The Moral Maze

I listened to the Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4 tonight, so as to hear what Chris Snowdon had to say. I had the pleasure of finding that James Delingpole was also appearing on it. As ever, it was chaired by Michael Buerk, with long-serving panelists Michael Portillo, Melanie Phillips, Clifford Longley, and Matthew Taylor. The subject today was "nudging". How far should we go to stop people doing something that’s bad for them?

First up for questioning was Professor Richard Thaler, co-author of Nudge. He was at pains to say that he didn’t want to "nudge" people to do what they didn’t want to do, but to help them do what they did want to do. Nobody on the panel seemed to understand that. And, to be quite honest, neither did I. What on earth is the point of "nudging" people to do what they want to do anyway?

Asked about cigarette smokers who wanted to carry on smoking, Thaler seemed rather baffled at the unfamiliar notion. Eventually he said that surveys showed that most smokers wanted to give up smoking. 75% of them, one of the panelists said later.

This was the first of several Facts That Everybody Knows About Smokers which came up. I’m always rather puzzled that so many smokers want to give up smoking. If that many smokers wanted to give up smoking, it would have been a regular topic of conversation. But in my 40+ years of smoking, it’s something I’ve hardly ever discussed with any seasoned smoker, although it was quite often a topic of conversation with occasional smokers who would cadge a cigarette off me, and then feel guilty about it. The seasoned smokers just smoked, and said nothing about it. They no more wanted to give up smoking than they wanted to give up drinking or eating fish and chips, or betting on horses. Personally I simply don’t believe that 75% of smokers want to give up smoking. It’s probably an ASH fake factoid. Much more likely is that 75% of smokers feel so brow-beaten and excluded and over-taxed that they feel they have little option but to give up smoking, but they don’t really want to  – which is why it’s so hard for them to give up, and why so many who do manage become such bitter and twisted people.

Anyway, Michael Portillo then said that he thought that brown paper packaging for cigarettes was "a restriction of freedom". I was very surprised at this, for I remembered Portillo looking forward enthusiastically to a smoking ban on This Week back in 2006. I remember him saying on the same occasion that a smoking ban would never work in Spain. We’ll find out in a month or so about that.

Next up was James Delingpole, who spoke robustly against "nudging" as used for Cameron’s Big Society, which Delingpole saw as simply increasing state power. He was strongly and uncompromisingly opposed to government interference in private lives, and to government in general.

Then came Rosemary Gillespie of the Roy Castle Foundation (God am I so sick of Roy Castle!), who approved of plain packaging if it would make smoking "uncool". Michael Portillo said he was astonished that she thought she could decide what was to "cool" or "uncool". Gillespie then said that cigarette packaging was aimed at children, and anything that could reduce the intake of young smokers was a good thing, and it would help to raise awareness of the extent to which they were being manipulated by tobacco companies. Portillo pointed out that imposing plain packaging was equally manipulative.

Melanie Phillips then said that smoking was "a public evil", and smokers were addicts, and therefore not free. This was the second and third of the Facts That Everybody Knows About Smokers. Firstly that they are addicts. And secondly, because they are addicts, and in the vice-like grip of evil weed, they are incapable of free choice. Phillips didn’t go on to complete the manoeuvre by drawing the conclusion that since smokers were not truly free agents, they could not make choices for themselves, and so choices had to be made for them. But it’s far from clear to me that smokers actually are addicted to cigarettes. Habituated seems more like it. There isn’t an equivalent of cold turkey when people stop smoking. But nevertheless, addicts are what they’re gleefully called anyway, because a drug addict is regarded as someone who is helplessly caught up a cycle of addiction, and no more free than a man caught in an iron trap, and can only be freed by the intervention of others. When people want to find an excuse to intervene in other people’s lives, it’s of great assistance if those people can be first labelled as addicts of one sort or other. Either telly addicts, or sex addicts, or chocaholics. Once the ‘addict’ label has been pinned on them, it’s an open invitation for intervention, and for outright attack.

Somehow or other, though, Melanie Phillips seemed not to think that people were addicted to fattening foods. They could cut back on those quite easily, she thought, unlike the helplessly-addicted smokers who couldn’t go 10 minutes without a fag.

Finally Chris Snowdon came on, and brushed aside any suggestion that plain packaging was unimportant. It had to be taken in the context of all the other moves against tobacco, all of which, he said, were heading towards the prohibition of tobacco. And it was well past nudging. It was outright bullying and denormalision. "Stigmatising?" Michael Buerk asked, rather helpfully. Snowdon agreed, and went on to say that it encouraged hatred towards smokers.

Clifford Longley then weighed in with the fourth and fifth and sixth Facts That Everybody Knows About Smoking. That it was an antisocial practice, he declared – to which Chris Snowdon replied that this was his personal opinion. And, he added, it harmed people around smokers, as well as harming smokers themselves.  All I can say is that throughout my entire life, smoking has been a quintessentially social activity, with a great many people never smoking, except when in the company of others (my mother fell into this category). The same people would very often not touch a drop of alcohol except in the company of others. Smoking and drinking has lain at the heart of social life for a very long time. Rather than smokers being antisocial, the truly antisocial people are those who ban smoking and exclude smokers, and inflict enormous social damage in the process.

And as for the evidence that passive smoking poses any threat to anyone, well, most studies clearly show that it doesn’t. 

But Chris Snowdon conceded that smoking was damaging to smokers’ health. But is that true either? I’ve gone over some of the studies linking smoking and lung cancer, showing how weak they are in a variety of ways. There are also all those examples of smokers of great longevity like Jeanne Calment, a smoker who lived to the age of 120 or so. If smoking is universally damaging to smokers, such people simply should not exist at all. But they do.  And I’m edging ever closer the view that absolutely everything that has been said against tobacco for the past 70 years – whether active smoking or passive smoking or anything else – has all been one long stream of lies. The whole damn lot. Everything.

Pressed as to what relaxations of law he’d like to see, Snowdon said that most of the legislation of the past 40 years would have to go, and that in his view it should be legal to smoke any natural plant, although such legalisation would have to be phased in gradually, because people had become so infantilised.

I suppose what surprised me most of all was that Chris Snowdon had been invited onto the Moral Maze at all, as a smoker and the author of Velvet Glove, Iron Fist. But I was also a bit surprised at some of the things the panel said. I was surprised that the antismoking Michael Portillo saw plain packaging of cigarettes as a "restriction of freedom" (yet had welcomed the far more restrictive smoking ban 4 years ago). I was surprised that (presumably antismoking) Michael Buerk suggested the word "stigmatise" to Chris Snowdon. And I was surprised that antismoking Melanie Phillips found the "choice architects" working in Cameron’s administration Orwellian. It suggested that opinion among non-smokers may have shifted over the past few years, and they’re becoming a bit worried about losing freedoms.

It was a welcome debate in some ways, which was supposed to be about nudging, but spent more of its time on smoking. But for myself, for the most part I thought it was a bit of an academic discussion among the panelists about something that didn’t affect them at all. They weren’t being demonised. They weren’t being excluded. They weren’t being stigmatised. They weren’t being denormalised. And for the most part they were quite comfortable with nudging or even bullying people to act in what they saw as their best interests. They hadn’t been expelled from society. They hadn’t lost most of their friends. They hadn’t been fired from their jobs, or evicted from their homes, or refused medical treatment.

It’s why I don’t listen to the Moral Maze. They’ll pick some recondite moral dilemma or other, stir it around in their teacups for half an hour, and then depart, job done and lolly pocketed.

And if I’d been there, I’d probably have started shouting at them, swearing at them, and punching them. Because I don’t think there’s any debate going on here. There never has been. It’s just a war now. It’s smokers against antismokers. And if I ever find myself in front of one of these antismoking bastards, I’ll want to kill them then and there.

Which is probably why I wasn’t invited, and never will be, and will never want to be.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to The Moral Maze

  1. Anonymous says:

    I’ve got no complaints about how the show went although, having listened back to it, I did get interrupted quite a bit. My only quibble would be how they introduced me (on th show and on the website):
    ‘Chris Snowdon, Smoker and author of ‘Velvet Glove Iron Fist; A History of Anti-Smoking’
    Good job I’m not Jewish, eh?
    BTW, sometime we should have an online debate about this smoking-doesn’t-cause-lung-cancer thing because you really are wrong about that one, and I’m a sceptic about a lot of things.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I’ve got no complaints about how the show went although, having listened back to it, I did get interrupted quite a bit. My only quibble would be how they introduced me (on th show and on the website):
    ‘Chris Snowdon, Smoker and author of ‘Velvet Glove Iron Fist; A History of Anti-Smoking’
    Good job I’m not Jewish, eh?
    BTW, sometime we should have an online debate about this smoking-doesn’t-cause-lung-cancer thing because you really are wrong about that one, and I’m a sceptic about a lot of things.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I’ve got no complaints about how the show went although, having listened back to it, I did get interrupted quite a bit. My only quibble would be how they introduced me (on th show and on the website):
    ‘Chris Snowdon, Smoker and author of ‘Velvet Glove Iron Fist; A History of Anti-Smoking’
    Good job I’m not Jewish, eh?
    BTW, sometime we should have an online debate about this smoking-doesn’t-cause-lung-cancer thing because you really are wrong about that one, and I’m a sceptic about a lot of things.

  4. Frank Davis says:

    sometime we should have an online debate about this smoking-doesn’t-cause-lung-cancer thing because you really are wrong about that one,
    That would be a very nice idea! An open and amicable debate.
    But I’d like to be joined by Rich White on my side, because he has, like you, written a book about it, and I haven’t. And he told me that he tried to persuade you about this matter, without success. I know some of what his arguments are, but I don’t know what yours are.
    Also, as I wrote in the piece above, I’m edging towards the position. I still haven’t fully arrived there.
    Frank

  5. Frank Davis says:

    sometime we should have an online debate about this smoking-doesn’t-cause-lung-cancer thing because you really are wrong about that one,
    That would be a very nice idea! An open and amicable debate.
    But I’d like to be joined by Rich White on my side, because he has, like you, written a book about it, and I haven’t. And he told me that he tried to persuade you about this matter, without success. I know some of what his arguments are, but I don’t know what yours are.
    Also, as I wrote in the piece above, I’m edging towards the position. I still haven’t fully arrived there.
    Frank

  6. Frank Davis says:

    sometime we should have an online debate about this smoking-doesn’t-cause-lung-cancer thing because you really are wrong about that one,
    That would be a very nice idea! An open and amicable debate.
    But I’d like to be joined by Rich White on my side, because he has, like you, written a book about it, and I haven’t. And he told me that he tried to persuade you about this matter, without success. I know some of what his arguments are, but I don’t know what yours are.
    Also, as I wrote in the piece above, I’m edging towards the position. I still haven’t fully arrived there.
    Frank

  7. Anonymous says:

    Open debate
    Good piece Frank. I too was annoyed by this so called debate about ‘nudging’; I’m really beginning to hate this word. Its funny isn’t it how these nasty little terms (which basically means someone wanting to interfere in our lives) keep cropping up. You wonder how much energy is spent on dreaming up another way of prodding our noses.
    You made the point that areswipe Clifford Longley said that smoking harms smokers, and others around them…but you will notice he didn’t give Chris Snowdon time to take issue with the ‘passive smoking’ implication…he simply quickly moved on. He also made me boil with anger when he constantly interrupted Chris not allowing him to make his points fully.
    You say that you wouldn’t appear on The Moral Maze if you were asked. This is precisely why I have tried to find a programme maker who would consider a factual/entertainment production which exposed the myths and lies behind the anti-smoking zealousness.
    It would take the format of a court-room, whereby experts would be cross-examined forensically about such things as SHS, epidemiology and cancer etc. You would not need anyone from ASH, since they are not experts but propagandists. Counsel from both sides of the debate would cross-examine. When these processes are completed then counsel would give a closing speech before summing up by the judge…who would decide if a smoking ban was ever justified.
    A format of this kind is far superior to a studio debate, where charge and counter charge would serve no useful purpose other than to allow point scoring…it would also prevent someone talking over another person trying to make a point. In a court-room format all the issues are nailed down tight with no wriggle-room. All questions would have to be answered succinctly. I’m sure there would be many professionals willing to take part. This programme would perhaps be in three parts, each lasting two hours each, say over three evenings…thus giving time for the issues to be thoroughly explored.
    I’m afraid though Frank that I have only had one reply to date and that wasn’t hopeful…it was from a Canadian television company. It would be nice to talk to someone who just had the manners to sit down and listen to the proposal. We need someone with contacts in the media.
    I guess it’s just too politically incorrect – eh?
    To Anon.
    ‘BTW, sometime we should have an online debate about this smoking-doesn’t-cause-lung-cancer thing because you really are wrong about that one, and I’m a sceptic about a lot of things’
    I have asked this question so many times of ASH (UK), ASH (SCOTLAND), BMJ, CRUK, and the DOH.
    If smoking causes lung cancer then what are the biological sequence of events whereby the inhalation of smoke from a cigarette, cigar or pipe mutate healthy lung tissue into cancerous tissue…since diseased tissue forms on the outside of the lung…and air or smoke do not reach the outside of the lung.
    As yet I have never had a definitive answer to this question.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Open debate
    Good piece Frank. I too was annoyed by this so called debate about ‘nudging’; I’m really beginning to hate this word. Its funny isn’t it how these nasty little terms (which basically means someone wanting to interfere in our lives) keep cropping up. You wonder how much energy is spent on dreaming up another way of prodding our noses.
    You made the point that areswipe Clifford Longley said that smoking harms smokers, and others around them…but you will notice he didn’t give Chris Snowdon time to take issue with the ‘passive smoking’ implication…he simply quickly moved on. He also made me boil with anger when he constantly interrupted Chris not allowing him to make his points fully.
    You say that you wouldn’t appear on The Moral Maze if you were asked. This is precisely why I have tried to find a programme maker who would consider a factual/entertainment production which exposed the myths and lies behind the anti-smoking zealousness.
    It would take the format of a court-room, whereby experts would be cross-examined forensically about such things as SHS, epidemiology and cancer etc. You would not need anyone from ASH, since they are not experts but propagandists. Counsel from both sides of the debate would cross-examine. When these processes are completed then counsel would give a closing speech before summing up by the judge…who would decide if a smoking ban was ever justified.
    A format of this kind is far superior to a studio debate, where charge and counter charge would serve no useful purpose other than to allow point scoring…it would also prevent someone talking over another person trying to make a point. In a court-room format all the issues are nailed down tight with no wriggle-room. All questions would have to be answered succinctly. I’m sure there would be many professionals willing to take part. This programme would perhaps be in three parts, each lasting two hours each, say over three evenings…thus giving time for the issues to be thoroughly explored.
    I’m afraid though Frank that I have only had one reply to date and that wasn’t hopeful…it was from a Canadian television company. It would be nice to talk to someone who just had the manners to sit down and listen to the proposal. We need someone with contacts in the media.
    I guess it’s just too politically incorrect – eh?
    To Anon.
    ‘BTW, sometime we should have an online debate about this smoking-doesn’t-cause-lung-cancer thing because you really are wrong about that one, and I’m a sceptic about a lot of things’
    I have asked this question so many times of ASH (UK), ASH (SCOTLAND), BMJ, CRUK, and the DOH.
    If smoking causes lung cancer then what are the biological sequence of events whereby the inhalation of smoke from a cigarette, cigar or pipe mutate healthy lung tissue into cancerous tissue…since diseased tissue forms on the outside of the lung…and air or smoke do not reach the outside of the lung.
    As yet I have never had a definitive answer to this question.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Open debate
    Good piece Frank. I too was annoyed by this so called debate about ‘nudging’; I’m really beginning to hate this word. Its funny isn’t it how these nasty little terms (which basically means someone wanting to interfere in our lives) keep cropping up. You wonder how much energy is spent on dreaming up another way of prodding our noses.
    You made the point that areswipe Clifford Longley said that smoking harms smokers, and others around them…but you will notice he didn’t give Chris Snowdon time to take issue with the ‘passive smoking’ implication…he simply quickly moved on. He also made me boil with anger when he constantly interrupted Chris not allowing him to make his points fully.
    You say that you wouldn’t appear on The Moral Maze if you were asked. This is precisely why I have tried to find a programme maker who would consider a factual/entertainment production which exposed the myths and lies behind the anti-smoking zealousness.
    It would take the format of a court-room, whereby experts would be cross-examined forensically about such things as SHS, epidemiology and cancer etc. You would not need anyone from ASH, since they are not experts but propagandists. Counsel from both sides of the debate would cross-examine. When these processes are completed then counsel would give a closing speech before summing up by the judge…who would decide if a smoking ban was ever justified.
    A format of this kind is far superior to a studio debate, where charge and counter charge would serve no useful purpose other than to allow point scoring…it would also prevent someone talking over another person trying to make a point. In a court-room format all the issues are nailed down tight with no wriggle-room. All questions would have to be answered succinctly. I’m sure there would be many professionals willing to take part. This programme would perhaps be in three parts, each lasting two hours each, say over three evenings…thus giving time for the issues to be thoroughly explored.
    I’m afraid though Frank that I have only had one reply to date and that wasn’t hopeful…it was from a Canadian television company. It would be nice to talk to someone who just had the manners to sit down and listen to the proposal. We need someone with contacts in the media.
    I guess it’s just too politically incorrect – eh?
    To Anon.
    ‘BTW, sometime we should have an online debate about this smoking-doesn’t-cause-lung-cancer thing because you really are wrong about that one, and I’m a sceptic about a lot of things’
    I have asked this question so many times of ASH (UK), ASH (SCOTLAND), BMJ, CRUK, and the DOH.
    If smoking causes lung cancer then what are the biological sequence of events whereby the inhalation of smoke from a cigarette, cigar or pipe mutate healthy lung tissue into cancerous tissue…since diseased tissue forms on the outside of the lung…and air or smoke do not reach the outside of the lung.
    As yet I have never had a definitive answer to this question.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Re: Open debate
    Dear Jocularjohnny, Your final point is an interesting one, now add in this. Simulated cigarette smoking and experimental smoke exposure have never been able to induce lung cancer. It has never been done in a laboratory quite regardless of the experimental model or technique used. If it cannot be tested experimentally it ain’t a workable hypothesis. Add to that the fact that the “famous” smoking beagles experiment was a) very poorly designed b) exposed the animals to smoke in vast excess to that experienced by even a chain smoker and c)used a model animal that routinely spontaneously develops neoplasms of the respiratroy system (ask any vet about beagles) and you are beginning to see why the experiment has never been repeated. So in addition to there being no answer to your question there are no answers to a whole raft of questions in this area. I will admit that the association (note association only) between small cell carcinoma and smoking is pretty strong, but lung cancer is a rare disease and this variant is even rarer so is it a good reason to interfere with the lives and livlihoods of millions? I think not. Perhaps antismokers need to develop a bit of the smokers attitude to life i.e. shit happens, it happens to everybody the best strategy is to shrug and get on with your life.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Re: Open debate
    Dear Jocularjohnny, Your final point is an interesting one, now add in this. Simulated cigarette smoking and experimental smoke exposure have never been able to induce lung cancer. It has never been done in a laboratory quite regardless of the experimental model or technique used. If it cannot be tested experimentally it ain’t a workable hypothesis. Add to that the fact that the “famous” smoking beagles experiment was a) very poorly designed b) exposed the animals to smoke in vast excess to that experienced by even a chain smoker and c)used a model animal that routinely spontaneously develops neoplasms of the respiratroy system (ask any vet about beagles) and you are beginning to see why the experiment has never been repeated. So in addition to there being no answer to your question there are no answers to a whole raft of questions in this area. I will admit that the association (note association only) between small cell carcinoma and smoking is pretty strong, but lung cancer is a rare disease and this variant is even rarer so is it a good reason to interfere with the lives and livlihoods of millions? I think not. Perhaps antismokers need to develop a bit of the smokers attitude to life i.e. shit happens, it happens to everybody the best strategy is to shrug and get on with your life.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Re: Open debate
    Dear Jocularjohnny, Your final point is an interesting one, now add in this. Simulated cigarette smoking and experimental smoke exposure have never been able to induce lung cancer. It has never been done in a laboratory quite regardless of the experimental model or technique used. If it cannot be tested experimentally it ain’t a workable hypothesis. Add to that the fact that the “famous” smoking beagles experiment was a) very poorly designed b) exposed the animals to smoke in vast excess to that experienced by even a chain smoker and c)used a model animal that routinely spontaneously develops neoplasms of the respiratroy system (ask any vet about beagles) and you are beginning to see why the experiment has never been repeated. So in addition to there being no answer to your question there are no answers to a whole raft of questions in this area. I will admit that the association (note association only) between small cell carcinoma and smoking is pretty strong, but lung cancer is a rare disease and this variant is even rarer so is it a good reason to interfere with the lives and livlihoods of millions? I think not. Perhaps antismokers need to develop a bit of the smokers attitude to life i.e. shit happens, it happens to everybody the best strategy is to shrug and get on with your life.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Daily aspirin dose ‘for everyone over 45’
    “Earlier studies had already shown that a low daily dose could reduce the risk of developing heart disease.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8154483/Daily-aspirin-dose-for-everyone-over-45.html
    Humans Make Their Own Salicylic Acid, Aspirin’s Active Principle, Say UK Scientists
    “Scientists in the United Kingdom are reporting new evidence that humans can make their own salicylic acid (SA) – the material formed when aspirin breaks down in the body. SA, which is responsible for aspirin’s renowned effects in relieving pain and inflammation, may be the first in a new class of bioregulators, according to a study scheduled for the Dec. 24 issue of ACS’ biweekly Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
    In the report, Gwendoline Baxter, Ph.D. and colleagues discuss how their past research revealed that SA exists in the blood of people who have not recently taken aspirin.
    Vegetarians had much higher levels, almost matching those in patients taking low doses of aspirin.
    Based on those findings, the researchers previously concluded that this endogenous SA came from the diet, since SA is a natural substance found in fruits and vegetables.”
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/134014.php
    I thought that salicylic acid was just in willow bark.
    Always worth a look though..
    “The tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) cultivar Xanthi-nc (genotype NN) produces high levels of salicylic acid (SA) after inoculation with the tobacco mosaic virus (TMV).
    Gaseous methyl salicylate (MeSA), a major volatile produced in TMV-inoculated tobacco plants, was recently shown to be an airborne defense signal.
    Using an assay developed to measure the MeSA present in tissue, we have shown that in TMV-inoculated tobacco plants the level of MeSA increases dramatically, paralleling increases in SA. MeSA accumulation was also observed in upper, noninoculated leaves.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC35180/
    Tasty Greetings Plant Distress Signals
    “This was the finding of a study conducted on wild tobacco plants (Nicotiana attenuata) recently published in Science by Silke Allmann and Ian T. Baldwin of Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, in Germany (2010, 329, 1075). The researchers found that when tobacco hornworm caterpillars (Manduca sexta) munched on the plants, the insects’ saliva triggered an immediate release of green leaf volatiles (GLVs)—an S.O.S. signal to predator bugs of the genus Geocoris.”
    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/newscripts/88/8838newscripts.html
    Rose

  14. Anonymous says:

    Daily aspirin dose ‘for everyone over 45’
    “Earlier studies had already shown that a low daily dose could reduce the risk of developing heart disease.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8154483/Daily-aspirin-dose-for-everyone-over-45.html
    Humans Make Their Own Salicylic Acid, Aspirin’s Active Principle, Say UK Scientists
    “Scientists in the United Kingdom are reporting new evidence that humans can make their own salicylic acid (SA) – the material formed when aspirin breaks down in the body. SA, which is responsible for aspirin’s renowned effects in relieving pain and inflammation, may be the first in a new class of bioregulators, according to a study scheduled for the Dec. 24 issue of ACS’ biweekly Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
    In the report, Gwendoline Baxter, Ph.D. and colleagues discuss how their past research revealed that SA exists in the blood of people who have not recently taken aspirin.
    Vegetarians had much higher levels, almost matching those in patients taking low doses of aspirin.
    Based on those findings, the researchers previously concluded that this endogenous SA came from the diet, since SA is a natural substance found in fruits and vegetables.”
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/134014.php
    I thought that salicylic acid was just in willow bark.
    Always worth a look though..
    “The tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) cultivar Xanthi-nc (genotype NN) produces high levels of salicylic acid (SA) after inoculation with the tobacco mosaic virus (TMV).
    Gaseous methyl salicylate (MeSA), a major volatile produced in TMV-inoculated tobacco plants, was recently shown to be an airborne defense signal.
    Using an assay developed to measure the MeSA present in tissue, we have shown that in TMV-inoculated tobacco plants the level of MeSA increases dramatically, paralleling increases in SA. MeSA accumulation was also observed in upper, noninoculated leaves.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC35180/
    Tasty Greetings Plant Distress Signals
    “This was the finding of a study conducted on wild tobacco plants (Nicotiana attenuata) recently published in Science by Silke Allmann and Ian T. Baldwin of Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, in Germany (2010, 329, 1075). The researchers found that when tobacco hornworm caterpillars (Manduca sexta) munched on the plants, the insects’ saliva triggered an immediate release of green leaf volatiles (GLVs)—an S.O.S. signal to predator bugs of the genus Geocoris.”
    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/newscripts/88/8838newscripts.html
    Rose

  15. Anonymous says:

    Daily aspirin dose ‘for everyone over 45’
    “Earlier studies had already shown that a low daily dose could reduce the risk of developing heart disease.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8154483/Daily-aspirin-dose-for-everyone-over-45.html
    Humans Make Their Own Salicylic Acid, Aspirin’s Active Principle, Say UK Scientists
    “Scientists in the United Kingdom are reporting new evidence that humans can make their own salicylic acid (SA) – the material formed when aspirin breaks down in the body. SA, which is responsible for aspirin’s renowned effects in relieving pain and inflammation, may be the first in a new class of bioregulators, according to a study scheduled for the Dec. 24 issue of ACS’ biweekly Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
    In the report, Gwendoline Baxter, Ph.D. and colleagues discuss how their past research revealed that SA exists in the blood of people who have not recently taken aspirin.
    Vegetarians had much higher levels, almost matching those in patients taking low doses of aspirin.
    Based on those findings, the researchers previously concluded that this endogenous SA came from the diet, since SA is a natural substance found in fruits and vegetables.”
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/134014.php
    I thought that salicylic acid was just in willow bark.
    Always worth a look though..
    “The tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) cultivar Xanthi-nc (genotype NN) produces high levels of salicylic acid (SA) after inoculation with the tobacco mosaic virus (TMV).
    Gaseous methyl salicylate (MeSA), a major volatile produced in TMV-inoculated tobacco plants, was recently shown to be an airborne defense signal.
    Using an assay developed to measure the MeSA present in tissue, we have shown that in TMV-inoculated tobacco plants the level of MeSA increases dramatically, paralleling increases in SA. MeSA accumulation was also observed in upper, noninoculated leaves.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC35180/
    Tasty Greetings Plant Distress Signals
    “This was the finding of a study conducted on wild tobacco plants (Nicotiana attenuata) recently published in Science by Silke Allmann and Ian T. Baldwin of Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, in Germany (2010, 329, 1075). The researchers found that when tobacco hornworm caterpillars (Manduca sexta) munched on the plants, the insects’ saliva triggered an immediate release of green leaf volatiles (GLVs)—an S.O.S. signal to predator bugs of the genus Geocoris.”
    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/newscripts/88/8838newscripts.html
    Rose

  16. Anonymous says:

    “As the plants grow, they usually require topping and suckering. “Topping” is the removal of the tobacco flowers while “suckering” is the pruning out of leaves that are otherwise unproductive. Both procedures ensure that as much of the plant’s energy as possible focuses on producing the large leaves that are harvested and sold”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivation_of_tobacco
    I wonder if the plant can tell the difference between a bite,pruning, an attack or a virus.
    Rose

  17. Anonymous says:

    “As the plants grow, they usually require topping and suckering. “Topping” is the removal of the tobacco flowers while “suckering” is the pruning out of leaves that are otherwise unproductive. Both procedures ensure that as much of the plant’s energy as possible focuses on producing the large leaves that are harvested and sold”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivation_of_tobacco
    I wonder if the plant can tell the difference between a bite,pruning, an attack or a virus.
    Rose

  18. Anonymous says:

    “As the plants grow, they usually require topping and suckering. “Topping” is the removal of the tobacco flowers while “suckering” is the pruning out of leaves that are otherwise unproductive. Both procedures ensure that as much of the plant’s energy as possible focuses on producing the large leaves that are harvested and sold”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivation_of_tobacco
    I wonder if the plant can tell the difference between a bite,pruning, an attack or a virus.
    Rose

  19. Anonymous says:

    Chuckles
    Frank, The ‘addiction’ rubbish is crucial as it allows the ‘addiction’ to be medicalised, so they can claim for the patches and other rubbish from the NHS, medical plans and similar. Marketing arm of big pharma remember?
    Saying that smoking ’causes’ cancer is the same arrant nonsense. It’s all done by decree and definition – see California and similar statutes. I’d say that being born causes cancer’, or ‘being born is the leading cause of death’, is a much stronger cause/effect relationship? ‘Might contribute’ is as far as I’d go.
    To these and they, there is no such thing as reality or fact, it is all about ‘narrative’ and ‘framing.’

  20. Anonymous says:

    Chuckles
    Frank, The ‘addiction’ rubbish is crucial as it allows the ‘addiction’ to be medicalised, so they can claim for the patches and other rubbish from the NHS, medical plans and similar. Marketing arm of big pharma remember?
    Saying that smoking ’causes’ cancer is the same arrant nonsense. It’s all done by decree and definition – see California and similar statutes. I’d say that being born causes cancer’, or ‘being born is the leading cause of death’, is a much stronger cause/effect relationship? ‘Might contribute’ is as far as I’d go.
    To these and they, there is no such thing as reality or fact, it is all about ‘narrative’ and ‘framing.’

  21. Anonymous says:

    Chuckles
    Frank, The ‘addiction’ rubbish is crucial as it allows the ‘addiction’ to be medicalised, so they can claim for the patches and other rubbish from the NHS, medical plans and similar. Marketing arm of big pharma remember?
    Saying that smoking ’causes’ cancer is the same arrant nonsense. It’s all done by decree and definition – see California and similar statutes. I’d say that being born causes cancer’, or ‘being born is the leading cause of death’, is a much stronger cause/effect relationship? ‘Might contribute’ is as far as I’d go.
    To these and they, there is no such thing as reality or fact, it is all about ‘narrative’ and ‘framing.’

  22. Anonymous says:

    US ruling turns smokers into junkies – 1994
    “Nicotine is addictive, a panel of experts on drug abuse decided last week. The decision leaves the door open for the US Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco as it does other addictive substances.
    Over the past few months, the FDA’s commissioner, David Kessler, has been campaigning for tobacco to be regulated in the same way as many other drugs.
    To do so legally, he must demonstrate that nicotine is a powerful drug, and that the tobacco companies depend on nicotine’s addict-iveness to keep smokers smoking.
    But the tobacco companies continue to insist that nicotine is not addictive. To settle the issue, Kessler asked the Drug Abuse Advisory Committee to give its expert opinion.
    “The drug abuse panel listened to a whole range of definitions of addiction. But the debate highlighted some important questions. What makes a substance addictive? What is the difference between an addiction and a habit? Has the term ‘addiction’ become meaningless?
    In 1988, the US Surgeon General concluded in a report on tobacco that nicotine is addictive in the fullest sense of the word. It is psychoactive, having a direct effect on the brain; it is reinforcing, meaning that users will keep using the drug; it is used compulsively despite harmful effects. The desire to smoke takes precedence over other important priorities, such as health, and smokers become physically dependent on nicotine.
    Despite this, a handful of scientists – inside and outside the tobacco companies – claim the Surgeon General stretched the traditional meaning of addiction too far. They claim his report adds to the growing abuse of the word as in pop psychology’s ‘food addiction’ and ‘sex addiction’.
    ‘The smoker’s ability to think or reason clearly is not diminished when making the decision to quit or continue smoking. In short, this is clearly not a behaviour that the smoker has lost control over.’
    “He points out that until the 1960s, most definitions of addictive substances included the intoxicating effect.
    He said that this part of the definition should still apply, and as nicotine in normal doses is not intoxicating, it should not be considered addictive.
    Some scientists outside the tobacco companies agree. For instance, Robert Cancro, head of the Department of Psychiatry at the New York University Medical School, claims that ‘addiction’ has become ‘a modern shibboleth’. ‘A person who seeks pleasure from smoking . . . is different from a person ‘strung out’ on drugs.
    The former may enjoy the activity and pursue it; but the latter will reshape his life to obtain the drug,’ he said.
    Robert Cloninger, professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis, also rejects the notion that nicotine is addictive. He does not believe it causes loss of control over behaviour or physical dependence”
    But scientists on the winning side of the debate last week claim the critics misunderstand or misrepresent what constitutes an addiction.
    ‘Tobacco representatives seem to focus in on one element of any definition. They say nicotine cannot be addicting because it does not cause intoxication.
    But that’s only one of the things that goes into an overall definition,’ said Richard Hurt, director of the Mayo Nicotine Dependence Center in Rochester, Minnesota.

  23. Anonymous says:

    US ruling turns smokers into junkies – 1994
    “Nicotine is addictive, a panel of experts on drug abuse decided last week. The decision leaves the door open for the US Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco as it does other addictive substances.
    Over the past few months, the FDA’s commissioner, David Kessler, has been campaigning for tobacco to be regulated in the same way as many other drugs.
    To do so legally, he must demonstrate that nicotine is a powerful drug, and that the tobacco companies depend on nicotine’s addict-iveness to keep smokers smoking.
    But the tobacco companies continue to insist that nicotine is not addictive. To settle the issue, Kessler asked the Drug Abuse Advisory Committee to give its expert opinion.
    “The drug abuse panel listened to a whole range of definitions of addiction. But the debate highlighted some important questions. What makes a substance addictive? What is the difference between an addiction and a habit? Has the term ‘addiction’ become meaningless?
    In 1988, the US Surgeon General concluded in a report on tobacco that nicotine is addictive in the fullest sense of the word. It is psychoactive, having a direct effect on the brain; it is reinforcing, meaning that users will keep using the drug; it is used compulsively despite harmful effects. The desire to smoke takes precedence over other important priorities, such as health, and smokers become physically dependent on nicotine.
    Despite this, a handful of scientists – inside and outside the tobacco companies – claim the Surgeon General stretched the traditional meaning of addiction too far. They claim his report adds to the growing abuse of the word as in pop psychology’s ‘food addiction’ and ‘sex addiction’.
    ‘The smoker’s ability to think or reason clearly is not diminished when making the decision to quit or continue smoking. In short, this is clearly not a behaviour that the smoker has lost control over.’
    “He points out that until the 1960s, most definitions of addictive substances included the intoxicating effect.
    He said that this part of the definition should still apply, and as nicotine in normal doses is not intoxicating, it should not be considered addictive.
    Some scientists outside the tobacco companies agree. For instance, Robert Cancro, head of the Department of Psychiatry at the New York University Medical School, claims that ‘addiction’ has become ‘a modern shibboleth’. ‘A person who seeks pleasure from smoking . . . is different from a person ‘strung out’ on drugs.
    The former may enjoy the activity and pursue it; but the latter will reshape his life to obtain the drug,’ he said.
    Robert Cloninger, professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis, also rejects the notion that nicotine is addictive. He does not believe it causes loss of control over behaviour or physical dependence”
    But scientists on the winning side of the debate last week claim the critics misunderstand or misrepresent what constitutes an addiction.
    ‘Tobacco representatives seem to focus in on one element of any definition. They say nicotine cannot be addicting because it does not cause intoxication.
    But that’s only one of the things that goes into an overall definition,’ said Richard Hurt, director of the Mayo Nicotine Dependence Center in Rochester, Minnesota.

  24. Anonymous says:

    US ruling turns smokers into junkies – 1994
    “Nicotine is addictive, a panel of experts on drug abuse decided last week. The decision leaves the door open for the US Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco as it does other addictive substances.
    Over the past few months, the FDA’s commissioner, David Kessler, has been campaigning for tobacco to be regulated in the same way as many other drugs.
    To do so legally, he must demonstrate that nicotine is a powerful drug, and that the tobacco companies depend on nicotine’s addict-iveness to keep smokers smoking.
    But the tobacco companies continue to insist that nicotine is not addictive. To settle the issue, Kessler asked the Drug Abuse Advisory Committee to give its expert opinion.
    “The drug abuse panel listened to a whole range of definitions of addiction. But the debate highlighted some important questions. What makes a substance addictive? What is the difference between an addiction and a habit? Has the term ‘addiction’ become meaningless?
    In 1988, the US Surgeon General concluded in a report on tobacco that nicotine is addictive in the fullest sense of the word. It is psychoactive, having a direct effect on the brain; it is reinforcing, meaning that users will keep using the drug; it is used compulsively despite harmful effects. The desire to smoke takes precedence over other important priorities, such as health, and smokers become physically dependent on nicotine.
    Despite this, a handful of scientists – inside and outside the tobacco companies – claim the Surgeon General stretched the traditional meaning of addiction too far. They claim his report adds to the growing abuse of the word as in pop psychology’s ‘food addiction’ and ‘sex addiction’.
    ‘The smoker’s ability to think or reason clearly is not diminished when making the decision to quit or continue smoking. In short, this is clearly not a behaviour that the smoker has lost control over.’
    “He points out that until the 1960s, most definitions of addictive substances included the intoxicating effect.
    He said that this part of the definition should still apply, and as nicotine in normal doses is not intoxicating, it should not be considered addictive.
    Some scientists outside the tobacco companies agree. For instance, Robert Cancro, head of the Department of Psychiatry at the New York University Medical School, claims that ‘addiction’ has become ‘a modern shibboleth’. ‘A person who seeks pleasure from smoking . . . is different from a person ‘strung out’ on drugs.
    The former may enjoy the activity and pursue it; but the latter will reshape his life to obtain the drug,’ he said.
    Robert Cloninger, professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis, also rejects the notion that nicotine is addictive. He does not believe it causes loss of control over behaviour or physical dependence”
    But scientists on the winning side of the debate last week claim the critics misunderstand or misrepresent what constitutes an addiction.
    ‘Tobacco representatives seem to focus in on one element of any definition. They say nicotine cannot be addicting because it does not cause intoxication.
    But that’s only one of the things that goes into an overall definition,’ said Richard Hurt, director of the Mayo Nicotine Dependence Center in Rochester, Minnesota.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Jack Henningfield, chief of the clinical pharmacology branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse Addiction Research Center, points out that in high enough doses nicotine can be intoxicating, while very low doses of drugs such as heroin and cocaine may not be intoxicating.
    Henningfield also rejects most of the other alleged differences between nicotine and other drugs. For instance, the fact that many people can quit nicotine does not prove that it is not addictive, as people do give up other addictive drugs.
    And the fact that smokers do not turn to crime to feed their addiction has more to do with the ready supply of cigarettes than a lack of addictiveness, Henningfield says.
    Comparing smoking to eating chocolate or other compulsive behaviours misses the point says Henningfield. ‘Of course you can see compulsive behaviours for anything.
    Drug addiction requires a certain kind of chemical to act on the brain. The chemical activity in the brain reduces the freedom of choice whether to use that drug or not.’
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319381.300-us-ruling-turns-smokers-into-junkies.html
    Based on a court case? That really annoys me.
    Rose

  26. Anonymous says:

    Jack Henningfield, chief of the clinical pharmacology branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse Addiction Research Center, points out that in high enough doses nicotine can be intoxicating, while very low doses of drugs such as heroin and cocaine may not be intoxicating.
    Henningfield also rejects most of the other alleged differences between nicotine and other drugs. For instance, the fact that many people can quit nicotine does not prove that it is not addictive, as people do give up other addictive drugs.
    And the fact that smokers do not turn to crime to feed their addiction has more to do with the ready supply of cigarettes than a lack of addictiveness, Henningfield says.
    Comparing smoking to eating chocolate or other compulsive behaviours misses the point says Henningfield. ‘Of course you can see compulsive behaviours for anything.
    Drug addiction requires a certain kind of chemical to act on the brain. The chemical activity in the brain reduces the freedom of choice whether to use that drug or not.’
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319381.300-us-ruling-turns-smokers-into-junkies.html
    Based on a court case? That really annoys me.
    Rose

  27. Anonymous says:

    Jack Henningfield, chief of the clinical pharmacology branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse Addiction Research Center, points out that in high enough doses nicotine can be intoxicating, while very low doses of drugs such as heroin and cocaine may not be intoxicating.
    Henningfield also rejects most of the other alleged differences between nicotine and other drugs. For instance, the fact that many people can quit nicotine does not prove that it is not addictive, as people do give up other addictive drugs.
    And the fact that smokers do not turn to crime to feed their addiction has more to do with the ready supply of cigarettes than a lack of addictiveness, Henningfield says.
    Comparing smoking to eating chocolate or other compulsive behaviours misses the point says Henningfield. ‘Of course you can see compulsive behaviours for anything.
    Drug addiction requires a certain kind of chemical to act on the brain. The chemical activity in the brain reduces the freedom of choice whether to use that drug or not.’
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319381.300-us-ruling-turns-smokers-into-junkies.html
    Based on a court case? That really annoys me.
    Rose

  28. Anonymous says:

    Paper presented to the FDA’s Substance Abuse Advisory Committee meeting, 2 August 1994, Silver Springs, MD.
    Is Nicotine Addictive? A Re-evaluation of the Data
    “In this brief statement I will develop the argument that research has failed to substantiate the claim that nicotine is addictive. To the contrary, it is difficult to document even mildly rewarding effects from nicotine.”
    http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ARUreport03.html
    Reevaluating the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis
    “This review indicates that the wide endorsement of the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis is unjustified. Critical research is required to resolve the anomalies within the nicotine addiction theory of smoking.”
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x42g31h613301821
    Nicotine as an Addictive Substance: A Critical Examination of the Basic Concepts and Empirical Evidence.
    “Definitions that include nicotine are so broad and vague that they allow many trivial things, such salt, sugar and watching television, to be considered addictive”

    Click to access atrens.pdf


    Of course, since the mass smoking ban experiment it now appears that NRT has a 98.4 failure rate, so it makes it a lot easier for anyone to judge which side was originally correct.
    Rose

  29. Anonymous says:

    Paper presented to the FDA’s Substance Abuse Advisory Committee meeting, 2 August 1994, Silver Springs, MD.
    Is Nicotine Addictive? A Re-evaluation of the Data
    “In this brief statement I will develop the argument that research has failed to substantiate the claim that nicotine is addictive. To the contrary, it is difficult to document even mildly rewarding effects from nicotine.”
    http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ARUreport03.html
    Reevaluating the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis
    “This review indicates that the wide endorsement of the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis is unjustified. Critical research is required to resolve the anomalies within the nicotine addiction theory of smoking.”
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x42g31h613301821
    Nicotine as an Addictive Substance: A Critical Examination of the Basic Concepts and Empirical Evidence.
    “Definitions that include nicotine are so broad and vague that they allow many trivial things, such salt, sugar and watching television, to be considered addictive”

    Click to access atrens.pdf


    Of course, since the mass smoking ban experiment it now appears that NRT has a 98.4 failure rate, so it makes it a lot easier for anyone to judge which side was originally correct.
    Rose

  30. Anonymous says:

    Paper presented to the FDA’s Substance Abuse Advisory Committee meeting, 2 August 1994, Silver Springs, MD.
    Is Nicotine Addictive? A Re-evaluation of the Data
    “In this brief statement I will develop the argument that research has failed to substantiate the claim that nicotine is addictive. To the contrary, it is difficult to document even mildly rewarding effects from nicotine.”
    http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ARUreport03.html
    Reevaluating the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis
    “This review indicates that the wide endorsement of the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis is unjustified. Critical research is required to resolve the anomalies within the nicotine addiction theory of smoking.”
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x42g31h613301821
    Nicotine as an Addictive Substance: A Critical Examination of the Basic Concepts and Empirical Evidence.
    “Definitions that include nicotine are so broad and vague that they allow many trivial things, such salt, sugar and watching television, to be considered addictive”

    Click to access atrens.pdf


    Of course, since the mass smoking ban experiment it now appears that NRT has a 98.4 failure rate, so it makes it a lot easier for anyone to judge which side was originally correct.
    Rose

  31. Anonymous says:

    And I’m edging ever closer the view that absolutely everything that has been said against tobacco for the past 70 years – whether active smoking or passive smoking or anything else – has all been one long stream of lies. The whole damn lot. Everything
    I arrived there 3 years ago after they banned smoking in tennessee. I have read many studies on the issue but what really strikes out from all the literature is they havent proven anything and it appears tobacco cant be blamed solely as there is always another substance involved……
    Could Lung Cancer in Smokers Vs. ‘Never-Smokers’ Be Different Diseases?
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108190128.htm
    And here is another study reported from September 2009:
    Helland A, Brustugun OT.
    Onkologisk avdeling, Radiumhospitalet, Oslo universitetssykehus, Rikshospitalet, 0310 Oslo, Norway. aslaug.helland@radiumhospitalet.no
    BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer-related cause of death for both sexes. Smoking is the cause of most cases, but estimates show that 15-20 % of cases in the western world are not associated with tobacco. Recent evidence – based on molecular and clinical studies – indicate that
    .
    lung cancer in patients who have never smoked has certain characteristics that are different from those in patients who smoke.
    .
    In this article we describe some of these characteristics.
    .
    MATERIAL AND METHODS: The present paper is based on literature identified through non-systematic searches in PubMed.
    .
    RESULTS: Lung cancer in never-smokers is estimated to be the seventh most frequent cancer type on a global basis. A number of molecular and clinical characteristics differ between lung cancer related to tobacco use and those not related to tobacco use. 62 % of lung cancers among never-smokers are adenocarcinomas and 18 % are squamous cell carcinomas, while corresponding numbers among patients who smoke are 19 % and 53 %. The K-Ras-gene is often mutated in tumours from smokers, but seldom in tumours from non-smokers; whereas the EGFR-gene is mutated in tumours from non-smokers, and not in smokers. Also, age and sex distribution, therapy response and prognosis are shown to differ between the groups.
    .
    INTERPRETATION: Lung cancer in never-smokers should probably be regarded as a different disease-entity than smoking-induced lung cancer. This could impact prognosis as well as treatment.
    .
    PMID: 19844277 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
    Lung cancer in smokers may be different from lung cancer in nonsmokers: Vancouver study
    By PAMELA FAYERMAN, Vancouver Sun November 9, 2010
    Lung cancer in smokers has different genetic mutations and looks like a different disease than lung cancer in non-smokers, a team of B.C. Cancer Agency scientists has discovered
    Tumours of those who had never smoked actually had twice as many genetic abnormalities (DNA mutations) as those who were current or former smokers, according to the research presented Tuesday at a conference in Philadelphia of the American Association of Cancer Research. Using gene analysis technologies, the scientists compared tissue samples among comparison groups: 30 individuals who had never smoked and 53 who were either current smokers or former smokers.
    Although doctors and scientists have suspected for some time that there were different biological mechanisms underlying lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers, the B.C. study is said to be the first to find whole regions of mutations.
    Never-smokers account for up to 15 per cent of lung cancer cases and the research shows that while there were DNA mutations in both never-smokers and smokers, the never smoker tumours had far more alterations. For some unknown reason, never smokers who get lung cancer are more likely to be female.
    Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Lung+cancer+smokers+different+from+lung+cancer+nonsmokers+Vancouver+study/3802627/story.html#comments#ixzz16IXr7cQL

  32. Anonymous says:

    And I’m edging ever closer the view that absolutely everything that has been said against tobacco for the past 70 years – whether active smoking or passive smoking or anything else – has all been one long stream of lies. The whole damn lot. Everything
    I arrived there 3 years ago after they banned smoking in tennessee. I have read many studies on the issue but what really strikes out from all the literature is they havent proven anything and it appears tobacco cant be blamed solely as there is always another substance involved……
    Could Lung Cancer in Smokers Vs. ‘Never-Smokers’ Be Different Diseases?
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108190128.htm
    And here is another study reported from September 2009:
    Helland A, Brustugun OT.
    Onkologisk avdeling, Radiumhospitalet, Oslo universitetssykehus, Rikshospitalet, 0310 Oslo, Norway. aslaug.helland@radiumhospitalet.no
    BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer-related cause of death for both sexes. Smoking is the cause of most cases, but estimates show that 15-20 % of cases in the western world are not associated with tobacco. Recent evidence – based on molecular and clinical studies – indicate that
    .
    lung cancer in patients who have never smoked has certain characteristics that are different from those in patients who smoke.
    .
    In this article we describe some of these characteristics.
    .
    MATERIAL AND METHODS: The present paper is based on literature identified through non-systematic searches in PubMed.
    .
    RESULTS: Lung cancer in never-smokers is estimated to be the seventh most frequent cancer type on a global basis. A number of molecular and clinical characteristics differ between lung cancer related to tobacco use and those not related to tobacco use. 62 % of lung cancers among never-smokers are adenocarcinomas and 18 % are squamous cell carcinomas, while corresponding numbers among patients who smoke are 19 % and 53 %. The K-Ras-gene is often mutated in tumours from smokers, but seldom in tumours from non-smokers; whereas the EGFR-gene is mutated in tumours from non-smokers, and not in smokers. Also, age and sex distribution, therapy response and prognosis are shown to differ between the groups.
    .
    INTERPRETATION: Lung cancer in never-smokers should probably be regarded as a different disease-entity than smoking-induced lung cancer. This could impact prognosis as well as treatment.
    .
    PMID: 19844277 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
    Lung cancer in smokers may be different from lung cancer in nonsmokers: Vancouver study
    By PAMELA FAYERMAN, Vancouver Sun November 9, 2010
    Lung cancer in smokers has different genetic mutations and looks like a different disease than lung cancer in non-smokers, a team of B.C. Cancer Agency scientists has discovered
    Tumours of those who had never smoked actually had twice as many genetic abnormalities (DNA mutations) as those who were current or former smokers, according to the research presented Tuesday at a conference in Philadelphia of the American Association of Cancer Research. Using gene analysis technologies, the scientists compared tissue samples among comparison groups: 30 individuals who had never smoked and 53 who were either current smokers or former smokers.
    Although doctors and scientists have suspected for some time that there were different biological mechanisms underlying lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers, the B.C. study is said to be the first to find whole regions of mutations.
    Never-smokers account for up to 15 per cent of lung cancer cases and the research shows that while there were DNA mutations in both never-smokers and smokers, the never smoker tumours had far more alterations. For some unknown reason, never smokers who get lung cancer are more likely to be female.
    Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Lung+cancer+smokers+different+from+lung+cancer+nonsmokers+Vancouver+study/3802627/story.html#comments#ixzz16IXr7cQL

  33. Anonymous says:

    And I’m edging ever closer the view that absolutely everything that has been said against tobacco for the past 70 years – whether active smoking or passive smoking or anything else – has all been one long stream of lies. The whole damn lot. Everything
    I arrived there 3 years ago after they banned smoking in tennessee. I have read many studies on the issue but what really strikes out from all the literature is they havent proven anything and it appears tobacco cant be blamed solely as there is always another substance involved……
    Could Lung Cancer in Smokers Vs. ‘Never-Smokers’ Be Different Diseases?
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108190128.htm
    And here is another study reported from September 2009:
    Helland A, Brustugun OT.
    Onkologisk avdeling, Radiumhospitalet, Oslo universitetssykehus, Rikshospitalet, 0310 Oslo, Norway. aslaug.helland@radiumhospitalet.no
    BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer-related cause of death for both sexes. Smoking is the cause of most cases, but estimates show that 15-20 % of cases in the western world are not associated with tobacco. Recent evidence – based on molecular and clinical studies – indicate that
    .
    lung cancer in patients who have never smoked has certain characteristics that are different from those in patients who smoke.
    .
    In this article we describe some of these characteristics.
    .
    MATERIAL AND METHODS: The present paper is based on literature identified through non-systematic searches in PubMed.
    .
    RESULTS: Lung cancer in never-smokers is estimated to be the seventh most frequent cancer type on a global basis. A number of molecular and clinical characteristics differ between lung cancer related to tobacco use and those not related to tobacco use. 62 % of lung cancers among never-smokers are adenocarcinomas and 18 % are squamous cell carcinomas, while corresponding numbers among patients who smoke are 19 % and 53 %. The K-Ras-gene is often mutated in tumours from smokers, but seldom in tumours from non-smokers; whereas the EGFR-gene is mutated in tumours from non-smokers, and not in smokers. Also, age and sex distribution, therapy response and prognosis are shown to differ between the groups.
    .
    INTERPRETATION: Lung cancer in never-smokers should probably be regarded as a different disease-entity than smoking-induced lung cancer. This could impact prognosis as well as treatment.
    .
    PMID: 19844277 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
    Lung cancer in smokers may be different from lung cancer in nonsmokers: Vancouver study
    By PAMELA FAYERMAN, Vancouver Sun November 9, 2010
    Lung cancer in smokers has different genetic mutations and looks like a different disease than lung cancer in non-smokers, a team of B.C. Cancer Agency scientists has discovered
    Tumours of those who had never smoked actually had twice as many genetic abnormalities (DNA mutations) as those who were current or former smokers, according to the research presented Tuesday at a conference in Philadelphia of the American Association of Cancer Research. Using gene analysis technologies, the scientists compared tissue samples among comparison groups: 30 individuals who had never smoked and 53 who were either current smokers or former smokers.
    Although doctors and scientists have suspected for some time that there were different biological mechanisms underlying lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers, the B.C. study is said to be the first to find whole regions of mutations.
    Never-smokers account for up to 15 per cent of lung cancer cases and the research shows that while there were DNA mutations in both never-smokers and smokers, the never smoker tumours had far more alterations. For some unknown reason, never smokers who get lung cancer are more likely to be female.
    Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Lung+cancer+smokers+different+from+lung+cancer+nonsmokers+Vancouver+study/3802627/story.html#comments#ixzz16IXr7cQL

  34. Anonymous says:

    JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.
    http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409
    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  35. Anonymous says:

    JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.
    http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409
    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  36. Anonymous says:

    JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.
    http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409
    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  37. Anonymous says:

    And if I’d been there, I’d probably have started shouting at them, swearing at them, and punching them. Because I don’t think there’s any debate going on here. There never has been. It’s just a war now. It’s smokers against antismokers. And if I ever find myself in front of one of these antismoking bastards, I’ll want to kill them then and there.
    Psst, frank blow some smoke at em,they swear it kills in 30 minutes or less……..

  38. Anonymous says:

    And if I’d been there, I’d probably have started shouting at them, swearing at them, and punching them. Because I don’t think there’s any debate going on here. There never has been. It’s just a war now. It’s smokers against antismokers. And if I ever find myself in front of one of these antismoking bastards, I’ll want to kill them then and there.
    Psst, frank blow some smoke at em,they swear it kills in 30 minutes or less……..

  39. Anonymous says:

    And if I’d been there, I’d probably have started shouting at them, swearing at them, and punching them. Because I don’t think there’s any debate going on here. There never has been. It’s just a war now. It’s smokers against antismokers. And if I ever find myself in front of one of these antismoking bastards, I’ll want to kill them then and there.
    Psst, frank blow some smoke at em,they swear it kills in 30 minutes or less……..

  40. Anonymous says:

    Dave Atherton
    On the “75% who want to give up” it is an ASH push poll.
    The question is “Would you like to stop smoking?” = 75%
    “Would you like to stop smoking by next week?” = <5%

  41. Anonymous says:

    Dave Atherton
    On the “75% who want to give up” it is an ASH push poll.
    The question is “Would you like to stop smoking?” = 75%
    “Would you like to stop smoking by next week?” = <5%

  42. Anonymous says:

    Dave Atherton
    On the “75% who want to give up” it is an ASH push poll.
    The question is “Would you like to stop smoking?” = 75%
    “Would you like to stop smoking by next week?” = <5%

  43. Frank Davis says:

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
    I agree. But not many people see it that way. They regard the first hand theory as proven beyond doubt. But it seems to me that if that’s how they feel, then the secondhand theory should seem equally plausible to them – as being simply a smaller dose of the same poison.
    Secondhand is built upon firsthand, and thirdhand is built on secondhand, and so on. The bottom of this wobbly tower needs to be knocked out.
    Frank

  44. Frank Davis says:

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
    I agree. But not many people see it that way. They regard the first hand theory as proven beyond doubt. But it seems to me that if that’s how they feel, then the secondhand theory should seem equally plausible to them – as being simply a smaller dose of the same poison.
    Secondhand is built upon firsthand, and thirdhand is built on secondhand, and so on. The bottom of this wobbly tower needs to be knocked out.
    Frank

  45. Frank Davis says:

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
    I agree. But not many people see it that way. They regard the first hand theory as proven beyond doubt. But it seems to me that if that’s how they feel, then the secondhand theory should seem equally plausible to them – as being simply a smaller dose of the same poison.
    Secondhand is built upon firsthand, and thirdhand is built on secondhand, and so on. The bottom of this wobbly tower needs to be knocked out.
    Frank

  46. Anonymous says:

    “And I’m edging ever closer the view that absolutely everything that has been said against tobacco for the past 70 years – whether active smoking or passive smoking or anything else – has all been one long stream of lies. The whole damn lot. Everything”
    I’m just the same. It wasn’t until just before the ban came in, when I started looking into the “science” behind all smoking research that I realised how little “real” rats-in-labs type science had actually been carried out at all, the lengths which scientists had had to go to “prove” that smoking caused cancer, and how incredibly tenuous and fragile the claims were which emanated from such skewed and tortured studies.
    But I think that more and more people – including many non-smokers, such as you cite re the Moral Maze – are starting to doubt all that they’ve been told about smoking, too, but for different reasons from yours and mine. Isn’t there a theory in the PR/advertising world about this, whereby if you lie about something, and that lie comes to light one way or another – as it has many times during the smoking debate (“Bans are good for business,” “smokers stink,” “smokers die younger,” etc etc) – then public belief in all of your claims, even those which might actually be true, collapses.
    So maybe, to return to the “nudge” topic, maybe all that the anti-smoking zealots have succeeded in doing, by getting too big for their boots and allowing themselves to make increasingly outrageous claims about the dangers of smoking and “passive smoking”, is to “nudge” people into disbelieving everything they’ve ever been told about the whole smoking issue. How delightfully ironic!

  47. Anonymous says:

    “And I’m edging ever closer the view that absolutely everything that has been said against tobacco for the past 70 years – whether active smoking or passive smoking or anything else – has all been one long stream of lies. The whole damn lot. Everything”
    I’m just the same. It wasn’t until just before the ban came in, when I started looking into the “science” behind all smoking research that I realised how little “real” rats-in-labs type science had actually been carried out at all, the lengths which scientists had had to go to “prove” that smoking caused cancer, and how incredibly tenuous and fragile the claims were which emanated from such skewed and tortured studies.
    But I think that more and more people – including many non-smokers, such as you cite re the Moral Maze – are starting to doubt all that they’ve been told about smoking, too, but for different reasons from yours and mine. Isn’t there a theory in the PR/advertising world about this, whereby if you lie about something, and that lie comes to light one way or another – as it has many times during the smoking debate (“Bans are good for business,” “smokers stink,” “smokers die younger,” etc etc) – then public belief in all of your claims, even those which might actually be true, collapses.
    So maybe, to return to the “nudge” topic, maybe all that the anti-smoking zealots have succeeded in doing, by getting too big for their boots and allowing themselves to make increasingly outrageous claims about the dangers of smoking and “passive smoking”, is to “nudge” people into disbelieving everything they’ve ever been told about the whole smoking issue. How delightfully ironic!

  48. Anonymous says:

    “And I’m edging ever closer the view that absolutely everything that has been said against tobacco for the past 70 years – whether active smoking or passive smoking or anything else – has all been one long stream of lies. The whole damn lot. Everything”
    I’m just the same. It wasn’t until just before the ban came in, when I started looking into the “science” behind all smoking research that I realised how little “real” rats-in-labs type science had actually been carried out at all, the lengths which scientists had had to go to “prove” that smoking caused cancer, and how incredibly tenuous and fragile the claims were which emanated from such skewed and tortured studies.
    But I think that more and more people – including many non-smokers, such as you cite re the Moral Maze – are starting to doubt all that they’ve been told about smoking, too, but for different reasons from yours and mine. Isn’t there a theory in the PR/advertising world about this, whereby if you lie about something, and that lie comes to light one way or another – as it has many times during the smoking debate (“Bans are good for business,” “smokers stink,” “smokers die younger,” etc etc) – then public belief in all of your claims, even those which might actually be true, collapses.
    So maybe, to return to the “nudge” topic, maybe all that the anti-smoking zealots have succeeded in doing, by getting too big for their boots and allowing themselves to make increasingly outrageous claims about the dangers of smoking and “passive smoking”, is to “nudge” people into disbelieving everything they’ve ever been told about the whole smoking issue. How delightfully ironic!

  49. richwhite09 says:

    Anon – about disbelieving everything when one is shown to be false. I wrote that very thing in Smoke Screens years ago, saying that if we give the antis enough rope they’ll hang themselves by making claims so outlandish no one can believe them. Like, third hand smoke (everytime i see this mentioned i notice Winickoff’s name, not many people backing it then), fourth hand smoke (now on Siegel’s blog), smoke travelling down phone wires and through bricks (Winickoff again). They’ll destroy themselves sooner or later.
    Frank – a house that’s build on sand will always collapse, no matter how much architectural glamour it boasts. The anti-smoking movement is well and truly built on sand. Any ‘science’ that has categorically failed in animal experiments and repeatedly shown the opposite of what they want, and in human studies the same has been found, and with Doll finding that inhalers suffered less lung cancer than non-inhalers, has failed spectacularly. We can tell it’s all lies from the simple fact that Doll worked around the slight inhalation issue by omitting the question, and indeed his early work is used in some universities as a perfect example of how NOT to conduct an epidemiological study – the same studies, by the way, which CRUK boast of finding out about smoking and cancer. Or the fact that when he did his hospital study, he chose one in London, not a rural area where smoking rates hadn’t changed (i.e. were still high) but lung cancer rates hadn’t changed much at all.
    And in the whole argument about ‘there was a boom in cancer in the 1930s’, no one mentions a) the first cigarette store opened in 1864, and people had been smoking for long before, so smoking was not new by the 1900s, and b) the invention of MMR in the 1930s which made huge advancements in the detection of lung cancer. It wasn’t actually a boom in LC at all, but correct diagnosis. Once that little invention got underway, deaths from tuberculosis and consumption went down steadily as LC grew steadily. Misdiagnosis was the order of the day.

  50. richwhite09 says:

    Anon – about disbelieving everything when one is shown to be false. I wrote that very thing in Smoke Screens years ago, saying that if we give the antis enough rope they’ll hang themselves by making claims so outlandish no one can believe them. Like, third hand smoke (everytime i see this mentioned i notice Winickoff’s name, not many people backing it then), fourth hand smoke (now on Siegel’s blog), smoke travelling down phone wires and through bricks (Winickoff again). They’ll destroy themselves sooner or later.
    Frank – a house that’s build on sand will always collapse, no matter how much architectural glamour it boasts. The anti-smoking movement is well and truly built on sand. Any ‘science’ that has categorically failed in animal experiments and repeatedly shown the opposite of what they want, and in human studies the same has been found, and with Doll finding that inhalers suffered less lung cancer than non-inhalers, has failed spectacularly. We can tell it’s all lies from the simple fact that Doll worked around the slight inhalation issue by omitting the question, and indeed his early work is used in some universities as a perfect example of how NOT to conduct an epidemiological study – the same studies, by the way, which CRUK boast of finding out about smoking and cancer. Or the fact that when he did his hospital study, he chose one in London, not a rural area where smoking rates hadn’t changed (i.e. were still high) but lung cancer rates hadn’t changed much at all.
    And in the whole argument about ‘there was a boom in cancer in the 1930s’, no one mentions a) the first cigarette store opened in 1864, and people had been smoking for long before, so smoking was not new by the 1900s, and b) the invention of MMR in the 1930s which made huge advancements in the detection of lung cancer. It wasn’t actually a boom in LC at all, but correct diagnosis. Once that little invention got underway, deaths from tuberculosis and consumption went down steadily as LC grew steadily. Misdiagnosis was the order of the day.

  51. richwhite09 says:

    Anon – about disbelieving everything when one is shown to be false. I wrote that very thing in Smoke Screens years ago, saying that if we give the antis enough rope they’ll hang themselves by making claims so outlandish no one can believe them. Like, third hand smoke (everytime i see this mentioned i notice Winickoff’s name, not many people backing it then), fourth hand smoke (now on Siegel’s blog), smoke travelling down phone wires and through bricks (Winickoff again). They’ll destroy themselves sooner or later.
    Frank – a house that’s build on sand will always collapse, no matter how much architectural glamour it boasts. The anti-smoking movement is well and truly built on sand. Any ‘science’ that has categorically failed in animal experiments and repeatedly shown the opposite of what they want, and in human studies the same has been found, and with Doll finding that inhalers suffered less lung cancer than non-inhalers, has failed spectacularly. We can tell it’s all lies from the simple fact that Doll worked around the slight inhalation issue by omitting the question, and indeed his early work is used in some universities as a perfect example of how NOT to conduct an epidemiological study – the same studies, by the way, which CRUK boast of finding out about smoking and cancer. Or the fact that when he did his hospital study, he chose one in London, not a rural area where smoking rates hadn’t changed (i.e. were still high) but lung cancer rates hadn’t changed much at all.
    And in the whole argument about ‘there was a boom in cancer in the 1930s’, no one mentions a) the first cigarette store opened in 1864, and people had been smoking for long before, so smoking was not new by the 1900s, and b) the invention of MMR in the 1930s which made huge advancements in the detection of lung cancer. It wasn’t actually a boom in LC at all, but correct diagnosis. Once that little invention got underway, deaths from tuberculosis and consumption went down steadily as LC grew steadily. Misdiagnosis was the order of the day.

  52. Anonymous says:

    I would love to see an intelligent debate on the smoking/lung cancer question. Probably best to keep it to a small number of debaters, one or two on each side, and then allow other people to comment afterwards.
    The only example of anything like this that I have ever seen was the McTear vs ITL court case where the anti-smokers were trounced.
    Tony

  53. Anonymous says:

    I would love to see an intelligent debate on the smoking/lung cancer question. Probably best to keep it to a small number of debaters, one or two on each side, and then allow other people to comment afterwards.
    The only example of anything like this that I have ever seen was the McTear vs ITL court case where the anti-smokers were trounced.
    Tony

  54. Anonymous says:

    I would love to see an intelligent debate on the smoking/lung cancer question. Probably best to keep it to a small number of debaters, one or two on each side, and then allow other people to comment afterwards.
    The only example of anything like this that I have ever seen was the McTear vs ITL court case where the anti-smokers were trounced.
    Tony

  55. Anonymous says:

    ‘70% of smokers want to give up’ is one of the most outrageous lies of the antis. It would be easy to test this, just set up an NHS quit line and wait for around 8 million people to ring and say ‘Thank you, please help me’
    Oh, they’ve already done that haven’t they? And only received a few (hundred?) thousand calls.
    Everyone on the programme seemed very impressed with what they described as the more benign concept of nudging in the professor’s book as opposed to the UK government version. But the supposedly benign example was that of forcing people to make a yes/no decision on organ donation, when applying for a tax disc.
    I think this is appalling. Granted some people would answer without a second thought but for many it is a very serious decision that needs to be discussed at length with their next of kin, who might be a Jehovahs Witness for example. And it is now a difficult call for smokers to make.
    Many would also have a great aversion to their decision being irrevocably recorded in Big Goverment’s database, not to mention having this passed via the DVLC.
    Having said that, Chris did an excellent job.
    Tony

  56. Anonymous says:

    ‘70% of smokers want to give up’ is one of the most outrageous lies of the antis. It would be easy to test this, just set up an NHS quit line and wait for around 8 million people to ring and say ‘Thank you, please help me’
    Oh, they’ve already done that haven’t they? And only received a few (hundred?) thousand calls.
    Everyone on the programme seemed very impressed with what they described as the more benign concept of nudging in the professor’s book as opposed to the UK government version. But the supposedly benign example was that of forcing people to make a yes/no decision on organ donation, when applying for a tax disc.
    I think this is appalling. Granted some people would answer without a second thought but for many it is a very serious decision that needs to be discussed at length with their next of kin, who might be a Jehovahs Witness for example. And it is now a difficult call for smokers to make.
    Many would also have a great aversion to their decision being irrevocably recorded in Big Goverment’s database, not to mention having this passed via the DVLC.
    Having said that, Chris did an excellent job.
    Tony

  57. Anonymous says:

    ‘70% of smokers want to give up’ is one of the most outrageous lies of the antis. It would be easy to test this, just set up an NHS quit line and wait for around 8 million people to ring and say ‘Thank you, please help me’
    Oh, they’ve already done that haven’t they? And only received a few (hundred?) thousand calls.
    Everyone on the programme seemed very impressed with what they described as the more benign concept of nudging in the professor’s book as opposed to the UK government version. But the supposedly benign example was that of forcing people to make a yes/no decision on organ donation, when applying for a tax disc.
    I think this is appalling. Granted some people would answer without a second thought but for many it is a very serious decision that needs to be discussed at length with their next of kin, who might be a Jehovahs Witness for example. And it is now a difficult call for smokers to make.
    Many would also have a great aversion to their decision being irrevocably recorded in Big Goverment’s database, not to mention having this passed via the DVLC.
    Having said that, Chris did an excellent job.
    Tony

  58. Anonymous says:

    It was a lie that made me take up smoking.
    Though it didn’t really appeal to me at first, knowing that the same plant chemicals in tobacco were also in the nightshade vegetables, just in smaller amounts, after they told me that the manufacturers put road tar in cigarettes,it baffled me for years.
    I could seen no advantage to such a practice.
    Having stood next to one too many anti-smoking posters with a phial of dripping tar,I came to the shattering conclusion that it was a lie, and when I was 18 I finally asked a friend for a cigarette to test.
    It was the only way to find out what they were trying to hide.
    Tar (road surface tar)
    http://www.pfizerlife.co.uk/SmokingWhatsInACigarette.aspx
    Or more truthfully, Tobacco smoke condensate.
    Compared to the thick,yellow, choking, chemical industrial smogs that rolled up from the city, I thought a burning leaf rather less likely as a cause of life threatening respiratory illnesses.
    Rose

  59. Anonymous says:

    It was a lie that made me take up smoking.
    Though it didn’t really appeal to me at first, knowing that the same plant chemicals in tobacco were also in the nightshade vegetables, just in smaller amounts, after they told me that the manufacturers put road tar in cigarettes,it baffled me for years.
    I could seen no advantage to such a practice.
    Having stood next to one too many anti-smoking posters with a phial of dripping tar,I came to the shattering conclusion that it was a lie, and when I was 18 I finally asked a friend for a cigarette to test.
    It was the only way to find out what they were trying to hide.
    Tar (road surface tar)
    http://www.pfizerlife.co.uk/SmokingWhatsInACigarette.aspx
    Or more truthfully, Tobacco smoke condensate.
    Compared to the thick,yellow, choking, chemical industrial smogs that rolled up from the city, I thought a burning leaf rather less likely as a cause of life threatening respiratory illnesses.
    Rose

  60. Anonymous says:

    It was a lie that made me take up smoking.
    Though it didn’t really appeal to me at first, knowing that the same plant chemicals in tobacco were also in the nightshade vegetables, just in smaller amounts, after they told me that the manufacturers put road tar in cigarettes,it baffled me for years.
    I could seen no advantage to such a practice.
    Having stood next to one too many anti-smoking posters with a phial of dripping tar,I came to the shattering conclusion that it was a lie, and when I was 18 I finally asked a friend for a cigarette to test.
    It was the only way to find out what they were trying to hide.
    Tar (road surface tar)
    http://www.pfizerlife.co.uk/SmokingWhatsInACigarette.aspx
    Or more truthfully, Tobacco smoke condensate.
    Compared to the thick,yellow, choking, chemical industrial smogs that rolled up from the city, I thought a burning leaf rather less likely as a cause of life threatening respiratory illnesses.
    Rose

  61. Anonymous says:

    Lung Cancer and smoking
    I too think this would make a very interesting debate. The Stats in Canada shows that non and former smokers have the highest lung cancer rates.
    “Smoking causes most lung cancers. However, about half of patients who are diagnosed have never smoked (15%) or are former smokers (35%)”
    http://www.lungcancercanada.ca/Education/Did_you_know.html
    Ann W.

  62. Anonymous says:

    Lung Cancer and smoking
    I too think this would make a very interesting debate. The Stats in Canada shows that non and former smokers have the highest lung cancer rates.
    “Smoking causes most lung cancers. However, about half of patients who are diagnosed have never smoked (15%) or are former smokers (35%)”
    http://www.lungcancercanada.ca/Education/Did_you_know.html
    Ann W.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Lung Cancer and smoking
    I too think this would make a very interesting debate. The Stats in Canada shows that non and former smokers have the highest lung cancer rates.
    “Smoking causes most lung cancers. However, about half of patients who are diagnosed have never smoked (15%) or are former smokers (35%)”
    http://www.lungcancercanada.ca/Education/Did_you_know.html
    Ann W.

  64. Anonymous says:

    TB and LC
    Rich, the problem I have with the theory that TB masked lung cancer is that there was not enough TB to mask all the post war lung cancers even at 1900 levels. I don’t understand
    why more middle aged people were being diagnosed than the very old – why would doctors be less likely to diagnose very old people? TB rates are not that different between the sexes, unlike LC. This all fits reasonably well with the theory that smoking modulates lung cancer risk the wrong way. I think TB could have masked LC but not nearly enough to expain it all.

    Click to access motca-c03.pdf


    Fredrik

  65. Anonymous says:

    TB and LC
    Rich, the problem I have with the theory that TB masked lung cancer is that there was not enough TB to mask all the post war lung cancers even at 1900 levels. I don’t understand
    why more middle aged people were being diagnosed than the very old – why would doctors be less likely to diagnose very old people? TB rates are not that different between the sexes, unlike LC. This all fits reasonably well with the theory that smoking modulates lung cancer risk the wrong way. I think TB could have masked LC but not nearly enough to expain it all.

    Click to access motca-c03.pdf


    Fredrik

  66. Anonymous says:

    TB and LC
    Rich, the problem I have with the theory that TB masked lung cancer is that there was not enough TB to mask all the post war lung cancers even at 1900 levels. I don’t understand
    why more middle aged people were being diagnosed than the very old – why would doctors be less likely to diagnose very old people? TB rates are not that different between the sexes, unlike LC. This all fits reasonably well with the theory that smoking modulates lung cancer risk the wrong way. I think TB could have masked LC but not nearly enough to expain it all.

    Click to access motca-c03.pdf


    Fredrik

  67. richwhite09 says:

    Re: TB and LC
    Fred, it doesn’t need to. Lung cancer is very much its own separate disease, no one has claimed TB makes up every case of it. The point is, and verifiable, that there was a surge in LC in the 1930s and a lot of that was because of a new diagnosis technique. It isn’t theoretical, it’s fact. And it’s backed up by the fact that not only did LC increase rapidly, but TB and consumption decreased rapidly.
    There are of course other causes of LC, but that doesn’t mean it has to be tobacco smoking. Bearing in mind people had been smoking for millennia, and certainly cigarettes for over 70 years. The antis argument hinges on ‘there was a rise in Lc in the 1930s because more people started smoking then’ – it’s fallacious. More people took up smoking in the 1930s, granted, but it wouldn’t give them cancer in the same decade. And prior to the 1930s, well, that ‘surge’ should have happened long, long before if it were smoke induced.

  68. richwhite09 says:

    Re: TB and LC
    Fred, it doesn’t need to. Lung cancer is very much its own separate disease, no one has claimed TB makes up every case of it. The point is, and verifiable, that there was a surge in LC in the 1930s and a lot of that was because of a new diagnosis technique. It isn’t theoretical, it’s fact. And it’s backed up by the fact that not only did LC increase rapidly, but TB and consumption decreased rapidly.
    There are of course other causes of LC, but that doesn’t mean it has to be tobacco smoking. Bearing in mind people had been smoking for millennia, and certainly cigarettes for over 70 years. The antis argument hinges on ‘there was a rise in Lc in the 1930s because more people started smoking then’ – it’s fallacious. More people took up smoking in the 1930s, granted, but it wouldn’t give them cancer in the same decade. And prior to the 1930s, well, that ‘surge’ should have happened long, long before if it were smoke induced.

  69. richwhite09 says:

    Re: TB and LC
    Fred, it doesn’t need to. Lung cancer is very much its own separate disease, no one has claimed TB makes up every case of it. The point is, and verifiable, that there was a surge in LC in the 1930s and a lot of that was because of a new diagnosis technique. It isn’t theoretical, it’s fact. And it’s backed up by the fact that not only did LC increase rapidly, but TB and consumption decreased rapidly.
    There are of course other causes of LC, but that doesn’t mean it has to be tobacco smoking. Bearing in mind people had been smoking for millennia, and certainly cigarettes for over 70 years. The antis argument hinges on ‘there was a rise in Lc in the 1930s because more people started smoking then’ – it’s fallacious. More people took up smoking in the 1930s, granted, but it wouldn’t give them cancer in the same decade. And prior to the 1930s, well, that ‘surge’ should have happened long, long before if it were smoke induced.

  70. Anonymous says:

    You mention “the Roy Castle Foundation (God am I so sick of Roy Castle!)”
    Roy Castle smoked cigars. I can produce witnesses.

  71. Anonymous says:

    You mention “the Roy Castle Foundation (God am I so sick of Roy Castle!)”
    Roy Castle smoked cigars. I can produce witnesses.

  72. Anonymous says:

    You mention “the Roy Castle Foundation (God am I so sick of Roy Castle!)”
    Roy Castle smoked cigars. I can produce witnesses.

  73. junican says:

    Tobacco Addiction
    I have no studies to call upon – merely fifty years of enjoying tobacco.
    I wanted to give up smoking on many occasions. I tried often but found it very difficult. In the first three days or so, a ‘black hole’ opened up – a vague sort of depression. For this reason, I would agree that there is a physiological effect (if that is the right phrase) from nicotine or some other ingredient.
    But one must ask in the first place, why did I want to give up? There is no doubt in my mind that the primary reason was financial – I was a young married man with three children.
    My greatest success was giving up for 12 months, during which period I bought my first car. I then started again (New Years Eve!).
    Now, as regards addiction, after not touching a fag for 12 months,my system must have been clear of chemicals. So why did I start again? But, more importantly, why was I really happy to start again?
    My thinking is that I associated smoking with ‘good times’ and non-smoking with ‘bad times. And what is wrong with that?
    I have no problem with not smoking for several hours when flying. Recently, I attended a Christening and Confirmation Service which was about two hours. I did not feel the need to leave my pew and go out for a fag.
    Yes. There is a minor chemical effect which can last for a few day, but the overwhelming effect is habit and association with ‘good times’.
    I will continue to smoke as long as I wish to. I do not accept that I have ever harmed anyone by doing so.

  74. junican says:

    Tobacco Addiction
    I have no studies to call upon – merely fifty years of enjoying tobacco.
    I wanted to give up smoking on many occasions. I tried often but found it very difficult. In the first three days or so, a ‘black hole’ opened up – a vague sort of depression. For this reason, I would agree that there is a physiological effect (if that is the right phrase) from nicotine or some other ingredient.
    But one must ask in the first place, why did I want to give up? There is no doubt in my mind that the primary reason was financial – I was a young married man with three children.
    My greatest success was giving up for 12 months, during which period I bought my first car. I then started again (New Years Eve!).
    Now, as regards addiction, after not touching a fag for 12 months,my system must have been clear of chemicals. So why did I start again? But, more importantly, why was I really happy to start again?
    My thinking is that I associated smoking with ‘good times’ and non-smoking with ‘bad times. And what is wrong with that?
    I have no problem with not smoking for several hours when flying. Recently, I attended a Christening and Confirmation Service which was about two hours. I did not feel the need to leave my pew and go out for a fag.
    Yes. There is a minor chemical effect which can last for a few day, but the overwhelming effect is habit and association with ‘good times’.
    I will continue to smoke as long as I wish to. I do not accept that I have ever harmed anyone by doing so.

  75. junican says:

    Tobacco Addiction
    I have no studies to call upon – merely fifty years of enjoying tobacco.
    I wanted to give up smoking on many occasions. I tried often but found it very difficult. In the first three days or so, a ‘black hole’ opened up – a vague sort of depression. For this reason, I would agree that there is a physiological effect (if that is the right phrase) from nicotine or some other ingredient.
    But one must ask in the first place, why did I want to give up? There is no doubt in my mind that the primary reason was financial – I was a young married man with three children.
    My greatest success was giving up for 12 months, during which period I bought my first car. I then started again (New Years Eve!).
    Now, as regards addiction, after not touching a fag for 12 months,my system must have been clear of chemicals. So why did I start again? But, more importantly, why was I really happy to start again?
    My thinking is that I associated smoking with ‘good times’ and non-smoking with ‘bad times. And what is wrong with that?
    I have no problem with not smoking for several hours when flying. Recently, I attended a Christening and Confirmation Service which was about two hours. I did not feel the need to leave my pew and go out for a fag.
    Yes. There is a minor chemical effect which can last for a few day, but the overwhelming effect is habit and association with ‘good times’.
    I will continue to smoke as long as I wish to. I do not accept that I have ever harmed anyone by doing so.

  76. Anonymous says:

    Heads up frank if you see this…………….
    ‘No evidence smoking ban has closed pubs’
    By Ewan Turney
    25/11/2010 15:45
    There is little, if any, evidence that the smoking ban had led to pub closures, according to the Government.
    http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/ViewArticle?R=89061&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-general-news+%28General+News+Rss+news+feed+for+Morning+Advertiser%29

  77. Anonymous says:

    Heads up frank if you see this…………….
    ‘No evidence smoking ban has closed pubs’
    By Ewan Turney
    25/11/2010 15:45
    There is little, if any, evidence that the smoking ban had led to pub closures, according to the Government.
    http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/ViewArticle?R=89061&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-general-news+%28General+News+Rss+news+feed+for+Morning+Advertiser%29

  78. Anonymous says:

    Heads up frank if you see this…………….
    ‘No evidence smoking ban has closed pubs’
    By Ewan Turney
    25/11/2010 15:45
    There is little, if any, evidence that the smoking ban had led to pub closures, according to the Government.
    http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/ViewArticle?R=89061&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-general-news+%28General+News+Rss+news+feed+for+Morning+Advertiser%29

  79. Anonymous says:

    TB AND SMOKING
    http://niklowe.blogspot.com/2010/11/things-you-didnt-know-about-smoking_19.html
    “Shocker: ‘Villain’ nicotine slays TB”
    “Nicotine might be a surprising alternative someday for treating stubborn forms of tuberculosis, a University of Central Florida researcher said Monday.
    “The compound stopped the growth of tuberculosis in laboratory tests, even when used in small quantities, said Salen Naser, an associate professor of microbiology and molecular biology at UCF. Naser said nicotine worked better than about 10 other substances also tested …”
    http://niklowe.blogspot.com/2010/11/things-you-didnt-know-about-smoking.html
    “New York (Reuters Health) – A new study adds to the previously reported evidence that cigarette smoking protects against Parkinson’s disease.As reported in the March 6th issue of Neurology, Thacker and colleagues analyzed data, including detailed lifetime smoking histories, from 79,977 women and 63,348 men participating in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. .. Compared to people who had never smoked and were considered to have “normal” Parkinson’s disease risk, former smokers had a 22-percent lower risk of Parkinson’s disease and current smokers had a 73-percent lower risk … ”
    ” … the results were similar to the results of studies by many other researchers looking at the same topic,” Thacker noted.”

  80. Anonymous says:

    TB AND SMOKING
    http://niklowe.blogspot.com/2010/11/things-you-didnt-know-about-smoking_19.html
    “Shocker: ‘Villain’ nicotine slays TB”
    “Nicotine might be a surprising alternative someday for treating stubborn forms of tuberculosis, a University of Central Florida researcher said Monday.
    “The compound stopped the growth of tuberculosis in laboratory tests, even when used in small quantities, said Salen Naser, an associate professor of microbiology and molecular biology at UCF. Naser said nicotine worked better than about 10 other substances also tested …”
    http://niklowe.blogspot.com/2010/11/things-you-didnt-know-about-smoking.html
    “New York (Reuters Health) – A new study adds to the previously reported evidence that cigarette smoking protects against Parkinson’s disease.As reported in the March 6th issue of Neurology, Thacker and colleagues analyzed data, including detailed lifetime smoking histories, from 79,977 women and 63,348 men participating in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. .. Compared to people who had never smoked and were considered to have “normal” Parkinson’s disease risk, former smokers had a 22-percent lower risk of Parkinson’s disease and current smokers had a 73-percent lower risk … ”
    ” … the results were similar to the results of studies by many other researchers looking at the same topic,” Thacker noted.”

  81. Anonymous says:

    TB AND SMOKING
    http://niklowe.blogspot.com/2010/11/things-you-didnt-know-about-smoking_19.html
    “Shocker: ‘Villain’ nicotine slays TB”
    “Nicotine might be a surprising alternative someday for treating stubborn forms of tuberculosis, a University of Central Florida researcher said Monday.
    “The compound stopped the growth of tuberculosis in laboratory tests, even when used in small quantities, said Salen Naser, an associate professor of microbiology and molecular biology at UCF. Naser said nicotine worked better than about 10 other substances also tested …”
    http://niklowe.blogspot.com/2010/11/things-you-didnt-know-about-smoking.html
    “New York (Reuters Health) – A new study adds to the previously reported evidence that cigarette smoking protects against Parkinson’s disease.As reported in the March 6th issue of Neurology, Thacker and colleagues analyzed data, including detailed lifetime smoking histories, from 79,977 women and 63,348 men participating in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. .. Compared to people who had never smoked and were considered to have “normal” Parkinson’s disease risk, former smokers had a 22-percent lower risk of Parkinson’s disease and current smokers had a 73-percent lower risk … ”
    ” … the results were similar to the results of studies by many other researchers looking at the same topic,” Thacker noted.”

  82. Anonymous says:

    Harley
    The fun part is taking the observation then trying to fit the plant chemistry to the observed effect.
    Scientists are trying to do exactly that,through the miasma of anti-tobacco misdirection, to spread the benefits to everyone.
    Here’s my list
    Parkinson’s disease
    http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=3727&sid=d21e1f50221fe82693212c37f2d65f84
    And the only thing I know that is both in coffee and tobacco is niacin.
    A tip,if you read the latest study, hold it up to a mirror and read it backwards, you will very often find one of the original uses of tobacco.
    For example
    “This product may cause gum disease and tooth loss”
    “The doleful effects of nicotine on the teeth were revealed by Rev. George Trask in a mid-nineteenth-century tract.”
    illustration
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0069563-9578.html?zoom=750&images_per_page=1&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=14
    Meanwhile
    In the Southern States
    “The purported health benefit of snuff had been as a dentifrice, imparting to the teeth “that peculiar brilliancy for which the ladies of Southern Europe are so justly celebrated.”
    http://www.uttyler.edu/vbetts/snuff.htm
    Medicinal uses of tobacco in history
    “Tobacco, probably mixed with lime or chalk, appears to have been used in these Native American populations as a toothpaste to whiten the teeth, as observed by Nino and Guerra in 1500 and by Vespucci at about the same time in Venezuela.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079499/
    “Up to 68% of adolescents in India use dental products containing tobacco, despite a law barring manufacturers from using tobacco as an ingredient in any toothpaste or toothpowder, reveals a study in this week’s BMJ.”
    http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/503073/
    Rose

  83. Anonymous says:

    Harley
    The fun part is taking the observation then trying to fit the plant chemistry to the observed effect.
    Scientists are trying to do exactly that,through the miasma of anti-tobacco misdirection, to spread the benefits to everyone.
    Here’s my list
    Parkinson’s disease
    http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=3727&sid=d21e1f50221fe82693212c37f2d65f84
    And the only thing I know that is both in coffee and tobacco is niacin.
    A tip,if you read the latest study, hold it up to a mirror and read it backwards, you will very often find one of the original uses of tobacco.
    For example
    “This product may cause gum disease and tooth loss”
    “The doleful effects of nicotine on the teeth were revealed by Rev. George Trask in a mid-nineteenth-century tract.”
    illustration
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0069563-9578.html?zoom=750&images_per_page=1&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=14
    Meanwhile
    In the Southern States
    “The purported health benefit of snuff had been as a dentifrice, imparting to the teeth “that peculiar brilliancy for which the ladies of Southern Europe are so justly celebrated.”
    http://www.uttyler.edu/vbetts/snuff.htm
    Medicinal uses of tobacco in history
    “Tobacco, probably mixed with lime or chalk, appears to have been used in these Native American populations as a toothpaste to whiten the teeth, as observed by Nino and Guerra in 1500 and by Vespucci at about the same time in Venezuela.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079499/
    “Up to 68% of adolescents in India use dental products containing tobacco, despite a law barring manufacturers from using tobacco as an ingredient in any toothpaste or toothpowder, reveals a study in this week’s BMJ.”
    http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/503073/
    Rose

  84. Anonymous says:

    Harley
    The fun part is taking the observation then trying to fit the plant chemistry to the observed effect.
    Scientists are trying to do exactly that,through the miasma of anti-tobacco misdirection, to spread the benefits to everyone.
    Here’s my list
    Parkinson’s disease
    http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=3727&sid=d21e1f50221fe82693212c37f2d65f84
    And the only thing I know that is both in coffee and tobacco is niacin.
    A tip,if you read the latest study, hold it up to a mirror and read it backwards, you will very often find one of the original uses of tobacco.
    For example
    “This product may cause gum disease and tooth loss”
    “The doleful effects of nicotine on the teeth were revealed by Rev. George Trask in a mid-nineteenth-century tract.”
    illustration
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0069563-9578.html?zoom=750&images_per_page=1&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=14
    Meanwhile
    In the Southern States
    “The purported health benefit of snuff had been as a dentifrice, imparting to the teeth “that peculiar brilliancy for which the ladies of Southern Europe are so justly celebrated.”
    http://www.uttyler.edu/vbetts/snuff.htm
    Medicinal uses of tobacco in history
    “Tobacco, probably mixed with lime or chalk, appears to have been used in these Native American populations as a toothpaste to whiten the teeth, as observed by Nino and Guerra in 1500 and by Vespucci at about the same time in Venezuela.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079499/
    “Up to 68% of adolescents in India use dental products containing tobacco, despite a law barring manufacturers from using tobacco as an ingredient in any toothpaste or toothpowder, reveals a study in this week’s BMJ.”
    http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/503073/
    Rose

  85. Anonymous says:

    thanks rose…….

  86. Anonymous says:

    thanks rose…….

  87. Anonymous says:

    thanks rose…….

  88. Anonymous says:

    Good isn’t it?
    I’d rather take the practical experience of millions of people, who have used it over thousands of years for the purpose, rather than the misdirection of religious prohibitionists following in the footsteps of James 1st, witch hunter and zealot.
    Rose

  89. Anonymous says:

    Good isn’t it?
    I’d rather take the practical experience of millions of people, who have used it over thousands of years for the purpose, rather than the misdirection of religious prohibitionists following in the footsteps of James 1st, witch hunter and zealot.
    Rose

  90. Anonymous says:

    Good isn’t it?
    I’d rather take the practical experience of millions of people, who have used it over thousands of years for the purpose, rather than the misdirection of religious prohibitionists following in the footsteps of James 1st, witch hunter and zealot.
    Rose

  91. Anonymous says:

    I haven’t been in a pub since the ban, but can’t resist looking through the window when passing.
    I am astonished to see people on their own reading a book or a newspaper (or pretending to )
    I never went to a pub where the ‘entertainment’ consisted of sitting alone and reading. How sad !!
    We used to constantly chat to friends and strangers about everyday life (some stupid and some serious conversations) Quite often in the late hours the music would go off and ordinary folk would get up and do a song (some good and some very bad!!)
    We would also have a jig around and make an effort at dancing and everyone would be laughing and joking with the banter that went on all around the pub.
    A good time was had by all.
    They can keep the modern sterile pubs that either resemble creches or public libraries. I will keep my memories.

  92. Anonymous says:

    I haven’t been in a pub since the ban, but can’t resist looking through the window when passing.
    I am astonished to see people on their own reading a book or a newspaper (or pretending to )
    I never went to a pub where the ‘entertainment’ consisted of sitting alone and reading. How sad !!
    We used to constantly chat to friends and strangers about everyday life (some stupid and some serious conversations) Quite often in the late hours the music would go off and ordinary folk would get up and do a song (some good and some very bad!!)
    We would also have a jig around and make an effort at dancing and everyone would be laughing and joking with the banter that went on all around the pub.
    A good time was had by all.
    They can keep the modern sterile pubs that either resemble creches or public libraries. I will keep my memories.

  93. Anonymous says:

    I haven’t been in a pub since the ban, but can’t resist looking through the window when passing.
    I am astonished to see people on their own reading a book or a newspaper (or pretending to )
    I never went to a pub where the ‘entertainment’ consisted of sitting alone and reading. How sad !!
    We used to constantly chat to friends and strangers about everyday life (some stupid and some serious conversations) Quite often in the late hours the music would go off and ordinary folk would get up and do a song (some good and some very bad!!)
    We would also have a jig around and make an effort at dancing and everyone would be laughing and joking with the banter that went on all around the pub.
    A good time was had by all.
    They can keep the modern sterile pubs that either resemble creches or public libraries. I will keep my memories.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.