Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Reply to anti

I draughted this to a message I got on SagaZone, thought it would interest those looking for things to say to people who disagree with us...

Interesting thoughts and thanks for taking the trouble to jot them down. It does look like a jolly good spamming attempt from an anti-smoker but thanks for letting me know it wasn't your intention.

Thank you for drawing the possibility of some inappropriate language on my blog to my attention. I would not want to offend and so I would be most grateful if you could point this out to me more specifically. I am afraid I have not been able to identify the offending comments.

Naturally, I have heard all your stated views before and sometimes agonise about how best to comment. In considering a reply I first have to consider my motivation. Am I driven by a need to "stand up for myself" or do I strive to correct your narrow minded and closed thinking? Neither of these fit the bill, I decide. In writing what I write, I am simply expressing my personal views. You will be surprised to hear, views welcomed my many. These are the views of a libertarian at heart, someone who firmly believes in the right to choose and the views of a pure scientist. I have no political mind or inclination but the "passive smoking" phenomenon, invented by the WHO and peddled by ASH, SCOTH, HMG and the BMA rancours with me. It is the blatant and fully admitted use of propaganda, the prostitution of science and the unilateral imposition of a state of victimisation of a minority group. This minority group harms no one and breaks no laws until the laws are drafted to infringe upon their lifestyle.

I am sorry that your views are dichotomous to mine and that you felt the need to draw this to my attention, however, they are your views and although I would argue with you I respect your right to state them.

My profession is a caring one and does not support the dehumanisation of anyone. My smoking patients and non-smoking patients all receive the greatest of compassion. The last thing on their mind is whether a whiff of tobacco comes their way.

I naturally express my condolences over your losses, but if you wish to blame smoking for them, then you might find the grieving process less bearable than simply accepting that we all die and we all make our choices.

Please feel free to reply but do not if you simply intend to repeat your views.

Best regards



Monday, June 23, 2008

Passive Smoking Dies A Death

This article published on 1st July 2008 say it all. What you and I have been saying for many years. It is written by a "pulmonologist", that must be an american lung specialist. Not necessarily a medic but defo a scientist. It is published in "Environment and Climate News" by the american "Heartland Institute". It very neatly summarises all the available information and correctly identifies how 80% of the American and worldwide public have been duped into believing second hand tobacco smoke can harm non-smokers.

Passive smoking does no harm at all..RIP "Passive Smoking"

Follow the following link to read the best prose of the last two centuries. It is music to our ears and probably won't make a jot of difference to us!

Click here!


Saturday, June 14, 2008

Blad's Imagination Running Riot Again!


Ireland - a wonderful picture in more ways than one

by Blad Tolstoy

To a reader with an unpractised eye this may seem a wonderful picture solely due to the fact it shows the Irish "NO" voters winning against the Lisbon Treaty yesterday (13/6/08).

This IS wonderful of course, as it demonstrates what we all know, which is, that if all the countries of the EU were granted referenda then the Treaty would be rejected by most if not all.

Most people are now sick of the overweaning powers the EU has granted itself and want the brakes putting on. One of the most infamous EU directives, of course, was the smoking ban, and this directive our treacherous government has enacted with a gusto rivalled only by its contempt for civil liberties and its ignoring of the demand by the British people for our own EU referendum.

However, there is more to this picture than meets the eye, so I ask the reader to cast his or her eye to the table before the revellers. In front of the lady is an ashtray with a cigarette in it and in front of the man on her left a cigarette packet is clearly visible on the table in front of him (it's even more obvious in the original picture and no, it's not a mobile phone). Notice too, that the picture is taken inside a pub or bar.

Smoking indoors AND rejecting the Lisbon Treaty? A double win for the Irish I think.


Sunday, June 08, 2008

Andrew Gimson

Forward by Blad Tolstoy

As readers will know I occasionally reprint an article or column by a journalist on this site if I enjoy what they have to say. One whose articles exhibit a nice dry sense of humour is Andrew Gimson and this article by him in last Friday’s Daily Telegraph cheered me up. No, it’s not directly related to smoking bans but it really extracts the michael from a former leader of the party many of us former Labour voters have really grown to hate. So here we go:

Tony Blair, master of empty style here again

By Andrew Gimson

How Tony Blair beamed on his return to Westminster. His lightly-tanned features widened in a grin that would have split a lesser man in two, and when he also raised his eyebrows in delight we began to wonder if he was made of latex rather than of flesh and blood.

But the sad, staring eyes of the former prime minister affirmed his humanity. We have seen the same eyes in models who are not as happy as the fashion industry would have us believe.

Mr Blair turned and directed one of his most ludicrous, I'm-so-pleased-to-see-you grins at the assembled press: like the star performer he is, he wished to see which critics had turned out for his comeback show.

Directing his smile once more at the MPs on the international development committee, Mr Blair asked with a show of enthusiasm: "How are you guys doing?".

One was reminded of the mastery this greatest living exponent of sofa government has of the matey informalities which establish a bogus intimacy between someone very important and a group of nonentities.

The committee was taking evidence from Mr Blair as the representative of the Middle East Quartet, the post he was given in recognition of his virtuoso handling of an insoluble problem, namely Gordon Brown.

For 13 years, Mr Blair managed to keep the lid on Mr Brown and maintain an uneasy truce between New Labour and Old Labour. It was an astonishing achievement but peace was bought at a heavy price: Mr Brown had to be locked in the Treasury, where taxpayers were obliged to foot the bill for his tax-and-spend habit.

The skills that Mr Blair is bringing to bear on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were previously devoted to keeping not just Mr Brown but Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, Cherie Blair, Carole Caplin, John Prescott, Gerry Adams, Ian Paisley, Lord Levy and many other curious characters in some semblance of order, with nothing more alluring than a life peerage or book serialisation to buy off troublemakers.

Mr Blair's capacity for optimistic realism helped him to keep going long after a pessimist would have given up but there were still some people who wondered whether he was suitable for his current role. Jim Sheridan (Lab, Paisley and Renfrewshire North) pointed out that as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned, some people also wonder "whether or not you're the right man for the job".

Mr Blair replied, quick as a flash: "Fairly familiar, that kind of question." It was the kind of light remark that usually proves beyond Mr Brown.

As Mr Blair admitted, a humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Gaza, yet it is difficult for Israeli politicians to take any steps to ease the conflict while their own people are under rocket and mortar attack from Gaza.

Terrible though the sufferings of the Palestinians in Gaza are, some of us could not help sparing a thought for the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding at Westminster, with hundreds of Labour MPs in danger of being thrown out of work and condemned to lives of futility under the cruel, top-hatted regime of David Cameron.

Might it help if Mr Blair were to return to the party that he led so long and so successfully? The Labour Party is understandably worried about removing Mr Brown and inflicting a second unelected Prime Minister on us but they could instead inflict the elected Prime Minister, Mr Blair, on us.

Yet as we watched this very clever, fluent, plausible, self-righteous, over-friendly salesman twist the committee round his little finger, a different thought formed in our mind. Good riddance.