of smoke related fetish, that is at complete variance to the much stated "normal" hatred of tobacco smoke. Good for him.
Happy new year to all and lets hope for a year of the revival of common sense and furthermore for the demise of the anti-smoking movement.