Pro-Choice Smoking Doctor

The Fast Show | Episode #4 | Foster's Funny | 2011

2012-01-24T22:24:00.002Z

Priceless start to this episode of the new Fast Show. The non-smoking Jazz Club!! Says it all!!

Chris Carter Appeal

2012-01-22T00:36:00.002Z

Keep this man out of jail please. Visit here for the Smokers Justice website.

Book Project Needs Your Support - Cigarettiquette

2012-01-03T20:45:00.000Z

Finally a book to give a voice to the people who are passionate about breathing smoke!

Sandy Lynn Riefberg, 27, has written a book which explores cigarettes and smoking from the point of view of a smoker. She delves into all the benefits smokers gain from smoking as well as their feelings about smoking and the segregation of smokers in today's world. She has spent years working on this book and is trying to raise funds to self publish it. Please support her vision and check out her project on Kickstarter!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/waifette/cigarettiquette

Nic-O-Dick - The Whitest Kids U'Know on IFC

2011-08-28T11:13:00.004Z

Al Gore is desperate for his Nic-O-Dick

Surgeons & Politicians

2011-08-27T21:34:00.000Z

Five surgeons are discussing who were the best patients to operate on.

The first surgeon says, 'I like to see Accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.'

The second responds, 'Yeah, but you should try Electricians! Everything inside them is colour-coded.'

The third surgeon says, 'No, I really think Librarians are the best everything inside them is in alphabetical order.'

The fourth surgeon chimes in, 'You know I like Construction Workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end, and when the job takes longer than you said it would.'

But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed, 'You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains, and no spine, and there are only two moving parts - the mouth and the arsehole - and they are interchangeable'

AMEN to that.

E-petitions

2011-08-24T20:56:00.001Z

We should like to draw people's attention to the government's e-petitions to amend the smoking ban. As several people have gone to the trouble to place petitions, we recommend fair play and ask you to sign the three petitions which, to date, have the largest number of signatories:

Anthony Worrall Thompson's at:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/14103

Daniel Connolly's at:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/6071

David Greatrix's at:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/36

We thank you in advance for your time and cooperation.

Doc and Blad

Ron Paul II

2011-08-21T20:13:00.001Z

by Blad Tolstoy

This is my second post on Ron Paul and then I'll shut up about him for a bit as I don't want to bore people with my enthusiasm.

The mainstream American press continues to collude in the scheme to pretend that Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, and they repeat the mantra time and time again in order to brainwash the public as they did successfully in 2008.

However, this time the public aren't going to be fooled, and I'm pleased to announce that Ron Paul has just won the Young Republicans' Straw Poll in New Hampshire by a commanding margin.

Paul took 45% of the vote with Mitt Romney coming second with only 10%.

See:

http://hampton-northhampton.patch.com/articles/nh-straw-poll-winners

However, having said all that, please take time to view Paul's speech at the New Hampshire Campaign Headquarters grand opening on 17/08/2001. Take particular note of his comments on liberty and privacy about two thirds of the way through the film onwards. Note too, the simple and unpretentious delivery.

See:

Ron Paul Full Speech at New Hampshire Campaign Headquarters Grand Opening - 8/17/2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyciLmlplL8

A great way to smoke in your car

2011-08-21T20:06:00.002Z

Our thanks to Bill Gibson of TICAP for drawing our attention to

this super device for happy smoking in your car.

It's the new IGBC2JB In-car Plasmacluster Air Purifier by SHARP.

See:

http://www.sharpdirect.co.uk/invt/IGBC2JB

You can't drink in front of the children in our pub

2011-08-21T20:05:00.000Z

by Blad Tolstoy

"Two mothers were refused alcoholic drinks in a pub because the barman said it would be inappropriate for them to drink in front of their children."

A line from a Californian or a New York newspaper? No, it's in The Sunday Telegraph for 21st August, and it happened in the Britannia pub in London.

See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8713127/Responsible-parent-Sorry-only-binge-drinkers-welcome-here.html

Indeed, the creeping alcohol prohibition is moving up notches as it was predicted it would, and unless the drinks industry wakes up fully to what is about to happen to it, then it will end up facing the same restrictions as the tobacco industry. In fact, at the moment, many representatives of that industry have their heads wedged firmly up their arses, preferring, instead to try and hide behind a hypocritical position which says that one cannot equate alcohol use with tobacco use. One can. Alcohol is truly the most problematic drug, in that, its misuse causes more social problems that all the other drugs put together and many times over. Similarly, its misuse is also responsible for an extensive catalogue of illnesses.

In response to this, no doubt, alcohol industry representatives will hasten to highlight the fact that I have used the word "misuse" when it comes to the negative effects of drinking, but that all smoking is a misuse of tobacco. Bullshit! In fact, the same argument applies. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING wrong with a bit of tobacco consumption. In fact, an awful lot of people I can think of would be far nicer and probably have a greater sense of well-being for the consumption of a few good cigars or finely tobaccoed cigarettes or, for smoking a pipe.

The problem is the issue of moderation. We all agree with the principle of moderation, but few of us can maintain it successfully. Why this is so, I can never quite fathom and the answer is not easily applied by claiming that it's because alcohol and tobacco are addictive. There are many reasons why people smoke and drink but why significant numbers do it to excess is probably due to the fact that we are never taught to consume them in a measured manner in the first place. Instead, we live in a culture of repression: "you mustn't do that, it's naughty," as opposed to: "well, if you want to do that, let's learn how to do it properly."

However, we still do not need a legion of do-gooders and self appointed tin gods to control our behaviour, As an adult, I'll live with my mistakes thanks (if I make any), and if I need any help I'll ask for it. Now fuck off nanny!

Ron Paul for President: Forget the rest, they can't win

2011-08-19T18:18:00.000Z

By Blad Tolstoy

I am a totally unashamed Ron Paul fan and have been for about two years. This is the only person in the American presidential race who will really make a difference. The rest are just bricks in the wall — establishment jockeys, both Republican and Democrat -- who want to preserve the corrupt US system as it is.

Ron Paul, sometimes referred to as the founder of the Tea Party, is a true libertarian. He'll scrap the Federal Reserve, bring the troops home from the various theatres of war, respect property rights and restore the concept of liberty -- centre stage — to American politics. If he wins, that will have a major knock on effect for us here in the UK and the rest of Europe. The current culture of prohibition took

flight in America, it was the heart of darkness, and still is, but if Ron Paul wins, then America will change and so will much of the rest of the world.

Ron Paul's performance in the polls is good and continually improving and he recently came second in the Iowa straw poll — narrowly beaten by Michele Bachmann by 152 votes. However, Bachman had to buy 4,000 tickets for her supporters to ensure that win. In a recent poll in Texas, Paul beat Rick Perry by taking 91% of the votes. However, the US mainstream media has consistently tried to pretend that Ron Paul does not exist, or, they continuously propound the mantra that Ron Paul can't win. But they are wrong, he can win and, to put it bluntly, the Republican establishment is

shitting its pants.

Please take the time to view these videos and keep checking on Ron Paul's progress. If you want to see less of a nanny state in the UK, then support the only true libertarian candidate for the presidential election!

See:

"The Ron Paul Tipping Point"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqVQ5oUkU6w

and:

"Ron Paul is Exploding"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg3EptrKOms

Behind You!

2011-08-18T21:18:00.000Z

Sheesh: Obama Endorsed by Communist Party of America

2011-08-07T12:08:00.002Z

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=329449

http://politicons.net/congrats-communist-party-usa-endorses-barack-obama-and-democrats-for-2012-election/

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/obama-endorsed-by-communist-party-usa-sam-webb-chairman-communist-support-for-obama-reelection-bid/

Buttout - Southpark

2011-08-03T20:36:00.002Z

South Park: Butt Out

2011-07-29T23:02:00.000Z

Smoke From Your Cigarette

2011-07-26T21:30:00.000Z

Type your summary hereType rest of the post here

"Shoot a Smoker...Oh That’s Okay Then"

2011-07-26T21:28:00.026Z

By Blad Tolstoy

Many of you are now aware of the article that appeared in 'Hemel Today' advocating the shooting of smokers by immature hack journalist Alan Dee on 24th July entitled: "Snipers could soon snuff out smoking." Similarly, the same article was printed in the 'Luton Herald and Post' dated 21st July 2011.

This is not humorous but very stupid and the respective editors should have prevented its transmission. For those who might consider my response extreme, then let me point out that this sick trend is a manifestation of a very dangerous undercurrent given carte blanche by the irresponsible actions of the toxic tobacco control lobby and two governments: the last one, New-Labour and this one, supposedly Conservative, who have given the green light for anything that intimidates or damages smokers to be okay.

This notion that shooting smokers is okay is not new. See for example, this article in Ham & High: 'Hampstead and Highgate Express':

“Smoking party goers shot by air gun sniper"  18 October 2007

  SMOKERS at a party discovered their habit really was bad for their health when they stepped outside and were shot at by air rifle snipers. The victims were hosting a party in Kingsgate Road in Kilburn on October 6 but things turned sour just after midnight. Party host Adam Terry, 24, said: "We had the balcony doors open as several of us smoke. "My girlfriend went out on to the balcony for a cigarette, and came back in complaining that she had been hit - she'd felt a sharp pain in her shoulder. I went out to have a smoke, felt a very sharp pain in my head and when I put my hand up there to feel it, found that a small metal air rifle round had punctured the skin and I was bleeding." The housemates called police but before they arrived a third smoker went outside to locate the snipers and was shot in the back. Police arrived on the scene and checked the injuries. They told people not to go back out on the balcony for the rest of the night and to draw the curtains in case the windows were shot at. Mr Terry, who works as a civil servant, said: "We received a follow-up phone call the next day, and a visit from the forensics' team. The police confirmed that it would be difficult to find out who did it, but suggested a leafleting campaign on the road from where the shots were fired - Mazenod Avenue - warning about the dangers of shooting people in the head with air rifles."

And then there's this:

“Supposing ... Snipers were brought in to shoot smokers”
Charlie Brooker,  The Guardian, Friday 17 February 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/feb/17/smoking.charliebrooker

And then again there's this:

"UGANDAN KILLED FOR SMOKING IN PUBLIC"

http://connectafrica.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/ugandan-killed-for-smoking-in-public/

No, it does not say the man was shot, but he was killed because people thought it was okay to kill a smoker. Again, the blame essentially may be laid at the feet of toxic tobacco control and weak politicians who are not prepared to respect people’s freedom of choice and with regard to a legal product, and think it is perfectly respectable to scapegoat smokers. After all, now that it is much more difficult to discriminate against and act violently towards ethnic minorities, someone else has to be a convenient whipping boy. What a low morality!

Lastly, if readers would like to see a whole catalogue of deaths related to smoking bans, some involving the killing of smokers for smoking, then take a good look at this collection of evils carefully catalogued by Samantha at Smokers’ Club:

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/4.html

No, I do not like the idea that press freedom should be curtailed, but at the same time, I cannot see that smokers and their non-smoking friends have any choice but to take to task, in the future, every newspaper that permits the kind of trash written by Alan Dee and his ilk. If that means legions of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission, MPs and Chicken Cameron, then so be it. The gloves are off!

Wales Aims to Become World Leader

2011-07-23T09:58:00.000Z

ANNE MILTON

2011-07-21T21:18:00.000Z

by Blad Tolstoy

For those of you may dislike this mendacious piece of ASH toadywork as much as I do, you may be relieved to find that others don't care for her either. See here a little website dedicated to her and enjoy:

Anne Milton - Guildford MP (and Dipstick)
http://www.bloggerheads.com/anne_milton/2005_05_01_a_archive.html

2011-07-21T09:40:00.003Z

King Cameron

2011-07-19T22:23:00.001Z

One that must not get under the Radar

2011-07-19T22:21:00.001Z

by Blad Tolstoy

Some of you may have read this article, published today (18/07/2011) in the Herald of Scotland: “University says tobacco giant is “harassing staff”.

See:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/university-says-tobacco-giant-is-harassing-staff-1.1112518?localLinksEnabled=false

This article reports that Philip Morris International (PMI), using the Freedom of Information Act (FOI), has tried for almost a year to get hold of the full details of a project about smoking and young people undertaken by Stirling University’s Centre for Tobacco Control Research. So far, Stirling University has refused to accede to this request, claiming that PMI is harassing its staff and demanding that academic work be exempt form the FOI.

For those completely brainwashed by the notion that the tobacco industry is always the seat of all evil, such conduct by Stirling University might seem entirely justified. However, if so, they need to think again and hard!

To begin with, a precedent should not be set because one academic establishment does not like a request from the tobacco industry regarding its work – and particularly, when that university’s work will probably directly affect the tobacco company concerned.

Moreover, universities study all sorts of subjects and subsequently produce papers which may affect the future of the general public, in addition to commercial companies. Consequently, unless something relates to national security (such as military matters), there is no reason, in an open society, why academic work should not be subject to the FOI. By the same token, in my view and as someone who has worked extensively with charities, the fact that charities are exempt from the FOI doesn’t make sense either. Over the years, there have been a number of charities that have been subject to bad practices and sometimes unlawful activities. The public should have the right to access that data.
Returning to the subject of universities, it was only because of the FOI that the public was able to obtain the information relating to The University of East Anglia’s scandalous manipulation of information with regard to the subject of climate change. In fact, there have been countless times when ordinary citizens have made good use of the FOI and it is one of the few truly enlightened acts produced by the last government.

One cannot let this matter rest here, however, and it is worth examining more closely the possible motives of Stirling University’s Centre for Tobacco Control Research. Contrary to what the naïve might think, tobacco control does not consist of lots of “good guys” at all. Many years ago, it forwent honest scientific research in favour of an “ends justifies the means” strategy whereby any claim, however wild and unsubstantiated by proper scientific evidence, was justified in order to bring about the great Utopian goal of stopping everyone from smoking. Given that Stirling University’s Centre for Tobacco Control Research department is a hotbed of fanatical activism (its staff team include both Gerard Hastings and Linda Bauld) then there is a distinct possibility that it does have some dubious research to hide. On the other hand, if this is not true, then what does this particular academic institution have to be afraid of in permitting access to its work?

Whatever the case, the FOI must not be watered down to accommodate this rather arrogant academic establishment for if it is, then the public will not be as aware of matters that affect it as it should be and the concept of an open society will receive a major setback. Having said that, we are ruled by a pretty weak and unprincipled political establishment, hence, many rotten things are possible…

The Hero of Stony Stratford

2011-07-16T22:24:00.000Z

Dave Atherton meets the Ash Monster

2011-06-03T20:35:00.002Z

MARMITE

2011-05-28T14:07:00.000Z

The Smoking Storm Troopers are here!

2011-05-28T13:47:00.003Z

Bhutan Starts to Revolt Against Tobacco Control

2011-03-16T11:53:00.000Z

By Blad Tolstoy

Ah yes, Bhutan, that landlocked little "paradise" located at the Eastern end of the Himalayas, where the concept of "Gross National Happiness" was conceived by its former king - Jigme Singye Wangchuck - in an attempt to define an indicator that measures quality of life or social progress in more holistic and psychological terms than gross domestic product (GDP).

What a perfect little Shangri-la and what an inspiration for Shri Davidad Prat-head Cameroon - our glorious prime minister - who has introduced to us materialist British the same concept so that we too may enjoy spiritual blissfulness (pardon me while I throw up transcendentally).

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4809828.stm

Well, as many of you may remember, in about 2005, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck - the current king of Bhutan - seduced by the goddess Tobacco Control, introduced a draconian smoking ban whilst continuing to smoke himself. If I recall correctly he had his fags specially flown in, making a great sacrifice for himself, so that others could avoid smoking whilst benefiting from his wafting backdraft. (What a saint!)

Quite rapidly, Chinese contraband made its presence felt in Bhutan, where wayward teenagers found the allure of the old green-brown weed attractive. This state of affairs continued for a while until fairly recently, when his majesty's very happy government decided to tighten enforcement up.

A casualty of this clamp down is Sonam Tshering, a twenty-three year old monk, who now faces 3 - 5 years imprisonment for smuggling a rather teensy amount of tobacco. This link will take you to Tshering Tobay's blog:

See: http://www.tsheringtobgay.com/justice/2011/calling-concerned-citizens.html

and here you can read the comments that follow which will demonstrate that some of the Bhutanese are not happy about this turn of events. You will also discover that the police and politicians in Bhutan continue to smoke. Moreover, the 3 - 5 year sentence is as much or more than a Bhutanese will receive for rape (see Guardian's post about halfway down the comments). Geez, Bhutan sounds like heaven, and now we know why Andy Lansley wants to introduce even more draconian anti-tobacco measures here. Yes, that's it, taking a leaf from the Bhutanese book, he's contributing to the Gross National Happiness!

Note too the parallel between the Holy Cameroon and King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. Some of you may recall that in a recent television interview, Holy ~~Cow~~ Cameroon said that he didn't think legislation could be enacted against people for smoking around children or in their cars. That's a strange reservation, given the religious zeal of Lansley, but its probably the case that Dave is still doing these things himself so he's just covering his own arse.

Yes, tobacco control is such a hypocritical beast (note Vivienne Nathanson's boozing habit covered so well by Shri Nam Puddlecote at: http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/ "Do As We Say Not As We Do"). But one day, not that far off now, those lying guardians of ~~pubic~~ public health are going to get their comeuppance, and then, I'll be very happy!

Beliefs, manipulation and lies in the tobacco issue

2010-12-20T23:08:00.000Z

Robert Molimard

When contaminated by pesticides such as Gaucho ® or Regent ®, a bee becomes disoriented and can no longer find its hive or its wild flowers of choice. We cannot solve a problem if the messages are muddled. Undeniably, disturbing one’s sense of orientation and muddling communication hinders rational thought and behavior. Lies and manipulations are the weapons of choice for political and economic gains without regard for the well-being of people or the survival of the planet.

http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html

Cor! Shall we have a quick fag before the government stops us doing this on the Internet?

2010-12-20T23:04:00.001Z

Happy Christmas to all our readers

2010-12-13T18:46:00.000Z

Bertrand Russell on smoking

2010-12-04T21:47:00.000Z

Bertrand Russell On Smoking
I still say smoking is a bad idea but it did not seem to hurt this old guy. He says that smoking even saved him...

Libertarian Paternalism

2010-11-27T19:47:00.001Z

The Flickering Ash

2010-11-21T13:34:00.005Z

by Blad Tolstoy

Some of you may have come across ASH's flickr site before, but if not, well here it is:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashuk/

One thing that particularly struck me was the meeting of the All-party parliamentary group on Smoking and Health at Palace of Westminster, undertaken in June 2010.

See:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashuk/sets/72157624317284053/

and note well here the heading under the photograph of Martin Dockrell:

"ASH - All-party parliamentary group on Smoking and Health - Palace of Westminster, 06 June 2010"

You know, I thought these all-party parliamentary groups were supposed to be neutral and bound to set aside their personal prejudices in favour of objective analysis. But ASH seem to have colonised this one in no uncertain terms. Well, what's new? Parliamentary democracy is frequently a load of crap.

I am nevertheless struck by the picture of Stephen Williams, New Chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Smoking and Health. Strewth! Hi there chubby chops!

Why do so many of these people look so unfit? They also swing between extremes. You will all remember Liam Donaldson's bulimic lifestyle when, in a sweat of guilt he went from this:

to this:

(Yuck! Still not a pretty sight!)

Now we have Stephen Williams also going the way of all flesh. Er... So why doesn't he take a leaf from the book of old Skull 'ead, namely Professor john Britton?

Or perhaps Professor Robert West - he''s approaching the "skull 'ead" phenomenon too?

Nope, it doesn't look too good - from one extreme to the other, but maybe you'd prefer an equally unattractive variation, namely, the pockie, nobly skin look aka the Mole 'ead Dockrell touch also shared by Liam D. See:

These people just don't look healthy - don't you think they'd be better off with a pack of Woodbines?

Taking The Bull By The Horns

2010-11-14T12:32:00.003Z

Blad has worked hard on a this useful resource, which is a paper on Charitable Status. It outlines clearly in very accessible language just what makes up a charity, how they may obtain funding and hints at what might be the best strategy to examine and question their activities. I commend this work to all proponents of Smokers' Rights. Despite the apparently dry subject matter, it really does make easy reading and sets the scene for a more effective battle!

Please see:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0Bxr6qiY8ZfzyZGU3MWE5M2QtYzU3Ni00Y2ViLWJkYjAtMmMwOWM3MGU2NmMx&hl=en

EU Smoking Habits - Prevalences

2010-11-14T12:20:00.000Z

The European Commissions Special Eurobarometer Report of May 2010 contains information on smoking prevalences from Oct 2009. The UK's prevalence was 28% more than two years into the enaction of the smoking ban in The Health Act 2006.

See:

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_332_en.pdf

Roy Rogers - Norton Buffalo "Down in Mississippi"

2010-11-14T11:48:00.000Z

A little musical light relief.

Philipina Schergevitch

2010-10-24T17:01:00.003Z

If this isn't a crime, I don't know what is! This Vancouver Sun article relates how an old lady is in threat of eviction because she smokes. Rich White, author of Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco has written a letter to her housing association. If you wish to b a signatory to this letter email him at richwhite (at) smokescreens.org. I think we should let the Bishop O'Byrne Housing for Seniors Association how we feel!

Article: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/year+woman+told+butt+evicted/3696774/story.html

Letter extract:

Dear Ms Morgan,

We the undersigned appeal to your conscience and common sense to reconsider the eviction of Philipina Schergevitch for her smoking habit.

Philipina is a long-standing tenant of a decade, during which time the Francis Klein Centre has become her home and she has provided the Bishop O'Byrne Housing for Seniors Association a lot of money to live there. At 88 years of age, the stress alone could cause the demise of this lady who has done nothing wrong to deserve such treatment. While the association states smoking is permitted in designated areas outside, it must be recognised that subjugating an elderly woman to the harsh weather conditions Calgary experiences is unacceptable and her human rights must be considered. The argument for the ban is of health, but that is clearly not the case because no harm is posed to other tenants by her smoking and a direct, large and immediate health threat is posed to Philipina through the extreme weather conditions of winter. It is startling to note that the Bishop O’Byrne Housing for Seniors Association deems it acceptable to put tenants at risk of pneumonia, flu, unprecedented stress and the possibility of attack from passers-by under the pretence of “health” and care for other, non-smoking tenants. The Calgary Herald reported in January 2009 the case of Juliette Bombardier, who died outside the Kamloops, B. C. seniors care home the day after Christmas as she went out for a cigarette and got locked out. This was a preventable death and yet the Bishop O’Bryne Housing for Seniors Association is fully prepared to run the risk of its tenants suffering a similar fate.

Another Anti Smoker Bites the Dust

2010-10-23T13:10:00.000Z

By Blad Tolstoy.

Another rabid anti smoker bites the dust aged 53. Yes, you all know it, health maniacs are supposed to live longer. As has been demonstrated many times, it's a lie, they don't live any longer than anybody else taken in the round assessment of the population.

Here we have Senator Jenny Oropeza kicking the bucket at 53. This one was big on smoker persecution as you may read in the article at the accompanying link:

http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_16396467

Am I sorry she's gone? No, I should be, but I now detest these people so much that I say to the devil:

Drive her fast to her tomb!

Manipulating Doctors

2010-08-31T18:44:00.000Z

This surmises that all doctors are stupid!

Whatever next?

2010-08-31T18:42:00.000Z

NEW YORK (CBS 2) – From the inside-out, there may be a new “no-go” when it comes to smoking.

Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-smoking crusade could be coming to a city park or public beach near you, a plan plenty of people say crosses the line, reports CBS 2′s Dave Carlin.

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/08/22/mayor-bloomberg-considering-smoking-ban-at-nyc-parks-and-beaches/

2010-08-31T18:39:00.000Z

An interesting video. I don't doubt that drug companies are in the business of making money. I think however that Gwen Olsen is not being completely fair, notwithstanding that she is also trying to sell her product, a book! Her example of antidepressants is particularly unfair, as it does not take into account the very significant benefits of these drugs. She also exaggerates the withdrawal effects. So, in summary, she is as biased as the drug companies.

Previous post deleted due to popular outrage

2010-08-25T21:16:00.002Z

2010-08-24T18:43:00.000Z

Personal Message To Nick Clegg

2010-07-18T17:55:00.000Z

There are several suggestions put forward asking you to consider amending the smoking ban. They have provoked many comments and much interest. Despite this I hear you are in danger of ignoring widespread public opinion on this matter. You will be seen to prefer listening to vested interests and bigoted self interest groups. In doing so the Your Freedom initiative will be exposed to ridicule and as a thinly disguised sham, created to convince you that you have some sort of influence as a minority segment of a Conservative government. Conversely if you listen to the outcry you will see that the courageous action, the common sense stand and one that carries massive public support is to control the influence of unrepresentative and unscientific self interest groups. The amendment of the smoking ban to allow smoking in ventilated, segregated areas in hospitality venues where the owner chooses is an idea for Our Freedom that does not merely encompass but engulfs the three aims stated within your initiative.

Amending the smoking ban will:

Restore A Civil Liberty
Repeal An Unnecessary Law
Cut Business and Third Sector Regulations

enough said!

VISIT http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/personal-message-for-nick-clegg/idea-view

UK Government: Incompetent or Corrupt?

2010-07-18T16:55:00.001Z

My wife and I are now socially isolated as a result of the smoking ban. We are only allowed to smoke in our home, which fortunately we own, as otherwise it might not be so clear cut. Oddly, business owners are not allowed to permit smoking in their property. How can that be right in a democratic modern society? We voted Tory in the hope that free market ideals would return, that the erosion of civil liberties would be reversed and that common sense and rational use of science would prevail.

Terrorists have more protection under the human rights act than smokers.

We have done nothing wrong.

It is claimed that smoking causes harm in non-smokers. As a result of expensive government funded media campaigns, the public has been fooled or scared into believing that this is so. It is far from the truth that environmental tobacco smoke causes "passive smoking" in non-smokers and resultant ill health. On the contrary, scientific methods have been unable to demonstrate any consistent figures supporting this claim. An equal number of studies demonstrate statistically insignificant harm and statistically insignificant benefits from ETS (evidence freely available and gladly supplied). The key studies used to support the claim have been shown to be lacking in scientific rigour (evidence freely available and gladly supplied). Somehow and for some reason the balance of these studies has been presented to the public in a biased way. One can only guess at the motives for this inaccuracy. This is dealt with at length by other commentators. Time and time again it is recorded that the self proclaimed motives of ASH and the WHO, are to reduce smoking rates, which their actions have failed to do. They self admitted methods used for this reduction are to engender a fear of smokers and to socially isolate smokers. This could otherwise be described as deception, scaremongering and at worst social engineering or brainwashing.

A strange anomaly exists in government and public health policy. Mental health is rightly being given increased priority and smoking is prevalent in higher numbers of those with mental health problems opposed to those without such issues. Social isolation is a known cause of increased mortality as is mental illness and lower social class, so how can it be a sensible goal to isolate smokers, those with mental illness and the socially less fortunate. Would it not be more appropriate to target mental illness and social deprivation. Smoking has become an easy target and real issues are being ignored.

Smokers have long known of the risk they take and could not be in a better position to make an informed choice. Sadly that is the only choice we have left, having been deprived of the choice to meet up with non-smoking friends for uninterrupted discourse.

Smokers are exposed to the risk of leaving venues to smoke outside. This comes with particular risk to women, who are exposed to rowdy torment on the street and spiking of their drinks left in the establishment.

The very sad thing is that there is no justification for these measures and that the concerns of those who dislike the smell of smoke and may erroneously believe the smoker is doing them harm, can easily be alleviated by adequate ventilation and segregation and the choice to avoid businesses where smoking is permitted. I am not given the choice to smoke where I cause no offence, instead I am forced to cause offence in doorways. I am not given the choice to go to a venue where smoking is permitted and I can minimise my exposure to anti-smokers. Instead this legislation brings me and anti-smokers into conflict. Surely a policy of live and let live would be a preferable alternative.

No other area of legal human behaviour has been targeted like this before and the sordid history of prohibition is well known to all. This legislation causes social unrest, social isolation and persecution of a significant (20-25%) minority of the population. It is dishonest, scientifically unjustified and probably rooted in petty corruption.

It is no secret that the SCOTH committee who advised the government prior to this legislation was predominantly comprised of members with pharmaceutical company interests. It is no secret that pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation are big money spinners. It is no secret that the mainstay of pharmaco-therapeutic manipulation of smokers' physiology is nicotine replacement and it is no secret despite widespread publicity to the contrary, that NRT is abysmally hopeless at stopping people smoking and extremely expensive. Why therefore is the NHS spending our money on it. Surely, NICE should have concluded by now that it is not financially viable. Why hasn't it? Your guess is as good as mine.

Nicotine addiction is widely used to explain smokers' behaviour and a useful tool to depict smokers as weak "crack whores", even imply a form of criminality, certainly label us as undesirables. The poor efficacy of NRT belies this belief and reinforces the idea that smoking is a smoker's choice not the consequence of a smoker's weakness against the nicotine receptor.

All these points further prove that government policy is informed not by science and noble intentions to improve our health but by the sinister and corrupt agenda of interested parties and the bigoted opinions of self interest groups.

In short the government is either incompetent or corrupt. Point made!

Amend the smoking ban you hypocrite!

2010-07-16T19:31:00.001Z

Patrick Basham - An Invitation to the House of Commons

2010-06-09T03:10:00.003Z

The Democracy Institute invites you to a House of

Commons presentation on shocking new evidence
about tobacco display bans’ harmful effects

SPEAKER – DR PATRICK BASHAM

COAUTHOR, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT:
WHY TOBACCO DISPLAY BANS FAIL

ROOM SPONSOR – PHILIP DAVIES MP

1.00PM – 2.00PM
TUESDAY 15 JUNE 2010
COMMITTEE ROOM 15
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA

DR BASHAM’S TALK TO BE FOLLOWED BY COMMENTS FROM AN EXPERT PANEL

PLEASE ALLOW PLENTY OF TIME TO PROCEED THROUGH SECURITY
BEFORE MAKING YOUR WAY TO THE COMMITTEE ROOM

RSVP

PHONE 0845 310 4144 EMAIL pbasham@democracyinstitute.org

Dr Phil Button - the "lost" interview

2010-04-09T21:04:00.002Z

Dr Phil Button - the "lost" interview

Smokerphobia

2010-02-06T10:31:00.002Z

Read all about it! Cigarette sales up in France and the UK!

2010-02-06T10:24:00.000Z

So the government says smoking rates are down in the UK. Liars! Read this and find out the truth!

See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/questor/7148625/Imperial-Tobaccos-yield-makes-the-shares-a-buy-Questor-share-tips.html

Add this news about the cost to the UK from cigarette smuggling and the governments' "smokers are down to 21%" is total bullshit!

See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/6110778/Revealed-2bn-cost-to-UK-from-cigarette-smuggling.html

Have fun!
Uncle Blad.

Registering for the TICAP Conference

2010-01-06T11:49:00.000Z

Hello Everybody. This is to remind those who wish to attend the next TICAP Conference at The Hague on March 15h, 2010, to make their registrations here please.:

http://antiprohibition.org/register/

This will be an important event and presents another real opportunity to kick Aunty up the backside. So please make the effort to be there. Remember attendance is free.

We thank you.

Phil and Blad.

New York teaches smokers how to inject heroin

2010-01-05T20:19:00.000Z

by Blad Tolstoy

In case you thought the story that 49 percent of last year's lung donors in the UK being smokers took the top prize for describing establishment hypocrisy, then think again, for here is another story to rival the former. This time, it's about New York.

Yes, New York, the city of Mayor Bloomberg, the man responsible for introducing its smoking ban, has hit the headlines with its Department of Health spending $32,000 on 70,000 fliers that tell you how to shoot heroin,complete with detailed tips on "prepping the dope" and injecting it into your arm.

Well, why should this be a surprise? Bloomberg is himself an advocate of marijuana and, moreover, it today's anti-smoking politically correct world lunacy rules. You can't smoke but you will receive detailed information
on injecting smack safely. “Warm your body (jump up and down) to show your veins,” and “Find the vein before you try to inject.” The Health Department handout then goes on: “If you don’t ‘register,’ pull out and try again.”

Anyway, read on and snigger...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/heroin_for_dummies_oLIfe1Gxl7RMk9iJZiWlnL

and

http://www.anorak.co.uk/235162/strange-but-true/new-york-teaches-smokers-how-to-inject-heroin.html

49 percent of last year's lung donors in the UK were smokers

2010-01-03T14:47:00.002Z

by Blad Tolstoy

Well, just kicking off the new year with a story that the mainstream British media didn't want you to read. Indeed, this story was left to CNN to break, and so, if you weren't watching CNN anywhere, you'd have missed it. Nevertheless, as the details reveal, 49 percent of last year's lung donors in the UK were smokers.

See: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/28/shortage.organ.transplant/index.html

Yes, the story came to light because one of the recipients of a smoker's lung transplant - Corporal Matthew Millington, 31 - died less than a year after receiving a double lung transplant from a donor who may have smoked more than 50 cigarettes a day.

This story raises many issues, many of which can be read in the above linked article. However, there are also a number of issues that aren't raised.

One of these is given that out of 49 percent of lung transplants undertaken, only one turned out to have an obvious negative result. Another issue is that despite the castigation of smokers and the
refusal by a number of hospitals to treat them even for non-smoking related diseases and problems, it remains sickening to discover just how great a percentage of smokers' lungs were "harvested" when it suited the convenience of the medical profession to do so.

There have been numerous stories from America over the years about the use of smokers' lungs for transplants, but now we have the proof for ourselves just how handy we all are when it comes to our body parts being used to save lives.

The last issue is that this story also illustrates how much exaggeration goes on with regard to the number of smokers who contract lung cancer. If the risk were anything like as great as is portrayed by the government, the medical authorities and the NGOs of tobacco control, then under no circumstances could one imagine any responsible surgeon taking the risk of transplanting smokers' lungs.

Carbon Dioxide: The Breath of Life

2009-12-09T17:19:00.000Z

The Brussels Declaration on Scientific Integrity

2009-12-06T15:56:00.002Z

The concrete result of the TICAP 1st world conference (Jan 2009) is The Brussels Declaration on Scientific Integrity. This can be seen at http://www.brusselsdeclaration.org/, where it is available to sign.

Yankee Baccee Tax Loop Hole (-ier than thou)

2009-12-05T00:35:00.002Z

An excellent read that has come our way from our cousin Michael in the US of A. He has drawn our attention to the following New York Times editorial and furnished us with his as yet unpublished response and his commentary. So read on for this three parter!

Part I - NYT Editorial

Roll Your Own Tax Rate

There are no records kept on how fast loopholes can be uncovered in new federal law, but the roll-your-own tobacco industry is making a breathtaking run for this year’s shabby laurels. No sooner had President Obama signed the new children’s health insurance law last spring than the industry pried open a lucrative escape from the 20-fold tax increase levied on roll-your-own cigarettes to help support the program.

Companies simply remarketed roll-your-own as “pipe tobacco,” which is taxed at one-tenth the rate and is not subject to any definitive distinction under the law. The result is that roll-your-own companies, while a small part of the cigarette industry, quintupled their output of pipe tobacco in just five months to 1.7 million pounds — enough to roll 42 million packs of cigarettes.

The evasion could cost the government more than $30 million a month in revenues, according to the Associated Press. But the potential cost to the public is far greater, since studies show higher cigarette taxes have proved to be an effective way to discourage children from smoking.
The new fear is that the gimmickry of rolling your own and using flavored (“pipe”) tobacco — now banned in packaged cigarettes — could prove irresistible for youngsters experimenting with life. And with death.

Obviously the new law is in urgent need of a no- nonsense amendment to bring roll-your-own under proper federal controls and full taxation. The companies plead they merely found a way to save their industry from taxes so prohibitive as to force them to close. That’s not a bad idea, given the public health findings about lethal smoking. But the companies’ gambit — the pretense of marketing pipe tobacco — is an outright deception.

Retailers are winking as they peddle pipe tobacco along with cigarette papers. This is not what President Obama and Congress had in mind in acting to bolster the health of young people. What’s the record for shutting a loophole?

Part II - Michael's Response

Dear Editor,

Your Nov. 21st Editorial about roll-your-own pipe tobacco being sold for cigarettes absolutely reeks of hypocrisy.

You speak of $30 million a month being "lost" while never mentioning that smokers are still paying well over a hundred times that amount each month in taxes. You speak of children being attracted to the "gimmickry" of rolling shreds of tobacco after all your years of editorializing about Big Tobacco's brand advertising being the cause of children smoking. You play the save the children card again by emphasizing "flavored tobacco - now banned in packaged cigarettes" while never mentioning that none of those cigarettes were coming from Big Tobacco or noting that the one major flavoring those companies actually do use, menthol, was given a built in exemption all of its own.

You end by asking "What's the record for shutting a loophole?" How about asking "What's the record for the largest single tax increase upon a minority group?" Does RYO tobacco's 2,130% increase upon the poorest segment of American smokers sound like the right answer?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Part III - Michael's Commentary

While I didn't have room to get into it in the letter, the "children card" was particularly annoying since they play on the image of "children attracted to gimmickry" thereby conjuring the image of a child between 6 and perhaps 10 or 12 years old.

In reality of course only about 1 child in a hundred would ever actually buy cigarettes at such an age: any smoking that goes on in that age range is almost universally the result of swiping them from a relative's pack or being given them by an older friend. And in further reality, probably 1 in a thousand of those 1 in a hundred would think of walking into a tobacco shop or going on the internet with a credit card and buying a pound of rolling "pipe" tobacco. And of those who indeed might do so, raising the price of such a pound from $25 to $50 would probably deter about 1 in 10 of those who displayed that much determination to begin with. We are now talking about one child in a million.

Of that one in a million how many do you think would be making such a well-thought-out purchase simply because they were attracted to the "gimmickry" of rolling their own? Maybe one in a hundred?

So we're talking about a 2,000% tax increase on five million or so pipe smokers in order to prevent the purchase of a pound of tobacco by roughly one such "child" in a population of a hundred million children.

Since there are only about 50 million such children at most in the US population, there's just about a fifty-fifty chance that even a single such incident would happen in a given year... but meanwhile those five million pipe smokers will all be paying a couple of hundred dollars extra for their enjoyment... close to one billion dollars overall to theoretically prevent one-half of a single "child" from trying smoking a few years earlier than he or she otherwise probably would anyway.

That's one of the reasons I devoted a whole subsection of Brains to the "Saving the Children" propaganda trick: it's a powerful card that's been played by such notables as Attila the Hun (We'll spare the children if you surrender!) to Adolph Hitler (The Jews are drinking the blood of Christian babies!) to Saddam Hussein (As he smilingly patted the little American child-hostage on the head for the TV cameras) to George Bush Sr. (As he lamented how the Iraqi soldiers were dumping premature Kuwaiti babies on hospital floors while stealing incubators.) Our biologically hard-wired love for our children makes us extremely vulnerable to the abuse of that love by those who would manipulate us for their own benefit and aims.

And now it's being used against pipe smokers.... not just in terms of this tax, but also in terms of the U.S. PACT act that will stop you from ever again ordering pipe tobacco through the mail or delivery services. Oh, and peripherally in the Health Insurance Plan in Congress that actually DOES seem to specify that you're quite fine with your pipe as long as you just smoke crack or meth in it... but your monthly premium will double if you dare fire up a bowl of cherry-flavored baccy!

Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco

2009-12-01T13:43:00.007Z

NOW AVAILABLE

‘Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco’ is the culmination of years of research into tobacco consumption. The book explores everything from the scientific links between smoking and illness to smoking trends between the social classes. It also examines fundamental issues such as detection bias and answers the pertinent question of ‘Why was there a surge in lung cancer rates in the 1930s?’

The book delves into the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and the cancer research organizations to determine whether they have vested interests in the ostracisation of smokers and, if so, where those interests lay. Including extracts from a variety of Surgeon General Reports and an anti-smoking magazine from 1917, ‘Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco’ leaves no stone unturned and provides an encyclopedic view into one of the largest issues in society today. With global smoking bans now in place and the World Health Organisation declaring a global war against tobacco smoking, the book is timely and relevant. With over a billion smokers worldwide there is potential for this book to be a milestone in recent history. It is available for purchase through the author’s website: http://www.smokescreens.org/

About the author:

Richard White is an independent researcher with no ties or affiliations with either the tobacco or medical industries. ‘Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco’ is his first book and has garnered attention worldwide with numerous people pre-ordering a copy. He runs a website and newsletter relating to the book and its content, which receives thousands of hits a month and people from various countries around the world are signed up to the newsletter. He has a BA (Hons) degree from Canterbury Christ Church University and now runs his own business offering literary services.

Gasdoc in a Garage!

2009-11-07T09:39:00.000Z

I recently ran across an internet discussion where an Antismoker was seriously putting forth an argument that I'd thought had been put out to pasture a long time ago. About five years ago some Antismokers in Italy produced a study purporting to show that cigarettes were far more "polluting" than modern diesel cars.

(http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12481.php)

Basically they claimed that smoking three cigarettes in a sealed garage produced more air pollution than running a car for a half hour in that same garage.

The trick here is that they basically tested for a particular element (FPM 2.5) that's given off by cigarettes in much greater relative quantities than by diesel fuel. If they'd picked a different element (or even a normal car!) to measure then the car would have come out as the villain.

What they did is kind of like saying "Chlorine is poisonous, and this teaspoon of chlorinated tap water is giving off more chlorine than this entire bottle of ammonia!" and then concluding that drinking a teaspoon of tap water would be more "deadly" than drinking an entire bottle of of ammonia.

It's a shell game - a bait-and-switch sort of argument.

I've thought about this study for a bit over the years and have recently come up with a new study to propose. We lock those researchers along with some volunteer Antismokers in that sealed garage for an hour with the car running while GasDoc, Blad Tolstoy and I am locked in a different garage with three or four smokers (all of us playing a wild game of poker... if the other three were female we could get really creative at that!) At the end of the hour we open both garages.

Study result: the world will be a better place.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers Brains"

Environmental Genital Smoke - Pubic Enemy No 1 - Public Louse

2009-10-04T11:17:00.001Z

A reduction in pubic smoking has apparently reaped benefits for those less inclined to ignite their groins. Stanton Glantz, our nemesis, has published fascinating data indicating that the decline in pelvic grinding reduces the risk of heart disease. It has long been suspected that the dangers of environmental pubic friction were sinister enough to warrant a ban on pubic smoking. Hopefully this ground breaking study will soon bring to an end that only too common and distressing sight of the sufferer pouring their lager down their trousers to quench the pain from their flaming sexual organs.

To read this seminal work follow the link below:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.870691v1

Logical Reason To Smoke

2009-09-29T09:58:00.000Z

Violence Against Smokers

2009-09-24T17:48:00.003Z

Obama's Health Reforms - On A Lighter Note!

2009-09-24T15:26:00.001Z

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new Healthcare Reform Proposals:

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves...

The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.

Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.

The Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, “Oh, Grow up!”

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.

The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter.."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.

The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the A******s in Washington.

Double Good News - Two Conferences

2009-09-21T18:06:00.000Z

By Blad Tolstoy

I am pleased to announce two items of excellent news for the readers of this blog.

First of all, our colleagues in Australia are organising a smokers rights conference in Bali for July 2010. This sounds like a most charming location for such an event and we are informing our readers in good time in case anyone wishes to save up to go.

See:

http://www.smokersrights.com.au/main/page_bali_conference_2010.html

Secondly, for those who may have wondered what happened to TICAP, the site is back in place. TICAP, like F2C and Forces International, shared the same server. The building in which the server was located burnt down, so all three sites had to be relocated with a new server. This is now completed and all aspects of TICAP's site will return to normal over the next few days.

However, please take a look at this page:

http://www.antiprohibition.org/ticap_pages.php?q=15

Here, readers will discover the first simple announcement for the next TICAP conference which will take place in The Hague, Holland, on March 15th, 2010. Please keep an eye on this page as the details will be added to and developed over the next few weeks. The Hague is the home of the Global Court of Justice and it was considered to be a most appropriate location for what will be a prestigious and exciting event.

We hope to see you all there!

National Health Service - The Times 14th Sept 2009

2009-09-17T20:51:00.000Z

They didn't publish it so I will!

In your leading article "National Health Service? - Health policy has done less to counteract health inequalities than was always hoped" on the 14th September 2009 the writer briefly examined the original aims of and subsequent developments in the NHS and public health policy. I would take issue with some of the basic tenets offered in the discussion.

First, I detect some confusion of the boundaries between Public Health Medicine, Health Policy and the NHS. Indeed, the blurring of these boundaries is to blame for the administrative and financial mesh throttling the NHS. Public Health Medicine is the prerogative of busy-body, do-gooder, meddling, paternalistic nannies and is of no proven benefit. This has led to the government using NHS resources to service its various poorly supported efforts to tell the public how to live their lives. These “initiatives” are often informed by bigoted lobbyists such as ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), who are also succoured with public money, and by the pharmaceutical industry, whose only interest is to sell drugs. Health Policy is the random thoughts of the ignorant, garnered to win votes, proven beyond doubt to have failed. The author seems to treat the terms NHS and Health Policy as synonymous. Far from this I would suggest that Health Policy has been the main downfall of the NHS. The service continues to be the jewel in the crown despite policy repeatedly being the poor relative. The service is a tangible physical entity whereas the policy is wishy-washy propaganda. I have worked exclusively in the NHS as both a general practitioner and a hospital doctor for 29 years. As a constituent part of the service I have witnessed serial offences of health policy crime committed by sequential and recidivist governments. The heart of each crime is the position that the NHS occupies as a political football.

Second, in dissecting the title "National Health Service", the author neglects to allow for changes in the meaning of words over the time period involved and for the perversion of the term "health". Equally scant regard is given to the modern usage of the word "service" with its associated categorical inventions of "client", "user" and "service provider". Bevan's idealistic aims may have been optimistic but were informed by the state of medical knowledge of the time and entirely pure. Whatever the current meaning of the words in its title and whatever people think it should do, the NHS is and has always been a deliverer of advice and management for illness and disease - nothing more and nothing less. This service has been run by the highest quality medical professionals and been highly integrated with academic medicine. The gradual and systemic erosion of these two facts has, in my opinion gravely contributed to its downfall.

Third, the author alludes to the excesses of human consumption or behaviour being in someway contributory to the state of the NHS. Why then are we living so long? Is it not an irony that the aim of Public Health Medicine has shot the NHS in the foot? Simply old people get ill more. Furthermore and without rare intellect can you not see that cancer, heart disease and stroke are diseases of the elderly? Seriously, the NHS will thrive if fat, drunken, lazy smokers die quickly. Incidentally, this would solve the pension’s crisis and maintain tax revenue superbly - especially in the case of smokers. Drinkers you're next! Health economics produces fallacial statistics daily, merely in an attempt to disguise propaganda or erroneously provide back up for unsupportable health policy. The best example of this is that supporting the denormalisation of smokers. Paradoxically, however, with scrutiny, it is obvious that the complete financial picture surrounding tobacco shows the NHS to be in debt to smokers and to tobacco to the sum of several billion pounds sterling.

Furthermore, the metaphorical battle that has been and still is fought is not against human excess, but rather against the relentless advance and therefore cost of medical science. The other melee is going on, on the touchline, against rampaging public expectation. Demand is simply outstripping supply. This latter tussle is fuelled by irresponsible media hype over "health" matters and scandalous big pharma. A very good example being the phenomenally costly peddling and supply of nicotine replacement therapy, proven beyond doubt now to be of little or no value.

Fourth, as is always the case, no mention or consideration of the cost or status of mental illness is pursued. I feel sure that the pressure on the NHS is made all the greater by the neuroses occurring in the vulnerable public due to “health mongering” and scare tactics. By health mongering I refer to the propensity to infer that in some way I will be in danger if I do not exercise 30 minutes a day and eat five portions of fruit and vegetables, or avoid the sun for fear of cancer and soak in the sun for fear of vitamin D deficiency. I could go on. By scare tactics I specifically refer to the WHO inspired campaign to make people believe they are in some kind of peril from smokers being in their vicinity! Now, I can add the current TV advertisement campaign of pathetic children attempting to tug the hard heart strings of their smoking parents. Whatever next?

Lastly, death is never "premature", but always inevitable. Poverty is associated with lower life expectancy. Poverty has decreased so life expectancy has increased. This is not in anyway related to the NHS, Public Health Medicine or Health Policy. It is due to the improvement in the infrastructure of civilisation. Simply look at third world countries and compare infant or perinatal mortality or life expectancy.

It would seem wise and fair for me now to outline some constructive suggestions. The National Health Service needs radical, root and branch reform not piecemeal initiatives. An independent body should examine the whole organisation and subject it to stringent system analysis. Simply put it should be decided what its outcomes should be and what system is needed to complete these outcomes. It should then be disbanded and started again.

It should be independent from government but funded partly by public money. All other funding options should be considered. It should be intimately linked with academic medicine. It should be separated absolutely from public health medicine and public health “campaigns”. NHS money should only fund illness advice and management. Its biggest areas of deficit currently are communication globally, administration, management and its complex funding.

A metaphorical or analogous image which may serve to illustrate my opinion of the situation is that of a marionette puppet, some of whose strings have become entangled with several other puppets’ strings, some have been broken and knotted together and some have been left dangling. The NHS needs to be cut down and restrung. The other marionettes are Public Health Medicine, Health Policy, countless QWANGOS and committees, silly lobbyists and some charities.

Walk Hard Pot Smoking Scene

2009-09-15T09:54:00.003Z

Evidence Lacking on What Makes Teens Smoke Cigarettes

2009-09-15T09:53:00.000Z

by Patrick Basham
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-evidence-lacking-on-what-makes-teens-smoke-cigarettes-r-1252872377

New junk heart study

2009-09-15T09:51:00.000Z

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6832384.ece

Chris Snowdon's commentary:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2009/09/worst-junk-stat-of-2010.html

Sign Petition Please

2009-09-07T19:19:00.000Z

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill by removing the proposals relating to the ban on the display of tobacco in shops.

http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=338

Ban BO On Buses

2009-09-03T10:26:00.000Z

http://www.kitv.com/news/20679481/detail.html

Nevermind

2009-09-03T10:24:00.002Z

Smoker's Festival

2009-09-01T21:37:00.003Z

This is covered well in these two articles on our friends blogs. As a sign of our support we would draw it to your attention. I want one closer to home!!!

The Jolly Brewer Smokin' Festival - Phil Johnson

Encouraging Signs of Support at Smoker's Festival - Patsy Nurse

Bloomberg bans free coffee

2009-09-01T16:06:00.001Z

http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2665.html

Alderney says "NO" to smoking ban

2009-09-01T16:03:00.001Z

Alderney takes to the streets in protest against smoking ban

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/08/31/alderney-takes-to-the-streets-in-protest-against-smoking-ban/

Revealed: £2bn cost to UK from cigarette smuggling

2009-08-31T15:30:00.004Z

By Blad Tolstoy

Well, we told you so. Yes, read all about it, the whole sorry story about the massive increase in cigarette smuggling going on in the UK.

The whole thing is presented here, the smuggled and counterfeit tobacco market is booming:

Cost to UK from cigarette smuggling - Daily Telegraph

Will they be able to control it? Not on your nelly. The war against drugs has failed, so what do they expect will happen with a product millions of times more popular?

Prohibition and excessive taxation always opens doors for criminals.

When will the politicians learn the lessons? The war against smokers is now a guaranteed failure.

Am I pleased? From one perspective, yes, in that it's satisfying to be proved right (yet again). From another perspective, no, why would anyone wish to encourage the growth of criminal markets and what about safeguarding young people from mixing with criminals?

Anyway read on...

Another Creature Who Wants His Palms Greasing

2009-08-31T14:44:00.013Z

By Blad Tolstoy

I should like to draw your attention to this letter by John Wesdorp Dip CAH PNLP (that means he's a hypnotherapist and no big deal) who wants all the supermarkets to stop selling tobacco products to save the poor "addicts" from themselves.

See:

Abolish the Sale of tobacco products in Supermarkets - Usprwire

Note the commonly quoted figures, repeated ad nauseam and unsubstantiated by fact, which Wesdorp (self confessed antismoking activist) repeats:

"Every day, over 40,000 young people around the world start smoking. One third of those will eventually die (at what age please) from the effects a smoking related disease as a result of taking up the smoking habit. Those young people are persuaded by multi-billion pound tobacco marketing campaigns that specifically targets adolescents by making smoking look rebellious or even by portraying smoking as hip and a fashion statement."

Here is a right old piece of subterfuge as it implies that children will die as children when most smokers die over the age of 75. We all know this one don't we? It's one of the oldest cons in the book.

And, how about:

"The commercial sale of tobacco products is a remnant of the 20th century when an estimated 200,000,000 (200 million) people died prematurely as a direct result of smoking tobacco products. This number of deaths exceeds the total of all those killed in two world wars, the holocaust, plus all other wars, insurgences, invasions and other military activities. Those deaths from smoking occurred in all ranks of society and tragically included many prominent and talented people in the business community, politics, show business and public life."

Given that no-one really knows how many people die or do not die from smoking, then these figures are sheer fiction of an unprecedented scale. The fact is that smoking has never been proved to be uniquely responsible for anyone's death, hence it is impossible to generate any reliable figures on deaths at all. No, no-one is saying that smoking cannot kill you, but if you have no solid proof that it uniquely responsible for anyone's death, then its a simple logical point that no-one can possibly know how many people die from it.

Wesdorp has also been written about here too:

Offers Smokers Help That Does Not Work

Here, he makes the claim that 70% of British smokers desperately want to give up. This again, is straight out of the ASH handbook. How does he know how many smokers want to give up? How does ASH know? How can anybody possibly know? In fact, the reverse is now happening for, as opposed to wanting to give up, more and more smokers, fed up with the nagging, harassment and intrusions by self-appointed health dictators like Wesdorp and ASH are digging in their heels with even greater determination.

But of course, the nub of the issue is that Wesdorp is "Managing Director" of No Smoking Again, an organisation which is not listed as a company at Companies House and therefore the title "Managing Director" maybe more than a little pretentious. It may be the case, of course, that the name Wesdorp uses is just a company trading name and his "company" is actually listed by another name. However, if not, then he will be guilty of trying to make himself sound more important than he is.

Check it out for yourselves:

Companies House

But, more to the point, Wesdorp peddles hypnotherapy to stop you smoking.

See:

No Smoking Again - Wesdorp Hypnotherapy!

This is the most successful method for stopping he says. Again, how does he know? In fact, whereas Wesdorp is correct to outline the very low success rate of nicotine replacement therapy, the most successful method for giving up is cold turkey, way and ahead on medical figures (see, for example: http://www.whyquit.com/)

As it happens, this writer tried hypnotherapy many years ago and found it absolutely useless.

If the supermarkets have any sense, they'll ignore Wesdorp because if they don't sell tobacco products then the smugglers will, and all Wesdorp will have done is further assisted the creation of a burgeoning criminal market.

See:

Revealed 2bn cost to UK from cigarette smuggling - The Telegraph

Suzy Dean - "I won't be giving up"

2009-08-22T12:15:00.005Z

Quite miraculously the BBC has posted a video showing a young woman smoking and telling the camera why she won't give up smoking. This was brought to our attention by Michael Mcfadden. Unfortunately the BBC protects its video footage very well so I can't embed it here. however here is a link to the page. The short article reports on the dismal failure of the anti-smokers' campaign to make us give up!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8210551.stm

Oh and by the way, in case you didn't already know, Suzy is not just pleasing to the eye. She is a prolific writer and co-founder of the Manifesto Club and much much more. Google her!

No Smoking?

2009-08-21T19:35:00.003Z

Ar-Ay, Nice Werch, Wach: Noh!

2009-08-15T15:58:00.008Z

by Blad Tolstoy

You know, I used to like Liverpool - a lot, but not any more.

Yes, I remember when I first became acquainted with that city at the beginning of the 1970s. People told me that if you asked someone the way to anywhere they'd almost take you there they were so friendly. And they were, I tried it and was duly impressed.

Since then, I have noted all the character stripping changes but still enjoyed the city very much until recent years. I recall all those Sunday visits to The Tate in Albert Dock to take in the interactive art exhibitions and all the excellent selections of work by artists from the last 100 odd years. My trips were usually completed by a visit to the Tate eaterie where I would end my repasts with an appreciative cigarette. What splendid afternoons they were.

As this century progressed I became aware that something was changing. The noises coming from the City Council became more politically correct and strident. Then came the announcements concerning smoking bans, I remember them first in about 2003-04. Yes, Liverpool was to become a "modern" smokefree city, leading the way in the UK in stamping out the ghastly habit, or so a progression of snotty wac zealots announced.

Well, we know that a smoking ban has since been implemented and, contrary to the promises of the zealots, it has still not bedded in and sits uncomfortably on the broken back of our pub industry. However, this is not enough damage for Liverpool City Council, which now wants to ban anyone under the age of 18 from seeing films with smoking in them - just in case they become corrupted.

See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6023821/Why-pretend-the-past-was-cigarette-free.html

One can be forgiven for taking a sharp intake of breath at this gob-smacking stupidity. If anyone wanted to find a way to make smoking even more attractive to minors well, this is it. If you want to make smoking more glamourous, just keep banning it. Moreover, how will stopping under 18s from seeing films in the cinema stop them from seeing CDs and videos? Puleease, get real you idiots!

Lastly, I ask myself, is this the beginning of yet another New Age Industry? Will Liverpool become the centre for film airbrushing? Will Humphrey Bogart have his fag replaced with a stick of rock? Will Audrey Hepburn suck a banana? Who knows? Perhaps they'll just have to make do with a slug clone.

See:

http://pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.com/search?q=slug+clones

Velvet Glove Iron Fist - Christopher Snowdon

2009-08-15T15:54:00.003Z

We have not plugged Christopher Snowdon's book yet. It has been widely publicised by Forest, so it is possible that some of you have already read it. It can be communicated to our readers that Uncle Bald has read it and gives it a 5 star rating!

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=1

Dark Market - Christopher Snowdon

2009-08-15T15:51:00.001Z

The "Dark Market" is a full expose of the campaign by ASH and Co to promote the removal of cigarette displays in shops. Snowdon got hold of all the e-mails between ASH, the DofH, Cancer Research UK and their consultants in Canada using the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/darkmarket_display_ban.php

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/pdfs/thedarkmarket.pdf

Roll yer own!

2009-08-13T17:11:00.004Z

In these hard times, many of you may be thinking of rolling your own cigarettes. I've tried it and sadly tired of the fiddliness involved. It seemed like I had sprouted a couple of extra thumbs. I'm having another go and I found a charming and humorous website with some hints and tips for the beginner. It truely is an art and I don't might admitting that I would love to master the one handed roll-up. So all those who have tried and failed and all those who fancy a go here's a link to some wise words.

Cigarette rolling instructions.

Perhaps we should trade our experiences. I personally find the trickiest bit getting the edge of the paper to tuck in prior to forming the tube. I think my thumbs are too big. I have got a rolling machine, which I can use a filter in, but the filter is just too small for the size tube the machine makes. Hey Ho!

Pizza Delivery

2009-08-12T09:46:00.002Z

Blad's found this scarey video...

ASH Marching For The New World Order

2009-08-10T08:22:00.002Z

Sienna Miller on Cigarettes

2009-08-09T20:05:00.003Z

On cigarettes: 'I love them. Love them. I think the more positive approach you have to smoking, the less harmful it is.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1204695/Is-Sienna-Miller-modern-day-Oscar-Wilde-We-present-wit-wisdom-gaff-prone-actress.html#ixzz0NiaSjMNT

The History of Smoking Bans by Professor Richards

2009-08-09T19:34:00.005Z

I've just discovered Professor Jeremy Richards a professor of history from the US of A. He kindly directed me to an article he wrote in August 2008 for the Heartland Institute. In it he sumarises the history of smoking bans and profers us his quite optimistic vision for the future.

Here is the link to this superb article...
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23460/History_Shows_Smoking_Bans_Likely_to_Be_Repealed.html

Smoking Ban / Turkey / Murder

2009-08-01T17:21:00.003Z

Fri Jul 31, 11:41 AM

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - A restaurant owner in southwest Turkey was shot dead after he tried to prevent his customers from smoking to comply with a new law on the use of tobacco indoors, Hurriyet daily said on Thursday.

A fight broke out after Hidir Karayigit, 46, ordered a group of customers to extinguish their cigarettes when they began smoking at his "meyhane," a traditional restaurant that serves alcohol, in the town of Saruhanli, Hurriyet said.

One of the customers shot Karayigit four times after he took away the group's cigarettes, said witness Hamza Havutcu, Karayigit's business partner who was also shot and wounded.

Turkey's government on July 19 introduced a nationwide ban on indoor smoking, including bars and restaurants, despite the fact that half of Turks aged between the ages of 15 and 49 smoke; one of the highest rates in the world.

"I'm deeply saddened that the first smoking-ban murder occurred in our town," Saruhanli Mayor Veli Yalcin told Hurriyet. "They either shouldn't have outlawed smoking or they should have outlawed alcohol along with smoking."

(Writing by Ayla Jean Yackley; Editing by Jon Hemming)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/odd_us_smoking_odd

Obama Attends Bullshit G8 Summit

2009-07-29T08:37:00.000Z

Redneck's Opinion On US Military Proposed Smoking Ban

2009-07-24T17:30:00.002Z

Rather humerous!

Introducing Salon

2009-07-24T17:28:00.001Z

by Blad Tolstoy

Hello there!

For those of you who have not yet visited Salon, may I recommend a quick trip:

See: www.salon.com

This is a really nice news and views site with lots of topical stuff all presented in a very classy style. Also part of Salon is it's movies page at:

http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/

Obama in bare-faced lie!

2009-07-23T20:23:00.007Z

by Michael J. McFadden

"Sent to the Washington Times on July 21st, 2009"

===

Dear Editor, A Lie We Can't Ignore...

Breaking campaign promises is something many politicians do, and they are used to getting away with it even when they are broken blatantly and without apologies.

Being caught in a public lie is something else entirely.

President Obama clearly, without ANY doubt or quibbling whatsoever, blatantly lied to the cameras on July 21st on the Today Show and NO ONE seems to be raising the issue.

Obama said, and I quote exactly as you can see 5 minutes into the original clip of the Today Show interview with Meredith Vieira:

"The only tax change I've made in the 6 months I've been here is to cut people's taxes."

He said that - despite the clear and recorded fact that he raised cigarette pack taxes by 150% and raised the tax on one of the poorest well-defined minority groups in the country, smokers so poor they roll their own from shreds of tobacco and scraps of paper, by OVER TWO THOUSAND PERCENT (from $1/lb to $24/lb).

He stated a lie, a lie that at least 40 million Americans (smokers) knew full well was a lie, and Meredith didn't even wince, much less even TRY to pretend to be a journalist and ask him about it.

While there have been some rumblings on the internet about it I don't believe there has been even a single mention of it ANYWHERE in the mainstream media.

He **LIED** - no waffling, no minor prevarication, no slight mis-slip-of-the-tongue, he LIED just as blatantly and directly as if Bush had been interviewed about terrorism and said "We have no one imprisoned at Guantanamo."

The amazing thing is that no one seems to be calling him on it. Smokers seem to have been now officially relegated to the status of unpersons, of vermin that do not even need to be acknowledged to exist as citizens of America despite paying taxes to support the children nonsmokers don't love enough to support themselves.

I have news for Mr. Obama. We are NOT unpersons. We are NOT vermin. We are Americans and we will NOT tolerate being erased.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains

A little light relief!

2009-07-23T17:21:00.000Z

The Nazification of America: Illuminati

2009-07-20T16:07:00.001Z

Watch this and THINK!

Light Relief - Muddy Waters: "Mannish Boy"

2009-07-19T18:09:00.001Z

Civil Rights Shocker

2009-07-19T17:57:00.006Z

by Blad Tolstoy

Case 1

A woman who left four of her children plating in a park unattended whilst she took the fifth to a shop has been given a criminal record.

The reason for this occurrence was that the fifth child – a toddler – had petulantly demanded an ice cream whilst the family were enjoying some recreational time. In order to cope with a difficult situation, the mother left her four other children under the care of her nine year old, a responsible youngster, while she quickly popped to the shop for a few moments with her youngest.

On returning from the shop she found police officers talking to her other children. In response to the their concerns, the mother explained what had happened and all seemed to be well. She was also pleased that the police had acted so vigilantly.

A short while later, the same mother applied for a voluntary job as a Sunday school teacher with her local church. Imagine her surprise when she discovered that the “incident” in the park had been logged with the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and that she had been labelled a risk to children. Consequently, she did not get the job.

Case 2

Jane Clift, a former care worker from Slough, was threatened by a drunk whom she saw trampling flower beds in a local park. The police advised her to inform the local council which was campaigning for people to report anti-social incidents.

After several phone calls and a letter of complaint, because Miss Clift felt her case was not being taken seriously, she was horrified to receive a letter from the council telling her that she’d been placed on the register for potentially violent persons and classed as “medium level of threat” – the same as a sex offender. This information was then passed on to local organisations such as libraries, hospitals and schools and Miss Clift acquired “pariah” status.

It took her four years to clear her name. Last month a jury awarded her £12,000 in libel damages after finding that what had been recorded by Slough council about her “was not true”.

For these two cases, see:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5818422/Mother-who-left-children-playing-in-park-is-branded-a-criminal.html

and:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/lizhunt/5828510/A-society-of-secret-lists-and-snoopers.html

Case 3

A doctor who left his eight year-old son in his car whilst he went to the bank has been placed on the police and social services register.

The doctor had to go to the bank in Newton Abbot, Devon. He was accompanied in the car by his son and his father asked him if he wanted to come into the bank with him. The son declined the offer, preferring instead to stay in the car and play with his computer.

When the father returned some twenty minutes later, he was confronted by two police officers who asked him why he had left his child in the car whilst the son was hot.

In response, the father vainly tried to explain that the rooftop window was open and that his son was committed to playing with his computer and, moreover, he was capable of opening the door if needed.

The police nevertheless recorded all the details of the event plus all the details of the doctor’s family, including his other children, and informed him that they would be recorded on the police and social services register until all his children reached the age of eighteen.

See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5850599/Doctors-children-placed-on-police-register-after-son-left-in-car.html

Commentary

Whilst everyone is concerned with the welfare of children and vulnerable adults this “checking” system goes far to far. In fact, what it means is that all adults who have any contact at all with children, particularly parents, are at risk. They are at risk because to have their names placed on the CRB register, or any similar registers, will ruin their lives and reputations forever.

Whilst many people would be content to have the names of proven sex or violent offenders placed on such registers, the fact that even the innocent can end up there is both shocking and disturbing.

In today’s radio version of Question Time (18/7/09) with Jonathan Dimbleby, the question was asked if it was only a matter of time before everyone who had any contact with children required a CRB check. Enter Harriet Harman to defend the government.

Harman is said to be a “blue stocking” but I have never found any of her comments at any time to particularly enlightening. Harman’s response to this question was emotive and undiscerning as she found no problem at all with the system in place.

The fact that it produces serious miscarriages of justice and deformations of character plainly does not concern her and she was content to play to emotional blackmail with the “it’s for the children” card.

Over the past five years, according to figures obtained form the Home Office by the Conservatives, a total of 12,225 disputes over inaccurate CRB checks have been upheld. This is because there are no real safeguards to challenge such records at the moment because of the way the law stands. In other words, once on the register you have no easy way to clear your name.

Worse still, is that the system depends on “soft” data. This includes police suspicions and subjective assessments and incidents when someone has been questioned and released. Similarly, even unsubstantiated information provided by informants in the community whose names are kept confidential is also taken into consideration. Subsequently, as was asked in the Daily Telegraph: how many people are wandering about unaware of any information that may have been stored about them?

As I consider these facts, I notice that where I live the children play in the street. They also sometimes wander unaccompanied to nearby common land. Under the circumstances described in the three abovementioned cases, this means all their parents could be liable to find themselves placed on the CRB register. Furthermore, if an innocent parent is placed on the register and, as a result of which, they find their job prospects destroyed, how are they then going to be able to work to sustain their families? Also, as the stigma from such an event will also rub off on the children, how is that for their good?

One of the other many negative effects of this policy is that it has certainly reduced the number of people wishing to work with children and vulnerable adults in the voluntary sector.

For a more detailed outline of some of the points of concern see Prof. Frank Furedi’s article at Civitas:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/wordpress/2008/06/licensed-to-hug/

and also his book, co-written with Jennie Barlow:

“Licence to Hug”

http://www.civitas.org.uk/books/whatsnew.php

Penultimately, let me reiterate, whilst it is very important that children are protected from paedophiles and others who would wish them harm, it is also important that miscarriages of justice are not tolerated either. Yes, there are those who will argue that miscarriages of justice are inevitable, and maybe so, but that does not mean they should be considered an acceptable way of dealing with a problem. Moreover, one miscarriage of justice is bad enough but for there to be at least a possible 12,225 is unforgivable.

The end does not justify the means and it makes a mockery of our law and any notion of justice. Lastly, for those who use the argument that we have nothing to fear if we are innocent, let me say: keep your mendacious platitudes. The underlying implication of the current CRB system is that even the innocent can be criminalised and of that we have much to fear.

We The People Stimulus Package

2009-07-13T20:33:00.001Z

Bob Basso author of "Common Sense" plays the role of Thomas Paine to ignite the fire of change in America. Patriotism and Pride for America lead Thomas Paine to help take back America!

Pentagon May Try To Ban Smoking In Military

2009-07-13T20:30:00.002Z

by Blad Tolstoy

Newsmax reports that the Pentagon may try to ban smoking in the American military. More shades of Hitler, some of you may say, given that 'orrible Adolf tried the same stunt with the Germans back in the time of the 3rd Reich.

Just as Adolf failed then, and for similar reasons, we doubt this policy has a chance of working in America either, despite the fact that antis like Joe Cherner have tried persuading soldiers to quit and placing pressure on the US military to ban smoking as well.

In the past, it has always amused me considerably, to listen to antis prescribe that soldiers comforts parcels should contain "better"substitutes for tobacco such as soft sweets - "sucking, for the purpose of" - as they might say in the army.

There is an obvious silliness here, in that, for soldiers facing possible death, the idea that smoking could be bad for their health is laughable. Moreover, if any antis received call-up papers for a military conflict, they would probably be found in the local department store changing their underwear.

See:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/military_smoking_ban/2009/07/10/234112.html?s=al&promo_code=8333-1

Les Dawson

2009-07-05T19:18:00.001Z

Billy Conolly

2009-07-05T19:16:00.000Z

Infantile Paralysis

2009-07-05T19:05:00.007Z

by Blad Tolstoy

I am sure that whilst most of you are well acquainted with dealing with antis on blogs and newspaper threads, you are nevertheless still a little surprised by the childish mentality which is revealed by many of their postings.

It is frequently said that the nanny state encourages adults to behave like children. Nowhere is this proposal manifest more clearly than by some of the comments of antis who talk as though the entire world should revolve around them - even though they plainly do not go to the entire world as is proven by the unmitigated economic disaster which is the smoking ban.

Yes, you all know how the story goes, than when smokers were cleared out from the hospitality venues they would be replaced by hordes of non-smokers. We knew, beforehand, that this would not happen, as we only needed to take note of the damaging effects of smoking bans in other countries, particularly parts of America, where such bans had already been implemented.
However, now, even in thickie UK, more and more commentators are speaking out about the damage to our pubs, clubs, bingo halls and even restaurants.

There is now a significant movement to have the ban amended by proposals allowing establishments over a certain size to be able to choose to have strictly partitioned (separated by walls and sealed from each other) smoking and non-smoking areas; and establishments below that certain size to be able to choose whether to be all non smoking or smoking throughout. This is in line with policy already adopted successfully by many continental European countries.

The response of many antis to these proposals is almost solipsistic and they regale us with comments about: "the most wonderful law that New Labour has enacted" and, "why should I have to immerse myself in your filthy smoke?" In a nutshell, they choose to completely ignore the fact that the proposals present an opportunity to be fair to all and that they won't have to be "immersed" in anyone's smoke at all if they choose not to be.

When attempts are made to explain this to these people (if I may call them that), the spectre of "deadly" second-hand-smoke (SHS) is immediately raised with the hysteria of a religious zealot screaming "heresy". The SHS issue is easily demolished by those favouring choice (both smokers and non-smokers), with a whole barrage of arguments and evidenced scientific data which leaves the average anti in a state of confusion as their comfort blanket of sticky sound bites and mendacious propaganda is ripped apart.

Desperately, seeking to clutch at some straw, the average anti then reverts to what I have chosen to call Violet Elizabeth Bott syndrome. Here are instances from "LucyQ" responding to an article by brain sodomised Guardian journalist, David Cronin.
(See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/02/eu-smoking-legislation-ban?commentpage=2)

Some of LucyQ's comments:

"@Lolly99 Smokers are the worst addicts, and yes that is what they are drug addicts pretending otherwise is sort of that river in Egypt."
(Pardon? Aside from the lack of punctuation indicating a certain immaturity, does she mean the Nile?)

and,

"Smokers homes are stinky and gooey from nicotine residue. If they own the property then they should be preparedif ever trying to sell it for a very low price as even wood floors are gummed up with the stuff."
(Aha, I see)

and,
"Smokers are the only addicts that are empowered to bully others wherever and whenever. If nicotine is your drug ofchoice why don't you use it in liquid form and push a needle in your veins?"
(That's it, LucyQ, you just stick it to 'em)

LucyQ's comments are, in fact, quite mild, compared to some of the stuff smokers have to put up with and there arefrequent diatribes of: "stinky, nasty, horrid smokers; nasty, nasty, horrid, smelly. Why don't you just die? I hate, hate,hate you."Those of you well acquainted with Richmal Crompton's "William" books will, no doubt remember Violet Elizabeth Bott,a precocious six year old with a lisp. Her outbursts were usually concluded with: "I'll thcweam and thcweam and thcream."

So let's run that all again:
"You thmokerth are nathty, thtinky and horrid. Yeth, nathty, an' thmelly. I hate you, why don't you juth die? You'readdicth. I could thcweam and thcweam and juth thcweam."

This, dear readers, is an example of the sort of infantile paralysis that grips the mentality of many anti-smokers. It is"gimme my dummy or else" writ large and a tribute to the disturbing success of the hate propaganda pushed and nurtured by the anti smoker lobby. And if you are misogynistic enough think these kinds of selfish emotional outbursts are confined to women, you'd be wrong, for the men are exactly the same.

So, when the antis say: "think of the children!" now you know who they mean...

Another Victory in Holland!

2009-07-03T19:53:00.000Z

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/court-crushes-smoking-ban-staffless-pubs

Save Our Pubs And Clubs

2009-07-02T11:00:00.004Z