And the next oldest, Jeanne Calment, was also a smoker.
Says it all, really.
And the next oldest, Jeanne Calment, was also a smoker.
Says it all, really.
A lawyer is arguing that subjecting psychiatric patients to nicotine withdrawal lengthens their confinement in institutions.
The Supreme Court will hear an appeal in the long-running battle by psychiatric patients to overturn the smoking ban at state-owned health facilities.
Barrister Richard Francois said banning patients – who are confined and particularly vulnerable – from smoking, is inhumane under the Bill of Rights.
He told Larry Williams DHBs are forcing nicotine withdrawals on people who are particularly vulnerable and in a time of crisis.
“They don’t want to be in that institution. No one does. Then you subject them to this additional burden which creates a lot of problems.”
Mr Francois said nicotine withdrawals mirror the symptoms of a mental illness and can be misinterpreted by staff – leading to patients spending longer in an institution than necessary.
“Those symptoms are interpreted by nurses and staff as just being another signal, another sign, of how insane they are.”
The people who do this to mental patients are beneath contempt. They are bastards. Utter bastards. And Tobacco Control is an army of utter bastards.
Which is why Tobacco Control must be destroyed. It must be completely annihilated.
The really sickening thing is that because they claim to be “helping” to protect people’s “health”, these bastards can get away with murder. And lots of them are doctors, like Harold Shipman. They are trusted implicitly. But they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Yet there seems to be a point where some doctors somehow flip from saving lives to taking lives.
It really ought to be a matter of primary importance to argue that not only are these people liars, fraudsters, and swindlers, but also that they are not only not doing any good, but instead doing a tremendous amount of harm.
These are not good people. They are profoundly evil people. And it needs to be said over and over again, with examples of just how evil they are. And what they’re doing with mental patients is an example of it.
Hillary Clinton’s health has been coming under intense scrutiny recently, with several doctors – including Dr Ben Carson – calling for the release of her medical history and/or a medical examination.
Today the Drudge Report headlined a photo of her using a stool to get into her limo.
It seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I don’t know what the fuss is about. I might get one for my car.
But what I find really creepy about this photo isn’t her, but the guy standing on the left, with his fists clenched and his feet turned sharply inward towards each other. Does he always stand that way? He looks exactly like one of the undead in Night of the Living Dead – the ones that come tottering awkwardly and unsteadily forward, often dragging one foot.
All he needs is congealed blood oozing out of his mouth, and he’d be perfect.
The other two bodyguards look pretty normal. But they probably won’t be for very much longer, after the zombie launches the savage, flailing attack on them that it looks like it’s winding itself up to do.
Maybe that’s why there’s no blood round its mouth. It hasn’t attacked them and started eating their arms yet.
I hope Hillary managed to get into the car before the zombie attacked, and the chauffeur made a fast getaway, leaving the other two suckers behind.
Unless the chauffeur was another zombie?
Could Hillary be a zombie too?
Maybe that would explain everything? The reports that she takes powerful blood-thinning drugs (Coumadin, aka Warfarin) would make sense: blood congeals quickly in the veins of the undead. Same also for the unsteadiness on her feet: just watch those zombies shambling around – they probably fall over all the time.
It all slots into place, like pieces of a jigsaw. And the final piece of evidence comes from the Jimmy Kimmel show she appeared on:
HC: Take my pulse while I’m talking to you.
HC: Make sure I’m alive.
JK: Oh my God, there’s nothing there!
HC: There’s nothing there!
H/T commenter Sheldon for this Express article:
‘Bring back the GREAT BRITISH PUB’ UKIP wants to reduce alcohol taxes and allow smoking
AFTER leading the successful campaign for Brexit, Ukip is embarking on another crusade – to bring back the Great British pub.
Describing the continuing slump of pubs in the country as an “economic and cultural disaster”, they have launched a bid to get people back to their local boozer by taking on laws stifling the trade.
They argue the industry could be saved if ‘sin taxes’ were reduced and indoor smoking licences handed to pubs meeting certain criteria.
Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge, a member of the Campaign for Real Ale, said: “It’s not called the ‘great British pub’ for nothing – but this obsession with pinching our pockets for never ending sin taxes has been an economic and cultural disaster for this country.
“People gather in pubs to be sociable, catch up with friends and set the world to rights over a pint.
“But now pubs that used to be full are sitting empty, costing thousands of jobs as the people who said they would flock to their local after the smoking ban have not materialised.”
The party wants to reduce alcohol taxation by 50 per cent and reintroduce smoking to certain pubs.
UKIP’s anti-smoking ban policies are the main reason why I vote for them. The EU is secondary.
And after Nigel Farage took a shot at Hillary Clinton while speaking at a Trump rally, Hillary Clinton surprisingly shot back at him. Breitbart:
United States presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has lashed out at UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage during a speech at a rally today. Mr. Farage has told Breitbart London her comments are “extraordinary” and suggested she spend more time speaking to working people in her country than attacking him.
Mrs. Clinton has ranted about the outgoing UKIP leader who appeared at a rally for her political rival for the presidency Donald Trump. Clinton slammed Trump for having Farage appear on stage to talk about the Brexit vote and even went as far as to suggest the former UKIP leader of being in bed with Russian president Vladimir Putin because he had appeared on Russian television broadcasts.
“Just yesterday, one of Britain’s most prominent right-wing leaders, a man named Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum to have Britain leave the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump in Mississippi,” Clinton said.
“Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and health services, has said women are quote “worth less” than men, and supports scrapping laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on race — that’s who Trump wants by his side.The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin. ”
The hysteria continues. Look! Someone smoking on a train!
Shocking moment man lights a cigarette and smokes it on a Sydney train
Man caught on camera puffing away on a cigarette on a Sydney train
He can be seen smoking while his train waits at a platoform
Smoking is prohibited on trains and covered stations in NSW
Smokers caught lighting up can face a maximum fine of $550
Elsewhere, courthouse evacuated. Oh dear! Somebody smoking in a bathroom!
Smoker causes evacuation, Nueces County Courthouse officials say
A man smoking in a Nueces County courthouse bathroom caused an evacuation early Tuesday morning, court officials said.
Hundreds of people including jurors, lawyers and court staff were asked to leave the Nueces County Courthouse about 8:10 a.m. after smoke was seen coming from a men’s bathroom on the 9th floor.
Several fire engines and ambulances responded, blocking part of Lipan Street. Everyone was back in the courthouse by about 20 minutes later, fire officials said.
It’s so utterly pathetic and laughable.
British political leader Nigel Farage said Wednesday he will appear alongside Donald Trump at a Wednesday night Mississippi rally.
Lovely sunny day, and in the afternoon I went and sat in a shady pub garden with a beer and a few cigarettes, and thought about the medical profession.
In the distant past, 50 or so years ago, the medical profession’s task – their calling – was that of curing the sick. If you got sick or injured, you’d go and see a doctor, and he’d examine you, and recommend a course of treatment (e.g. stay in bed for a week, and take a few aspirin every day). If this didn’t fix the problem, you’d go back again.
And doctors back then treated everyone alike. They didn’t mind if the patient was an enemy soldier or a serial killer. They were all treated equally.
Now, however, doctors seem to mostly practise preventative medicine. Instead of just taking people as they come, these new doctors try to prevent them from coming in the first place. The thinking has changed from “Here’s a sick man, so let’s try and set him right,” to “Here’s a sick man, so what did he do to get so sick in the first place?” It isn’t just bad luck for someone to get sick any more. It’s always their fault.
Got lung cancer? That’s because you smoke. Got liver failure? That’s because you drink. Morbidly obese? That’s because you eat too much. Got shot? That’s because you joined the army. Got the clap? That’s because you’ve been sleeping around. Got malaria? Shouldn’t have gone to West Africa. Got Zika? Shouldn’t have visited Brazil. Got Ebola? Shouldn’t have lived in Liberia. There’s always something someone could have done to prevent getting sick or injured.
The old doctors didn’t used to ask. They just saw someone who was sick or injured, and did their best to help them.
In many ways, preventative medicine isn’t anything new. Vaccination is a form of preventative medicine. So also are helmets for soldiers. And railings on staircases. But these kinds of preventative measures are non-intrusive: they don’t try to change the way people behave.
But the new doctors want to change the way people behave in ever more intrusive ways. People must stop smoking. And stop drinking. And cut their food intake. And get some exercise. And stay out of the sun.
The old doctors accepted people as they were, and did their best to help them. But the new doctors want to change the way people behave. They have become moral guardians of ‘healthy’ behaviour, replacing curates and vicars. They see it as their job to tell people how to live their lives.
Why has this happened? Why have these new busybody doctors multiplied, and the old non-judgemental doctors become more or less extinct?
One possible answer is that, if the medical profession is being snowed under by patients, they’re trying to reduce their workload by preventing many of them from getting sick in the first place. This is like army doctors appealing for a war to be stopped because too many soldiers are being killed and injured.
But another (almost opposite) answer is that, now that a great many transmissible diseases can be prevented (by vaccination) or treated (with drugs), most of the classical maladies have lost their danger – and the response of the medical profession has been to discover new diseases to justify the continued existence of their profession. In this respect the WHO’s claim that there is a “smoking epidemic” can only mean that smoking has itself become a disease, no different from cholera or rabies or typhus.
Or maybe it’s simply that the new doctors no longer do what the old doctors were able to do: suspend judgement on those in their care. The new doctors are as moralistic as anyone else, but instead of suppressing criticism, they are quick to voice it.
Or perhaps it’s that when medicine was nationalised (as it has been in the UK), the doctor-patient relationship changed. The patient ceased to be a paying customer, and so his opinion no longer mattered. Once the state started paying the doctor, the patient was still a customer, but he no longer paid (or withheld payment), and exercised no influence over the doctor.
The new doctors are different in other ways. With the old doctors, you told them when you got sick, and you also told them when you recovered. But the new doctors now tell you when you’re sick, and are indifferent to your own opinion how well you are. A couple of blood tests, and they announce that you’ve got cancer or Zika or Ebola.
I can’t say that I got to the bottom of it all this afternoon. But I at least raised a few questions. And proposed a few answers.
I mentioned it last week, and now Taking Liberties has a piece – The war on smoking is a war on individual freedom – on the liberation of Manbij, quoting from an article by Juliet Samuel in the Telegraph:
The women are smoking cigarettes … Newly liberated from the rule of Isil, they’re expressing the most basic freedom a human can possess: control over their own bodies. These are the freedoms the West holds dear.
If only that were true. The West may not kill or torture people for smoking (not yet, anyway!) but the suggestion it’s a freedom “the West holds dear” is no longer true, sadly.
I’m not suggesting governments should actively encourage habits that are potentially harmful but if it’s legal the state’s role in a free society is to educate then allow people to make our own informed choices without being punished for making choices the state doesn’t approve of.
Instead, led by America, Australia, Canada, the UK and Ireland (spot the connection?), governments and local authorities in the West have spent the past two decades banning or severely restricting smoking in a variety of public places.
Smoking in enclosed public places is now prohibited in several Western countries and there is a growing move towards outdoor smoking bans.
Smokers have been taxed to the hilt, far in excess of what it allegedly costs the state to treat smoking-related diseases.
In some countries the product has been hidden behind shutters and sliding doors while packs and pouches are emblazoned with gory health warnings designed to shock and repulse.
Simultaneously the public has been encouraged to regard smoking as a dirty or disgusting habit (“If you smoke, you stink” according to one publicly-funded campaign).
Does that sound like a freedom “the West holds dear”?
Well, exactly. This is one freedom that the West doesn’t hold dear. And it really means that the West no longer really holds any freedom dear. For once one freedom has gone, the rest will soon follow.
And if “inclusiveness” is another value that “the West holds dear”, the treatment of smokers goes to show how empty that claim also is.
All empty words.
For me defending smoking (and smokers) is the litmus test of a genuinely liberal mind. It scores points on so many levels I hardly know where to start.
The most important perhaps is that genuine liberals are prepared to defend activities they themselves don’t engage in and may even disapprove of.
Defending smoking means challenging the current orthodoxy that the world would be a better place without it.
It’s the only litmus test I use these days. The first thing I want to know about anyone is whether they’re antismoking or not. And if they are antismoking, I know everything I need to know about them.
So I’ll ask this. Who do you identify with – the women in Manjib, Syria, celebrating the freedom to smoke, or public health campaigners who want to deny you that freedom in the name of … what, exactly?
I don’t doubt that some people are addicted to smoking and want to quit. I’m equally convinced however that as an expression of individual freedom smoking is hard to beat.
I also think the world would be a poorer, less diverse place without smoking but, hey, I’m just a tobacco industry stooge with no mind of my own.
I also think that the world would be (is?) a poorer place without smoking, in much the same way it would be a poorer place without the scent of perfume, the rich aroma of coffee, the smell of newly baked bread, and twenty thousand other aromas that, at the drop of a hat, someone somewhere will declare to be a “stink”.