Averting Their Eyes

spending_pollVery interesting responses to last night’s post. The poll got about 90 responses [so far], and I was surprised that nearly 50% reported spending much less money since smoking bans came into force where they lived. I’d expected most people to say that they’d spent less, and one or two to say they’d been spending more.

This isn’t just spending in pubs and restaurants: this is just spending in general.

I put myself down for the ‘less money’ option. I probably go to pubs at 10% the rate I used to, and haven’t been on holiday for over two years.

Lecroix in Spain had some interesting figures about Spanish smokers’ attendance of bars, restaurants, etc, after the Spanish smoking ban that started in January 2011. Figures from OCU:

Frequency.
Much less:
41.4% of those who smoke 5 cigarettes or less per day.
65.2% of those who smoke 5-15 per day.
82.1% of those who smoke over 15 per day.

Time spent.
Much less:
40.6% of those who smoke 5 cigarettes or less per day.
77.3% of those who smoke 5-15 per day.
87.9% of those who smoke over 15 per day.

They polled online for a week back in 2011 among people of their own polling department. They got 1.562 answers.

Those are pretty hefty percentages. And they must be acting to deepen Spain’s deep recession.

Also Klaus K in Denmark dropped in a chart showing Danish spending before and after the Danish ban.

detailsalg2

The shape of the decay curve in spending after the smoking ban interested me, because it was the kind of thing I expected. The impact of smoking bans isn’t immediate, but is a kind of slow avalanche as one thing leads to another. In Devon it took a few months for some of the pubs I used to frequent to more or less empty. Smokers hung around outside until winter came 6 months later. And it took me months to get over not having a pub to go to. And longer to see less and less of former friends. It’s a gradual process.

Then there were several anecdotes among the comments describing falls in spending. For example, Rose:

When people feel under siege they begin to act like it.

For example, where I would have bought a product, now I learn how to make it from the raw materials, and better if possible, every saving feels like a minor triumph. The breadmaker I was given for Christmas last year must have paid for itself several times over, not only bread, but chapatis, pizzas, hot cross buns, and stollens, each at a fraction of the price I would have paid without thinking about it.

But it all points to sharp falls in spending by 20% (or more) of the population wherever smoking bans are introduced. And the spending doesn’t recover. In the ISIS survey, I’m seeing enduring steep falls in pub-going 5 years after the UK ban came into force. Smokers went home, and they stayed home.

But nobody seems to have noticed.

If I was an economist working in the Treasury, I’d be calling for a large and comprehensive survey of both smokers and non-smokers to find out what their spending habits have been since the ban. And I think it would make pretty grim reading. I think it would show that smokers have stopped spending, not just in pubs, but everywhere else as well.

But to the best of my knowledge, no economists anywhere, inside the Treasury or outside, are calling for any such survey. Or if they’ve done one, they’re keeping very quiet about it.

I suspect they haven’t carried out any survey. Because while the smoking ban has been an earthquake for many smokers, for everyone else it was a complete non-event. I don’t think, for example, that any of my non-smoking friends has ever realised the impact it had on me, even though I’ve tried to tell them.

And a large part of that has probably been due the media coverage of the ban: there hasn’t been any. It was a media non-event. And for a lot of people, it seems that nothing really happens anywhere until the glowing box in the corner of the room says it’s happened.

But it’s also because smokers are a dispersed minority of people with no representation of any kind (such as a union). And most of them don’t complain. Back in Devon in the few months after the ban when I still saw them, my few pub acquaintances were unanimous in declaring that “there’s nothing that can be done about it, and there’s no point trying.” They even got angry when I disagreed and said there were all sorts of things they could do.

And because smokers tend not to complain, it means that when I raised the matter with non-smoking friends of mine, they most likely said to themselves, “Well, Frank seems to be the only one complaining. None of the other smokers we know are griping about it. So it’s probably his personal problem rather than a general social problem. Poor bastard doesn’t know what’s good for him.”

And the experience of Treasury economists is probably the same. They have those little glowing boxes in their sitting rooms too, and the boxes told them that there was nothing to be concerned about. And probably their smoking friends didn’t complain about it either. So they wouldn’t have any reason to call for a survey of smokers to find out what happened to them all. And also things like smoking bans aren’t a familiar sort of economic event for economists, who are probably fairly skilled at assessing the economic impacts of strikes, go-slows, earthquakes, etc. Smoking bans are new, and there’s little experience of their effects. And they’ve been introduced rapidly all over the world.

But I think also that a lot of people are consciously averting their eyes from the smokers standing outside the pubs in the rain, and shutting their ears to any complaints they might hear from them. And they do this because they think that smokers need to be nudged into giving up their fatal addiction, and they agree with the social engineering project that has been launched to eradicate the dreadful habit, because in the end the world will be a better place, once everyone stops smoking.

It all adds up to an enormous blind spot in their field of vision. There is nothing in the media to suggest any cause for concern, and most smokers don’t complain, and if they do they’ll be ignored. They might be very conscious of the travails of recognised at-risk social groups of one sort or other, and solicitous in helping them. But not smokers. They’re not on the list of approved, deserving minorities.

But, as I see it, the evidence is mounting that the uncomplaining smokers have stopped spending. All the figures I’ve quoted today say that. And the ISIS survey numbers I’m looking at say it too. Roughly a quarter of the populations of Europe and the UK and North America have stopped spending, and are staying home.  It’s impossible at the moment to say what the economic impact of this has been, but even if it has produced a 2% fall in demand across these economies, it adds up to a substantial contributor to the global recession (except in places which don’t have bans yet).

If I’m right, then no amount of interest rate reductions, or tax cuts, or Quantitative Easing, or anything else will act to stimulate the economies of the Western world to resume growth. And, because there’s a slow consumption decay curve in the wake of smoking bans,  consumption and spending will keep on gradually falling. And, when the economic stimuli that used to work don’t work, the economists will start looking for some other cause. And eventually they’ll consider smoking bans, and discover that smokers have stopped spending.

That’s when there’ll be calls to repeal smoking bans, and one country and state after another will start lifting bans, more or less at the same pace that they imposed them.

Yet it’s unlikely that this will have an immediate effect. Because just as there is a long slow decay curve in consumption after a ban, so the growth curve after bans are repealed will very likely have the same shape, but inverted.

ban-repeal

And this means that if a ban has been in place for, say, 15 years, it will take another 15 years for its effects to wear off. Unless they start offering discounts or free drinks to smokers.

And I won’t be at all surprised if something like that actually happens.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Averting Their Eyes

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank I didnt feel right to take the poll because Im not living under a smoking ban at the moment. I fought hard to keep my town and area clear of a ban. But I do believe its fast comming to a head. The lies been busted so thoroughly by us all over the world it cant possibly stand. Any further bans are totally based upon politics and hate.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    OT but Sheila Martin put together this fact sheet

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50086121/Kansas-Smoking-Ban-Booklet-Sheila-Martin

  3. Klaus K. says:

    A low consuming “home culture” is created by a smoking ban, which will in the end, make most people stay in their homes. A Danish article said that taxi-driving was way down since 2006 (the year before the Danish smoking ban):
    http://www.tinyurl.dk/36948 (forgive the translation)

    A very intesting study from LSE, (Adda & Cornaglia, 2010) showed some of the home culture in areas with bans in the US, compared with US-areas without a ban: After a ban the smokers stayed at home (or in other peoples homes) for 98 more minutes per weekday! That’s a lot. Imagine that in these 98 extra minutes per day smokers are not present in public any longer – and not able to consume.

    Also it turned out that not only did the ban drive down the smokers time in bars & restaurants with average 22 minutes pr. day – the ban altso drove down the average time in bars & restaurants of the total population with 6,5 minutes per day. Not only did the ban scare off many smokers – it also had the effect of making the nonsmokers leave earlier:
    http://www.tinyurl.dk/36950

    My friend and I wrote an op-ed about the “home culture” one year ago:
    http://www.tinyurl.dk/36951

    It’s very interesting I think. I hope you understand Googles wild translations :)

  4. I spend about the same as I did before, but then I always spend to my limit because I’m a bit of a lush! :)

    However, while I used to spend an evening in the pub, I now go home after one or two, back to where I can smoke and drink together. Plus, the shops on the way home have come to resemble a Corporatist nightmare! So, no, I don’t feel welcome at all.

    • Dave says:

      Sorry I missed the poll but count me in on the spending less type. I have taken away all money that went to our state lottery the day the ban went into effect. This also includes lottery I used to play inside the bar. I am proud to be part of the people that helped the state Keno revenue lose a couple hundred million in the last 3 years. These loses were even admitted by someone in treasury in our state as being attributed to the smoking ban. A few articles were written but over all it was ignored of course. They can not ignore us forever as we must continue to deprive them of what they cherrish most which is money.

  5. margo says:

    Frank, I would also like to know whether there has been an official increase in Depression/people going to their docs and getting put on antidepressants or being sent for counselling. I wish I’d thought of this before, so it could have gone on the ISIS questions.

    • margo says:

      I’ve just found http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-1996703
      It says “Depression up by ‘half a million'” in last three years. This is in the UK.

      • Trespassers Will says:

        Margo, isn’t that sort of inevitable when folks are losing heir job, and have no prospect of getting another one? The ban has killed a lot of jobs, and it hasn’t finished. Places are still foundering and closing. People are bunkering down and staying home, and cutting back their spending, because they feel under siege from the official scolding nagging ‘crats who want to regulate your smoking, drinking, eating, motoring, parking, and the contents of your wheely bin. No wonder we are bloody depressed.

  6. jay says:

    O/T but heard an interview on Beeb’s ‘Today’ this morning with a Muslim whose family was being intimidated by, it seemed, neighbours. When asked what form this took the interviewee said that someone had (amongst other things) blown smoke in his son’s face!!!

  7. Walt says:

    Yes, sorry I missed yesterday too (haven;t even read it yet) but as I think we’ve discussed before, I too spend a lot less everywhere, though I’d guess I spend more on expensive take-out food than before (which is still far cheaper than eating out and much more comfortable) and more on at-home liquor since I’m not drinking out either.

    That economic survey will never be done because its (almost predeterminable findings) would be politically incorrect. In the same way as the few studies I’ve seen that show obesity has risen in direct inverse proportion to smoking quit-rates have been buried, and/or their authors castigated, and/ or published with huge disclaimers like “this does NOT mean you should continue smoking.”

    Finally, I think you’re right about the potentially slow curve of a post-ban (is God listening?) recovery. Once you get fixedly out of the habit of doing something– like going to restaurants, say — the habit is broken and then the whole thing seems alien. The new habit is having friends here or going to their place and you suddenly realize, the food’s as good, no clamor or blaring music, the couches are more comfortable than straight-back chairs, it’s cheaper, friendlier, and you don’t have to leave a tip. And though I can easily get through a no-smoking movie, it’s much neater to watch a disc sprawled on the couch with a smoke and a beer. Popcorn, too, on demand.

    • margo says:

      Staying in is the new Going Out.

    • Frank Davis says:

      You can still do the poll if you want. I was simply responding to one day’s worth of entries and comments.

    • Trespassers Will says:

      Indeed Walt. We have learned to find contentment inside our own little nests. The revolution in information technology means we no longer need to go out and associate with eachother. The advent of mass immigration and the resulting collapse of our sense of community and fellowship, has resulted in an increasing aversion to eachother. Besides, one wouldn’t want to encounter a child crying because he is lost. Or chastise a nipper throwing stones at someones windows. Children are radioactive now. No-one wants to sit on a bus next to anyone else anymore, and discuss the weather. Let’s all stay at home, spend no money, pay no taxes, take no risks.
      You see these TV programmes about the survivalists in America, and some people scoff and lampoon them. but they are just being explicit about an undercurrent that we are increasingly responding to. The retreat from the public domain.

  8. smokervoter says:

    More fallout from the obsessive healthism bomb.

    I’ve just heard for the first time a radio advertisement for something called Okinawa Life. The narrator informs me that Okinawans live longer than anyone on earth due to their vegetarian diet and virtuous lifestyle and if I mimic them by adopting Okinawa Life (strategically repeated over and over and over again with an irritating touch of reverb) I can extend my longevity.

    What this is all about is my ne’er-weaned ‘Sam I Am’ boomer generation, raised on “I do not like green eggs and ham, I will not eat green eggs and ham” now yammering “I do not like dying, I will not die” as they face the twilight years.

    I’m not sure if it’s a restaurant or a new fad diet or a nutritional snakeoil supplement. I wasn’t listening carefully.

    Gawd, this Clean Living Movement #3 has got to come to an end. This is, hands down, the most annoying era I’ve ever lived through. And it all started with the Non-Smokers Rights movement.

    • jay says:

      nutritional sankeoil supplement!

      http://www.okinawalife.com/

      • Rose says:

        Gawd, this Clean Living Movement #3 has got to come to an end. This is, hands down, the most annoying era I’ve ever lived through

        What annoys me is that we are generally old enough and wise enough not to catch them from you, just a few irritating tambourine bangers making a nuisance of themselves or wealthy eugenicists theorising in their gentlemans clubs.
        How I wish we were still able to say “It could only happen in America”

        But one thing you can rely on , if you dig deep enough you will generally find an Englishman at the bottom of it.

        • smokervoter says:

          a few irritating tambourine bangers making a nuisance of themselves or wealthy eugenicists theorising in their gentlemans clubs.

          There’s a classic Roseism if there ever was one. I love your style. Less than 20 well chosen words that speak volumes.

          I’m counting on you Britons to reverse this awful era. We’ve just re-elected an annoying healthist administration/party with an obnoxious ex-smoker at the helm whose wife gets into the gym at 4:30AM each day and lectures us all for not joining her there.

          You on the other hand are seeing a surge in popularity for a party led by Nigel Farage, who is the absolute antithesis to this trend.

          Please sneeze so that we might catch pneumonia. Your country does sway us much more than you might imagine. Think Churchill, the Beatles (and Yardbirds), Twiggy, Princess Di, Sex Pistols, Maggie Thatcher…and Jeff Beck.

    • prog says:

      Nevertheless, worth mentioning – there’s a paradox lurking in Okinowa.

      I Googled smoking in Okinowa and found links stating that smoking rates were lower than the mainland. Clearly this fits in nicely with the anti agenda. Then I stumbled upon this (I think from 2010).

      http://stats-japan.com/t/kiji/13207

      Indeed rates are low compared to other parts of Japan, the highest being 45.3% in Aomori. National average is 39.7%.

      Okinowa figures among the lowest at 37.4%.

      Summary: The smoking habits of men are believed to be highly correlated with food culture rather than due to social factors.

      Perhaps we should all be more eating raw fish…..

      • margo says:

        but not Japanese fish, which is radioactive.

      • smokervoter says:

        That stealth-smoking doctor who I’ve mentioned before here (I did a remodel project for him and he ended up cadging a whole carton (sleeve) from me over the duration) was the guy who first told me about the Japanese (Smoking) Paradox. He seemed to think it was the green tea that made the difference.

        And a 37.4% prevalence of smoking in Okinawa! Amazing. That’s an 81.5% increase over our current rate. Explain that one away, Dr. Suzuki. Perhaps the folks at Kowa Health Care America might want to consider introducing an Okinawa Lights line of cigarettes.

        PS: When any of you arrived at the Statistics Japan page was there a sponsored link from TobaccoFreeCA.com there to greet you? If it’s just me then I need to redouble my efforts to block the anti-smoking devils at Google Inc. from my computer.

        I want to annihilate TobaccoFreeCA.

        • prog says:

          I believe the Japanese smoke grade A leaf. The crap is returned to the USA and processed into standard cig baccy. It could well be that this is responsible for all the problems. LC among smokers only soared after industrial mass production of processed tobacco became widespread. Then there’s the paper and filters to factor into the equation.

          The antis always seem to sidestep another paradox – pipe and cigar smokers outlive most, including non smokers. It could therefore be argued that it’s the tobacco industry that’s killing people,by selling a contaminated product, rather than plain old traditional tobacco. The Okinowa scenario suggests this might be true. As indeed the rest of Japan, where smoking rates are much higher than many western countries, yet LC rates are much lower.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Stantonitis is getting into anti-gun research it appears……….who woulda thunk!

    The shakedown begins on guns note the use of aka ”scientists” and then they lower the bar to ”researchers”. This is typical anti-tobacco spin only now used on the gun lobby. These so called scientists aren’t, they’re paid hacks with a social agenda to push.

    A new term/name will emerge from this

    First they created the Tobacco Control Specialist put in every health group you can imagine. Now they will create the Gun Control Specialist if not already.

    Is Your Doctor a Doctor or Gun Control Specialist-So Much for Doctor Patient Confidentiality

    http://savernation.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/is-your-doctor-a-doctor-or-gun-control-specialist-so-much-for-doctor-patient-confidentiality/

    Similar paths for tobacco, gun lobby?

    Scientists argue the gun lobby has thwarted attempts to explore factors behind misuse of guns, following a familiar and largely successful playbook: that of the tobacco companies.

    While scientists have welcomed President Obama’s efforts to restart gun-violence research, many say that passing even modest gun-safety measures will be an uphill battle.

    That’s because the gun lobby, researchers say, has followed a familiar and largely successful playbook: that of the tobacco companies.

    Critics say the National Rifle Association, in its efforts to block gun-control laws it says are unconstitutional, has used many of the strategies pioneered by the tobacco lobby, at least until a national settlement with state attorneys general forced cigarette makers to change some of their ways. Those tactics include suppressing information, blocking research, targeting individual scientists and pushing for state laws that prohibit cities and counties from passing their own gun measures, says Mark Pertschuk, director of Grassroots Change, a national support network for public health movements.

    FULL COVERAGE: Debate over guns in America

    “The gun lobby has been amazingly successful in keeping research from being done,” says researcher Stanton Glantz, who obtained and published formerly secret documents from cigarette maker Brown & Williamson in 1994. Those documents showed that the industry had known for decades that smoking caused cancer, and had tried to stop research on tobacco’s health effects. “That’s important, because the tobacco companies were very early to understand the value of ignorance.”

    ”Glantz isnt a researcher he is a mechanical engineer doing medical research junk science on second hand smoke for tobacco control. The mans a total zealot. ”

    The NRA rejects such comparisons.

    Unlike cigarettes, firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, says NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. “I don’t think that’s a valid comparison — I don’t even think it’s a logical comparison,” Arulanandam says. “Law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to own a firearm.”

    Yet many public health leaders see strong parallels.

    Like the NRA, cigarette companies “employed a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners approach to threats to tobacco use,” says Tom Glynn, director of cancer science and trends at the American Cancer Society, who spent two decades at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “They denied harm, publicly attacked any person or organization which questioned them, discredited science and brooked no compromise whatsoever — all tactics which the gun lobby seems to be using now.”

    Two weeks ago, President Obama addressed one of the gun lobby’s tactics — a 17-year-old ban on research that could be used to “advocate or promote gun control” — by instructing scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and NIH to immediately resume studying causes of and solutions to gun violence.

    The NRA says it was protecting consumers’ interests. “We worked to ensure taxpayer money wasn’t being abused to pursue a political agenda,” Arulanandam says. “We did not say ‘no research for gun control.’ But if you want to pursue a political agenda, you ought to go out and get independent funds like we do.”

    Whether Obama will be successful restarting the research may be in question, however. Only Congress can rewrite the language that brought about the ban. And Congress still control’s the agency’s funding.

    Arulanandam said the NRA will vigorously protect gun owners’ rights. “The strategy of the gun-control lobby is to throw everything at us simultaneously,” he says. ” We will respond accordingly, do whatever we can to ensure that common sense prevails.”

    Glantz notes that tobacco lobbyists delayed the Environmental Protection Agency’s 1992 report on the dangers of secondhand smoke by 2½ years. The industry also churned out bogus research denying the dangers of tobacco.

    Similarly, the gun lobby has deprived Americans of essential information about gun trafficking, according to a new report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

    In 2003, the NRA persuaded Congress to restrict information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives on drug trafficking, which once had been available publicly. The restrictions don’t allow researchers to analyze important data, which might tell them how legal guns make their way into criminals’ hands. The restrictions even limit how police can use the data, says David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

    As a result of those restrictions, “We know more about the drug market than the gun market,” Hemenway says. In terms of preventing accidents, and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, “We don’t know what works and what doesn’t work, because we haven’t had large-scale studies.”

    Yet the gun lobby has sought protections that even the tobacco companies never achieved, Pertschuk says.

    While the tobacco companies tried to demonize individual scientists, they never tried to pass laws interfering with what doctors talked about with their patients, Glantz says.

    Yet today, the NRA supports state laws — such as a bill just introduced in the South Carolina legislature — that prevent doctors from asking about guns in a patient’s home. Such “gag laws” infringe on physicians’ freedom of speech and prevent them from discussing a major safety risk, says Judith Palfrey, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Seven states have considered such laws since 2007; only Florida has enacted one. Florida’s law currently is in limbo, however, and awaiting a verdict by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

    In 2005, Congress also gave the firearms industry broad immunity from liability, through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That has allowed courts to dismiss lawsuits filed by municipalities, which claimed that gun dealers did not adequately supervise their inventory and allowed weapons to fall into criminal hands, says attorney Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

    The gun lobby has been even more successful than tobacco companies in limiting local action against guns, says Pertschuk, who previously led grass-roots campaigns at both Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights and Californians for Responsible Gun Laws.

    Cigarette makers persuaded 20 states to pass pre-emption laws, which prohibited communities from approving smoking bans, Pertschuk says.

    Forty-four states now have laws limiting or preventing local gun-control laws, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Only Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York have no laws expressly pre-empting local gun laws. Some state laws are stronger than others. California has a limited pre-emption law, for example, and courts have allowed many local laws to stand.
    None
    Toby Hoover is executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (OCAGV).(Photo: Jay LaPrete for USA TODAY)

    In Ohio, a 2006 pre-emption law nullified 80 local gun-control laws passed by 20 cities and counties, says Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence.

    “When they (the NRA) saw we were being successful, when they got threatened by democracy by the people for the people, they put in a full press for pre-emption,” Hoover says.

    The NRA says pre-emption policies provide consistency across a state.

    “Rather than having a person who crosses one county line to another and finds themselves all of the sudden in violation of a city ordinance, it’s best if there’s a set of uniform laws that people can easily understand and easily adhere to,” Arulanandam said. “When there’s a patchwork of laws, it only serves to confuse law-abiding people.”

    But stripping a community of its right to make its own laws is crushing — both to residents and future leaders, says Hoover, noting that most activists cut their teeth on local issues before progressing to state and national causes.

    “If people really want to make change and get involved where it makes a difference, they want to do it locally,” says Hoover, 70, whose husband was shot and killed during a robbery in 1973. “When you take that away from them, they feel like, ‘There is nothing I can do.'”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/31/nra-guns-tobacco-research/1859385/
    Similar paths for tobacco, gun lobby?
    http://www.usatoday.com
    Scientists argue the gun lobby has thwarted attempts to explore factors behind misuse of guns, following a familiar and largely successful playbook: that of the tobacco companies.

    • smokervoter says:

      Go ahead Glantz, you utter fool. You’re forging an alliance between gun-owners and smokers and fizzy pop drinkers and Big Mac aficionados. Just what we Republicans need to offset the Democrat’s successful alliance of Blacks, Hispanics, Leftwing Dykes and Bay Area California/Bloomberg NYC tambourine bangers.

      That is unless the idiot RINO fools cave in to Comprehensive (ugh, that repulsive buzzword) Immigration Reform and permanently lose another 11 million votes (and their relatives) in the process.

      Wait until all of those Democrat-voting smokers cut that first $5,000 check out to Obamacare for health insurance in 2014.

      Call me smokervoter, call me Nicollo, but don’t call me late for dinner.

  10. Rose says:

    Kim jong-un smokes cigarette while touring hospital
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9841350/Kim-jong-un-smokes-cigarette-while-touring-hospital.html

    Why they published this non-story I can’t imagine, the comments are fun though.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Stantonitis is getting into anti-gun research it appears……….who woulda thunk!

    The shakedown begins on guns note the use of aka ”scientists” and then they lower the bar to ”researchers”. This is typical anti-tobacco spin only now used on the gun lobby. These so called scientists aren’t, they’re paid hacks with a social agenda to push.

    A new term/name will emerge from this

    First they created the Tobacco Control Specialist put in every health group you can imagine. Now they will create the Gun Control Specialist if not already.

    Is Your Doctor a Doctor or Gun Control Specialist-So Much for Doctor Patient Confidentiality

    http://savernation.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/is-your-doctor-a-doctor-or-gun-control-specialist-so-much-for-doctor-patient-confidentiality/

    Similar paths for tobacco, gun lobby?

    Scientists argue the gun lobby has thwarted attempts to explore factors behind misuse of guns, following a familiar and largely successful playbook: that of the tobacco companies.

    While scientists have welcomed President Obama’s efforts to restart gun-violence research, many say that passing even modest gun-safety measures will be an uphill battle.

    That’s because the gun lobby, researchers say, has followed a familiar and largely successful playbook: that of the tobacco companies.

    Critics say the National Rifle Association, in its efforts to block gun-control laws it says are unconstitutional, has used many of the strategies pioneered by the tobacco lobby, at least until a national settlement with state attorneys general forced cigarette makers to change some of their ways. Those tactics include suppressing information, blocking research, targeting individual scientists and pushing for state laws that prohibit cities and counties from passing their own gun measures, says Mark Pertschuk, director of Grassroots Change, a national support network for public health movements.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      FULL COVERAGE: Debate over guns in America

      “The gun lobby has been amazingly successful in keeping research from being done,” says researcher Stanton Glantz, who obtained and published formerly secret documents from cigarette maker Brown & Williamson in 1994. Those documents showed that the industry had known for decades that smoking caused cancer, and had tried to stop research on tobacco’s health effects. “That’s important, because the tobacco companies were very early to understand the value of ignorance.”

      ”Glantz isnt a researcher he is a mechanical engineer doing medical research junk science on second hand smoke for tobacco control. The mans a total zealot. ”

      The NRA rejects such comparisons.

      Unlike cigarettes, firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, says NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. “I don’t think that’s a valid comparison — I don’t even think it’s a logical comparison,” Arulanandam says. “Law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to own a firearm.”

      Yet many public health leaders see strong parallels.

      Like the NRA, cigarette companies “employed a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners approach to threats to tobacco use,” says Tom Glynn, director of cancer science and trends at the American Cancer Society, who spent two decades at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “They denied harm, publicly attacked any person or organization which questioned them, discredited science and brooked no compromise whatsoever — all tactics which the gun lobby seems to be using now.”

      Two weeks ago, President Obama addressed one of the gun lobby’s tactics — a 17-year-old ban on research that could be used to “advocate or promote gun control” — by instructing scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and NIH to immediately resume studying causes of and solutions to gun violence.

      The NRA says it was protecting consumers’ interests. “We worked to ensure taxpayer money wasn’t being abused to pursue a political agenda,” Arulanandam says. “We did not say ‘no research for gun control.’ But if you want to pursue a political agenda, you ought to go out and get independent funds like we do.”

      Whether Obama will be successful restarting the research may be in question, however. Only Congress can rewrite the language that brought about the ban. And Congress still control’s the agency’s funding.

      Arulanandam said the NRA will vigorously protect gun owners’ rights. “The strategy of the gun-control lobby is to throw everything at us simultaneously,” he says. ” We will respond accordingly, do whatever we can to ensure that common sense prevails.”

      Glantz notes that tobacco lobbyists delayed the Environmental Protection Agency’s 1992 report on the dangers of secondhand smoke by 2½ years. The industry also churned out bogus research denying the dangers of tobacco.

      Similarly, the gun lobby has deprived Americans of essential information about gun trafficking, according to a new report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

      In 2003, the NRA persuaded Congress to restrict information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives on drug trafficking, which once had been available publicly. The restrictions don’t allow researchers to analyze important data, which might tell them how legal guns make their way into criminals’ hands. The restrictions even limit how police can use the data, says David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

      As a result of those restrictions, “We know more about the drug market than the gun market,” Hemenway says. In terms of preventing accidents, and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, “We don’t know what works and what doesn’t work, because we haven’t had large-scale studies.”

      Yet the gun lobby has sought protections that even the tobacco companies never achieved, Pertschuk says.

      While the tobacco companies tried to demonize individual scientists, they never tried to pass laws interfering with what doctors talked about with their patients, Glantz says.

      Yet today, the NRA supports state laws — such as a bill just introduced in the South Carolina legislature — that prevent doctors from asking about guns in a patient’s home. Such “gag laws” infringe on physicians’ freedom of speech and prevent them from discussing a major safety risk, says Judith Palfrey, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Seven states have considered such laws since 2007; only Florida has enacted one. Florida’s law currently is in limbo, however, and awaiting a verdict by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

      In 2005, Congress also gave the firearms industry broad immunity from liability, through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That has allowed courts to dismiss lawsuits filed by municipalities, which claimed that gun dealers did not adequately supervise their inventory and allowed weapons to fall into criminal hands, says attorney Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

      The gun lobby has been even more successful than tobacco companies in limiting local action against guns, says Pertschuk, who previously led grass-roots campaigns at both Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights and Californians for Responsible Gun Laws.

      Cigarette makers persuaded 20 states to pass pre-emption laws, which prohibited communities from approving smoking bans, Pertschuk says.

      Forty-four states now have laws limiting or preventing local gun-control laws, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Only Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York have no laws expressly pre-empting local gun laws. Some state laws are stronger than others. California has a limited pre-emption law, for example, and courts have allowed many local laws to stand.
      None
      Toby Hoover is executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (OCAGV).(Photo: Jay LaPrete for USA TODAY)

      In Ohio, a 2006 pre-emption law nullified 80 local gun-control laws passed by 20 cities and counties, says Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence.

      “When they (the NRA) saw we were being successful, when they got threatened by democracy by the people for the people, they put in a full press for pre-emption,” Hoover says.

      The NRA says pre-emption policies provide consistency across a state.

      “Rather than having a person who crosses one county line to another and finds themselves all of the sudden in violation of a city ordinance, it’s best if there’s a set of uniform laws that people can easily understand and easily adhere to,” Arulanandam said. “When there’s a patchwork of laws, it only serves to confuse law-abiding people.”

      But stripping a community of its right to make its own laws is crushing — both to residents and future leaders, says Hoover, noting that most activists cut their teeth on local issues before progressing to state and national causes.

      “If people really want to make change and get involved where it makes a difference, they want to do it locally,” says Hoover, 70, whose husband was shot and killed during a robbery in 1973. “When you take that away from them, they feel like, ‘There is nothing I can do.’”

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/31/nra-guns-tobacco-research/1859385/
      Similar paths for tobacco, gun lobby?
      http://www.usatoday.com
      Scientists argue the gun lobby has thwarted attempts to explore factors behind misuse of guns, following a familiar and largely successful playbook: that of the tobacco companies.

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    I guess these idiots didnt figure out we know them and how they operate! The cross over fights from smoking into other realms and making doctors policemen.Oh well looks like Im going to hop on the defend the 2nd amendment band wagon! Who the hell else knows the enemy so well as us and their tactics. Same nazis diferent cause same tactics.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    The Bulgarians are trying a new approach:

    Bulgarian Smokers to Stage Yet Another Anti-Ban Protest

    Bulgarian protesters are to gather in front of the Parliament in downtown Sofia on Friday to stage a new rally in favor of “equal rights for smokers and non-smokers.”

    The protest has been triggered by the full smoking ban for enclosed public spaces that was imposed in June 2012, the informal Association “Free Choice” has told reporters.

    Andrey Slabakov, Bulgarian movie director and fervent campaigner for reintroducing smoking in establishments, has described the ban as “absurd, repressive, intolerant and non-European.”

    Slabakov has noted that the protesters demand the reintroduction of separate smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants and bars.

    “We (smokers) won’t enter the non-smoking areas,” he has pointed out.

    Bulgaria’s marginal right-wing Union of Democratic Forces party announced earlier this week that it will start a petition for a referendum on smoking in public spaces.
    http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=147441

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    What class! A Martin Luther King assembly of smokers and non-smokers marching in unity to the others rights as equal!

  15. Frank Davis says:

    I was a bit puzzled by the blue line in Klaus’ graph. Why were Danes eating less? Shouldn’t they have been eating the same?

    But there is perhaps a simple explanation. If Danish smokers are staying home (and using 20% less taxis) then Danish smokers are doing 20% less walking, and 20% less lugging shopping bags around, and 20% less walking up hills (always supposing that there are any hills in Denmark). Equally, the less that they are outdoors, the lower their heat loss. So Danish smokers are using less energy, and are eating less food.

    • Trespassers Will says:

      Frank, if they are spending less on eating out, and doing more of their own self catering, that would depress their total spend on food. Raw ingredients are a lot cheaper than restaurant and cafe meals. Maybe, like me, they are becoming more accompished and confident home cooks.

    • Klaus K. says:

      That’s funny, Frank :) I think the blue line should be viewed like the other lines: The whole graphic just screams less consumption / less enjoyment …
      Everybody in Denmark (and UK, I suppose) think that consumption fell off when “the crisis” kicked in by fall 2008 – but this graph shows that consumption started to fall off immediately after the smoking ban in the summer 2007. The recession was kick-started by the smoking ban, and a negative economic spiral was evident.
      It was not just because of the smokers changing their ways – it was also because of the changing ways of their friends & family members. I think it quickly became a trend in more or less the whole population – the home culture.

      It is not difficult to imagine the mechanism behind it: When politicians suddenly restrict an area very hard, people will go other places to avoid the restrictions. When these other places are private homes, consumption will obviously fall. But why was the falling consumption not made up for by nonsmokers, i.e. people still visiting restaurants & public places as usual or even more after the ban? Because their consumption was already as high as it could be. That’s how capitalism works – you use the money you earn minus what you save.
      Bottom line: The smoking bans i UK and DK could have kickstarted “the crisis” in both countries because of the consequences to the private sector of sudden falling consumption. It should be investigated what happened in Ireland in 2005-06, one-two years after their ban. As I remember Ireland took a huge hit in foreclosures and falling housing prices at that time. The “Celtic tiger” economy became ill long before other European economies became ill.

      • Frank Davis says:

        The smoking bans i UK and DK could have kickstarted “the crisis” in both countries because of the consequences to the private sector of sudden falling consumption.

        The crisis seemed to happen everywhere all at once, not just in the UK and Denmark. In the UK it was called the “credit crunch”, and it arrived a month or two after the smoking ban. There was supposedly a lot of bad debts around, and banks were unwilling to lend money, even to each other.

        I can’t see how the UK smoking ban could have led to such an almost immediate crisis. These things need to work their way through the system.

        Unless the banks could see spending dramatically falling already in July 2007, and realised something was up. And they probably would have been able to pick up the drop in spending. After all, I keep my spending money in a bank, and it’s the last port of call before it’s turned into cash for me to spend on the high street. And banks probably monitor spending very closely. And in July 2007 in the UK they would have probably noticed a pretty dramatic fall in spending (and maybe in borrowing too). This was a big storm warning, much like when the barometer falls very quickly, and they’d never seen anything like it, and banks maybe got very, very worried, and didn’t feel that they should lend in the strange new conditions, and so didn’t lend. They battened down the hatches. That’s another explanation.

        • Klaus K. says:

          “I can’t see how the UK smoking ban could have led to such an almost immediate crisis. These things need to work their way through the system.”

          Of course. And that’s what they did: The crash and the following credit crunch was not “a few months later”. It came after the Lemann Brothers crash, which was 15. Sep 2008. That’s 15 months later, Frank.

        • Frank Davis says:

          I’ll have to look at it again, but in the UK the “credit crunch” started in late 2007, not 2008. Great Recession:

          The Great Recession[1] (also referred to as the Lesser Depression,[2] the Long Recession,[3] or the global recession of 2009[4][5]) is a marked global economic decline that began in December 2007 and took a particularly sharp downward turn in September 2008. The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 7, 2007 when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing “a complete evaporation of liquidity”.[6] The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[7] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[8][9] The global recession affected the entire world economy, with higher detriment in some countries than others. It is a major global recession characterized by various systemic imbalances and was sparked by the outbreak of the Financial crisis of 2007–2008. As of December 2012, the economic side effects of the European sovereign debt crisis[10] and limited prospects for global growth in 2013 and 2014[11][12] continue to provide obstacles to full recovery from the Great Recession.[13][14][15]

          Northern Rock bank was the first UK bank to hit trouble in late 2007. Lehmann crash came later. Northern Rock

          In 2008 the Northern Rock bank was nationalised by the British Government, due to financial problems caused by the subprime mortgage crisis. In 2010 the bank was split into two parts (assets and banking) to aid the eventual sale of the bank back to the private sector.
          On 14 September 2007, the Bank sought and received a liquidity support facility from the Bank of England,[1] following problems in the credit markets, during the current financial crisis.[2][3] On 22 February 2008 the bank was taken into state ownership. The nationalisation was a result of two unsuccessful bids to take over the bank, neither being able to fully commit to repayment of savers and investors money.[4][5]

          Lehman Brothers and also other UK bank bailouts came a year later:

          Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (former NYSE ticker symbol LEH) (pron.: /ˈliːmən/) was a global financial services firm. Before declaring bankruptcy in 2008, Lehman was the fourth-largest investment bank in the US (behind Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch), doing business in investment banking, equity and fixed-income sales and trading (especially U.S. Treasury securities), research, investment management, private equity, and private banking.
          At 1:45AM on September 15, 2008, the firm filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection following the massive exodus of most of its clients, drastic losses in its stock, and devaluation of its assets by credit rating agencies.

          But I have another explanation that I’ve been turning over for the past couple of days or so, that I’ll write about soon.

  16. garyk30 says:

    There is another group of people that tend to spend less.
    The over 65 in age spend less, for a number of reasons, and they are growing.

    10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old. The latest projections are for 5½ million more elderly people in 20 years time.

    In America, the ‘baby boomers’ are turning 65 at an average rate of 10,000 per day.
    In about 15 years, the number of over 65’s will double from 40 million to 80 million.

    Just a thought about these numbers.

    ALL of the diseases blamed on smoking are diseases of the aged.

    No matter how much the nannies hector us into life-style changes, those diseases will, regardless, grow in the incidence numbers.

    During the 20th century, in America, the number of deaths from lung cancer grew from about 15/100,000 to about 60/100,000, a 4 fold increase.

    During that time, the percentage of the over 65’s grew from 4% to about 12%, a 3 fold increase.

    A great deal of the increase in lung cancer deaths is more closely associated with there being more old geezers than with smoking rates which never varied by more than a factor of 2.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Why do the over 65s spend less?

      I suppose that they get out and about less, so spend less on travel, restaurants, and anything needing travel. I suppose over 65s would tend to spend much more time at home. Also, as people age, their metabolic rate gradually falls, so they use less energy, and eat less. On the other hand, they may spend more on medications of one sort or other.

      • Klaus K. says:

        Maybe it is a good idea to take a look at the demographics. The biggest generations will always get their way because of their numbers. Here is a graph showing live births in Denmark 1901 – 2011:

        http://dengulenegl.dk/f%C3%B8dselstalDK_1901_2011.jpg

        As shown the biggest generation is about 66-70 years old today. The no. 2 peak is the generation of their children (born 1964-68), who is about 45 years old today.

        Could anyone post a graph like this from England or US?

  17. garyk30 says:

    I suspect that many people, smokers included, are spending about the same amount as ever; but, because of the increases in price, they are consuming less.

    Over the last 10 years, the increase in the price of staple goods has been sickening.

    Especially if you are on a fixed income or have received little in increased income.

    For instance, the increase in the price for peanut butter or coffee has been obscene!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      We are spending 70 bucks a month on coffe,but its bean coffee in my commercial restaraunt grinder for my water hooked up automatic BUNN coffe maker from the local restaraunt supply house………..Just like the wafflehouse! yehawwww

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    Nuke
    Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
    Joe Vialls
    Web Archive
    Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:38 CDT

    Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the “Anti-Smoking Inquisition” spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.

    Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities.

    Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again.

    Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics.

    Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection.

    Not all governments around the world share the same problem. Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that “smoking causes lung cancer.”

    The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments. When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies.

    In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills. By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls:

    http://www.sott.net/article/226999-Smoking-Helps-Protect-Against-Lung-Cancer

    • nisakiman says:

      That’s an interesting article, Harley. It’s a pity it doesn’t include links in the body of the text. I’m going to have to spend a bit of time tracking down a couple of things it refers to now.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        ya same here,but I cover so much ground in a day,its hard to dig to deep in any one thing unless its a BONANZA of killer stuff to fight with like that article seems to be.

      • Rose says:

        Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
        And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!
        http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html

        16 Mar 1982
        Professor Schrauzer
        extracts – assuming this is the right one

        Concerning the ‘comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act of 82

        “I am Professor of Chemistry at the University of California, San Diego. I hold a Ph.D. degree in chemistry from the University of Munich and a m the president and founder of th e International Association of Bioinorganic Scientists.

        I am a member of several scientific societies, including the American Chemical Society, the Association of Clinical Scientists, and the American Public Health Association. I am the author of approximately 200 research publications and have edited 2 books.

        My main research interests are in cancer-prevention, cancer epidemiology, trace minerals in human and animal nutrition, and various fields of experimental chemistry. I have done pioneering work on the prevention of cancer by the essential trace mineral selenium and in 1978 received a special award from the Santa C1ara Section of the American Cancer Society. As a chemist, cancer researcher and American Citizen I wish to comment upon the “Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act”

        “In this Act, it is stated, among other things, that “smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer in the United States”. In my opinion, what role, if any, smoking plays in the causation of cancer, including lung cancer, has still to be determined.

        Those who claim smoking causes cancer rely upon the reported statistical association and ignore the inconsistencies of the smoking causation theory in the scientific literature.’ For example, to date, no one has ever been able to produce lung cancer in 1aboratory animals through exposure to fresh, whole cigarette smoke.

        Moreover, the vast majority of smokers never develop lung cancer and there are serious inconsistencies in the epidemiological evidence and dose-response relationships. For example, a Japanese male smoking 50 cigarettes per day has a lower risk of dying from lung cancer than a British smoking doctor smoking only 1-14 cigarettes per day. In addition, no ingredient or combination of ingredients, as found in tobacco smoke, has been shown to cause human lung cancer.”

        “Since it is probable that the many hundreds of compounds present in smoke interact with each other, it is highly artificial to focus upon the effects of any one ingredient or combination of ingredients in isolation from the others. It has long been known that certain smoke constituents act as anti-carcinogens in test animals.

        For example, tobacco belongs to the selenium accumulating group of plants and selenium has been shown to possess anti-carcinogenic properties.

        Also, constituents of cigarette smoke previously thought to be lacking altogether in carcinogenic activity have recently been found to be anti-carcinogenic when applied with true carcinogens in test animals.”
        http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/03608191-8195.html

        This might or might not be the experiment.

        Combined action of cigarette tar and beta radiation on mice
        March/April 1961
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142%28196103/04%2914:2%3C344::AID-CNCR2820140214%3E3.0.CO;2-M/abstract

        • Rose says:

          Bad link, let’s see if this works.

          Combined action of cigarette tar and beta radiation on mice
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142%28196103/04%2914:2%3C344::AID-CNCR2820140214%3E3.0.CO;2-M/abstract

          I also found the study mentioned here, but whether Joe Vialls and Colonel Joe are the same person or not, I have no idea.

          “The test data in the first document that clearly teaches what caused lung cancer in mice when cigarette tar concentrate was used can be found in Volume 14, 1961, CANCER, A Journal of the American Cancer Society. The test, COMBINED ACTION OF CIGARETTE TAR AND BETA RADIATION ON MICE by F.V. Cowdry, PH.D., et al, pages 344-352 has the data referred to in the Question.”

          “The second document is Volume 22, 1959, a Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The test, CARCINOGENIC ACTIVITY OF CIGARETTE SMOKE CONDENSATE. I. EFFECT OF TRAUMA AND REMOTE X IRRADIATION. By Bock, Fred G. & Moore George E.”
          http://www.coljoe.com/smoking_and_cancer%20ii.htm

    • smokervoter says:

      I’ve thought for the longest time now of creating a Rodrigo de Jerez Day for us smokers. It could be the actual day that they met on that beach in the New World or his birthday, either one.

      This is the kind of thing we need to do instead of slinking around like a bunch of Untouchables from India.

      It would do wonders to bring our self-lashing brethren back into the fold.

      http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/the-war-on-smokers/

      See the second comment down, heck read the whole thing again, it’s terrific as usual.

  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    The Bulgarians are showing up by the thousands protesting the smoking ban!

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527188927312566&set=o.393111280739162&type=1&theater

    • Furor Teutonicus says:

      XX Dieser Inhalt ist derzeit nicht verfügbar XX

      Hmm. Not that I am cynical, or anything, but WHY is this site “unavailable” all of a sudden??!!

  20. lleweton says:

    Splendid piece, Frank.

  21. Pingback: The Listening Banks | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s