Darkness Is Coming

When I’d set up last night’s poll, and remarked that I would click on nearly every single item on it, I didn’t really expect more or less everyone else to do the same. But that’s more or less what they did.

At the time of writing, with about 100 people having filled in the poll, 90% of them reported that they went to pubs less, and about 75% visited cafes and restaurants less, 65% avoided doctors, 60% went to clubs less and stayed in hotels less, and over 50% travelled less, visited cinemas and art galleries and museums less, and generally bought less (75% went home as soon as they’d finished shopping). On the social side, about 33% had fallen out with friends or relatives, and the same number had become recluses, and 60% had a narrower circle of friends.

Of these, I expect that the vast majority of people who voted were smokers. Why else does anyone visit my blog? The question that I found myself asking was: how representative are they of smokers in general? Perhaps they all belong (like me) to a lunatic fringe? Or perhaps they don’t? Perhaps my readers are all just perfectly ordinary people? Perhaps I am too? How can one tell?

And if they’re just smokers no different from any other smokers, then it’s a very dark picture that emerges from this poll. For it means that in the UK (and elsewhere where similar smoking bans have been enacted), smokers representing 25% of the population have deserted the pubs en masse (which we already knew), but are also spending less on more or less everything else as well.

It really does make it look much more likely than I had hitherto thought: that smoking bans have brought about an economic recession everywhere, as smokers have stopped spending on more or less everything. And in the very first comment under the poll, Wobbler2012 immediately wrote:

I do find myself with a lot of surplus cash

And James Burkes promptly also wrote:

I now have £50,000 just sat in various ISAs and bank accounts.

All of which contradicts the airy assertions of the likes of Deborah Arnott and Amanda Sandford that the money that isn’t being spent in one sector of the economy is simply spent elsewhere.

For clearly it isn’t being. Nor is there any particular logical reason why it should be. In my own case, spending less in pubs hasn’t been accompanied by spending more on something else. Although I spend much of my time at home, I don’t drink more or smoke more or eat more than I did before, and I don’t spend more on books or computers or entertainment. I got rid of my TV a few years ago, so I don’t watch that (saving myself the licence fee in the process). And although I’ve been plugging Lana Del Rey, I haven’t actually bought her album.

In fact, in an odd sort of sense, I’ve personally imposed something like extreme austerity on myself, because as a smoker I now regard myself as being unemployable, and therefore must make the few pennies that I have last as long as possible (i.e. for the rest of my life). Because if I’m not broke now, I very likely will be some day soon. One result of which is that I frequent the Special Offers counters in local supermarkets far more than I ever used to. So actually I’m spending even less than I might otherwise.

But on the social side of the poll, the picture was just as alarming. It’s extremely alarming that 33% of the smokers who responded have fallen out with friends and relatives, and that 60% report a narrower circle of friends, and that 33% count themselves as recluses. That signifies a very large scale disintegration of social ties (and bear in mind that when a friendship dies, there are two losers, not one).

But the highest percentages – over 95% – were reported for loss of trust in the media, and in ‘experts’ in general. One might also infer that the numbers avoiding doctors signals a profound loss of trust in the medical profession. And although the question wasn’t asked, we may safely guess that if respondents had been asked their opinion of the political class, similar levels of disillusionment would have been reported. There’s a complete loss of faith.

People are staying home, shunning friends, and stopping spending – all at the same time.

It’s not a scientific poll by any means, but it makes it all the more important that we get our Social Impact Survey under way, and see if we can talk to a great many more smokers all over the world.

But why can’t governments see what’s happening? The answer, most probably, is that they’ve been taught brainwashed by Tobacco Control to disregard the opinions of smokers (just like everybody else), because they are simply diseased drug addicts with no minds or opinions of their own. Smokers are non-persons. They don’t count. And as soon as they are mentioned to any politician, they are immediately dismissed, frequently with a snort of derision, as being unworthy of any consideration at all.

It’s a bit like governments are airline pilots  sitting in front of a large bank of instruments, with dials and pointers and numbers and lights. And you notice that one of the dials, which has “Pressure” or “Temperature” written under it, has its needle rammed right up on full scale deflection, and has steam coming out of it. But when you point to it, the captain laughs and says: “Oh that! Don’t worry about that! It doesn’t work. Hasn’t worked for ages. Pay no attention to it. Anyway, I’m trying to restart port engines number 1 and 2 right now.”

Darkness is coming.

  

Related: The Unhappy Shopper. the Non-spenders.

About Frank Davis

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

46 Responses to Darkness Is Coming

  1. michaeljmcfadden says:

    “Darkness is coming.”

    Sadly, yes. That was how I ended Brains actually: with a quote and then a few sentences:

    ====
    As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seem-ingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.

    – Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

    Remember: they are not just after smokers. Giving up our freedoms to those who would control us in exchange for a little extra comfort or security is the single most dangerous legacy any of us can leave to our children.
    ====

    100 survey responses that quickly is amazing Frank! You must have a large and dedicated readership!! I’m guessing it’s unlikely we’re representative of the average smoker unfortunately: too many of them have gotten almost as brainwashed as so many of the nonsmokers. It’s very hard to psychologically resist the absolutely constant bombardment of antismoking messages in every medium available every day of the week and every week of the year.

    The “unbrainwashing” can happen quickly though: we just need to catch a few good breaks!

    :)
    MJM

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’m guessing it’s unlikely we’re representative of the average smoker unfortunately: too many of them have gotten almost as brainwashed as so many of the nonsmokers.

      Brainwashed or not, those smokers are just as likely to not enjoy pubs as much as they used to, and go to them less. And spend less all round. And become just as socially isolated. It’s just that they’re probably telling themselves that it’s all their own fault.

      • Mr A says:

        “View from Cullingworth” yesterday reported a Mintel poll on pubs that found that 30% of their survey found pubs to be more pleasant places to visit now.

        Or as he said, more tellingly, looked at another way (and why they didn’t choose this stat to report, I don’t know), 70% of the population found pubs to be LESS pleasant places to visit after the smoking ban.

  2. fredrikeich says:

    Frank,
    I have given up my (very secure) job as a senior developer and completed my three months notice two weeks ago. There are many reasons why I decided to do it but among them are:-
    1. Prior to the smoking ban I went to pubs ~300 days a year now I go ~20, this has saved me a ton of money, hence less reason to have a job.
    2. Working is bearable if you can look forward to going to the pub afterwards, pubs are now restaurants, so whats the point.
    3. I can spend a little more time being a small thorn in the side of the tobacco control industry.
    4. I will now pay considerably less tax to a country that is so spiteful that it would rather let pubs close than let pubs put ash trays on tables.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I hope you become a big thorn, Fredrik.

      But it goes to show the unfolding economic logic, doesn’t it? Now that there’s nothing to spend your money on, you don’t need a job to earn any.

      There’s a different economic logic at work in my case, I’ve realised today. Since I’m a filthy, disgusting smoker, and nobody would possibly want to employ me, I must husband my scarce resources, and spend even less than I already do as a pariah that has been expelled from society.

      • fredrikeich says:

        “Now that there’s nothing to spend your money on, you don’t need a job to earn any.”
        Yup. I survived three rounds of redundacies in 2008 & 2009, I am the first senior developer to leave my job at my place of work for ~15 years. Everyone was shocked! We had 31 days paid holiday, BUPA, pension etc,etc. There is no doubt in my mind
        that had it not been for the smoking ban I would never have jacked in my job because I would see working as paying for somthing I valued – pubs and all the fun that comes with them. Now, I don’t see the point. Now I just want to write the software that I want to write and if I can chip away at the heartless and disgusting tobacco control industry as well, then that’s a bonus.

  3. Frank Davis says:

    Is that all?

    Three in ten people think it has been much more pleasant going to pubs since the smoking ban

    • junican says:

      I notice that on the telegraph article, there is no comments section.

      Is it me, or does it seem that more and mornewspapersrs are not allowing comments on smoking related articles? Whatever………..

      I feel that there is a curious denial of the facts by many smokers which is incomprehensible. I was standing on the doorstep of the pub, a few nights ago, having a fag. A young (33ish) guy that I know, named Neil, was standing adjacent to me also having a fag – but he was standing right outside. Another person came out of the pub who was going elsewhere. He remarked that the pub was boring because there were hardly anyone in. I said that it was because of the ban. Neil said that it wasn’t because of the ban. But there he was, on a very cold night, standing outside wearing just a thin T-shirt and shivering and hunching up his shoulders against the cold. I said nothing in reply.

      What is there to say? It seems not to impinge upon his mind that there are not a lot of people who are prepared to stand outside in flimsy clothing shivering (I refer to young ladies in pretty dresses and, perhaps, young gents in smart shirts). But I suspect that there is a ‘mental block’ of same kind in operation. Certainly, in other conversations certain smokers have said that the do not mind the ban. A common response has been (paraphrased): “I do not smoke as much; I talk to more different people outside than I would inside”

      Why do I not despair and give up the struggle? I think that it is because those in denial (like Neil) are trying to cope with contradictory thoughts. On the one hand, they accept the current wisdom that ‘smoking kills’. They also accept that they are addicted. They also know that smoking is (artificially) very expensive. On the other hand, they know, in their hearts, that the ban is wrong. But which argument is most important to them? It must be that they really ought to give up smoking for the sake of their health and their wallets. For that reason, they rationalise that the ban is a ‘good thing’ for them – except that they are still smoking!

      What spurs me on is the knowledge that, eventually, all the smokers in denial will learn that, despite the ‘studies’, lung cancer is a very rare affliction, other than in the very old (along with most other cancers); that, despite the apparent ‘denial’, resentment is gradually building up unseen; that the trigger for the release of the resentment has yet to occur, and may not have anything at all to do with smoking bans.

      I think that we ought to continue to dispute the statement that smoking causes lung cancer. Concentrate on lung cancer since that was the subject of the Doll Hospital Study and the Doll Doctors Study. Essentially, the denial has FORCE in that there have been billions of smokers over the last 100 years but only millions of lung cancer deaths. (To understand, one needs to comprehend the differebillionsen billlions and millions – Tobacco Control emphasise ‘the millions’ – they ignore ‘the billions’). The ‘billions’ minus ‘the millions’ leaves ‘billions’ of non-lung cancers among smokers.

      I think that we must continue to work like beavers to undermine the the sand foundations of the Magnificent Edifice of Tobacco Control.

      • junican says:

        Frank, can you please correct the imperfections? Having ‘spell-checked’, I sometimes just click ‘publish’ – I sometimes forget to check the other cock-ups!

      • Frank Davis says:

        the Magnificent Edifice of Tobacco Control.

        I really like that name for their little sandcastle!

        Why do I not despair and give up the struggle? I think that it is because those in denial (like Neil) are trying to cope with contradictory thoughts. On the one hand, they accept the current wisdom that ‘smoking kills’. They also accept that they are addicted. They also know that smoking is (artificially) very expensive. On the other hand, they know, in their hearts, that the ban is wrong. But which argument is most important to them?

        I think you’re exactly right that they’re struggling with contradictory thoughts. On the one hand, they believe everything they’re told. And on the other, they can’t stand the dismal consequences.

        It’s just like believing, because you’ve been told a thousand times, that you really ought to slit your own wrists, but then not actually enjoying the consequences of doing that too much.

        It’s a huge-scale Reverend Jim Jones experience they’re trying to impose on us, to get as many of us to kill ourselves (perhaps using Chantix) as they possibly can. But suicide isn’t really very much fun.

        They have set out to destroy us, but we will destroy them.

        I think that we ought to continue to dispute the statement that smoking causes lung cancer.

        I entirely agree.

        And I’ve noticed , but have not commented upon, your review of the London Hospital study (because I’ve been too busy). In the UK at least, this is the fons et origo of all the tobacco studies. And it’s a piece of Nazi science which I’m surprised that nobody has called out as Nazi science.

        I’ll try to get round, if I can, to read what you’ve written about it.

        • junican says:

          Take your time, Frank. I intend to transfer the stuff to a new sidebar page. I am thinking of examining the Doctors Study in the same way.
          For the information of people who might know nothing about the Doll Hospital study, he claimed (in substance) that lung cancer patients were 99.7% smokers; which, surely, proves that smoking causes lung cancer, right? QED, right?

          Erm…..But 96.7% of non-cancer patients were also smokers!

          If you remove all the smokers from the two groups of 709 patients, you finish up comparing the fortunes (as regards cancer) of 2 non-smokers (out of 709 LC sufferers) with 27 non-smokers (out of 709 non-LC sufferers). Such small variations are meaningless! The reason is that the life-histories of the individuals have been completely ignored! What were the occupations of the patients? Were they soldiers possibly subjected to mustard gas in WW1? Lots of other variables apply, but the importance of the variables comes into play precisely because of the MINUTE difference between LC patients and non-LC patients as regards whether they were smokers or not.

          I have to finalise the summary and analysis in order to retain the record. I shall put it in the sidebar along with the McTear Case.

    • Mr A says:

      D’oh! I see you’ve seen the Mintel survey. Sorry!

  4. forcesnl says:

    “Darkness is coming.”
    Duh, darkness is here. But there is light at the end of the tunnel.
    Don’t indulge because that’s the way to hide yourself in your safe fortress.
    Please fight back….

    • Frank Davis says:

      But, y’know, I think I do fight back, Wiel, in my own small, minimal way.

      • forcesnl says:

        You do, Frank. Your blog is an asset for many.
        Now get that train moving to the end of the tunnel….

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Frank I would say your an ammunition factory in this war!

        turning out SPITFIRES daily even during a blitz attack you keep on building and hitting the enemy where it hurts……..you exist and draw a large crowd ,they hate that!

        Keep it up,you know your hurting them……………..and they know it too!

  5. waltc says:

    Random buckshot:

    In NYC most outdoor cafes (on traffic-clogged streets) also ban smoking and I know of no bar with an outdoor garden. That given, yesterday on a necessary shopping trip, I stopped to have a smoke on the sidewalk bench in front of an Irish bar where 2 guys in their 30s were standing at the doorway just finishing a smoke. With your poll in mind, I asked them if they enjoyed drinking w/o a cigarette and they answered loudly in unison, “No!”… and then went back in.

    From yesterday’s thread. On smokers meeting new people outside. In the mid-90s, still doing journalism, I wrote an article about the CIA mole, Aldrich Ames, who got hold of top secrets he wouldn’t ordinarily have had access to and blew countless operations by selling them to the enemy. How’d he get the goods? The CIA HQ is a no-smoking building. Ames, a smoker, met all sorts of other high-ranking smokers and chatted them up outside during months of smoke breaks. I titled the article, “The Spy Who Went Out In The Cold.”

    Also yesterday, someone (Mr A?) talked about the defining characteristics of an actually human human being. Just now, thinking of spies (and Le Carre) i was reminded of how he describes the badguy (Nazi turned Stalinist) Mundt as having a face “barren of humor and fantasy.” I’ve always thought humor and fantasy are the stuff that’s uniquely human and definably humanizing. Traits that seem notably missing in The Aunts.

    Darkness is coming reminds me of the lines from Yeats’s Second Coming, the dark time when “the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

  6. Sandra Jean says:

    QUOTE: “The question that I found myself asking was: how representative are they of smokers in general”?

    I think it might be extremely representative where older smokers (like myself) are concerned. We’re not as easily brainwashed as the younger generation, We’ve lived through a time where smoking was acceptable almost everywhere & we KNOW that being within forty paces of a smoker does NOT kill. The effects of brainwashing stares at you from the face of the young. I know this is a bit off subject but bear with me. So many ‘young mums’ are obsessed with ensuring their kids are brought up in a totally sterile environment at the cost of said kids having a weaker immune system & being wide open to all sorts of illnesses. They’ve been taught/brainwashed into thinking that everything around them & their baby has to be pure – a prelude to ‘sorting out’ more smokers/would be smokers to the extent that these mums get paranoid if someone is smoking near ‘the baybeee’ but don’t give a second thought that pushchairs are at car exhaust level – why? – because they’ve been brainwashed regarding smoking & SHS but have not had one lesson on the effects the crap coming out of an exhaust can have. I believe young, would be, mums were ‘targeted’ as opposed to young, would be, dads because a) more girls were taking up smoking than boys – according to reports – and b) as soon as the girls get pregnant they’ll hopefully sort out the boys. The ‘five a day’ crap is proof how easy it is to brainwash the younger generation.

    The anti smoking control freaks thought the time was right to purify and rid the planet of smokers & with the assistance of the likes of ASH (who have such a strong voice now that seemed to appear overnight) they are doing a pretty good job. The brainwashing of the young helped as the brainwashing created apathy and it’s for that reason I believe the poll was more representative of the older generation.

    On a different note: Adverts & posters are, on a gigantic scale, warning of the ‘dangers’ of smoking (and drinking) but I don’t see many these days regarding the dangers of drugs which, as far as I have seen, are far greater. Perhaps the control freaks have realised, like the drug addicts, that drugs are stronger than them and they don’t quite know yet how to wage war on them. Just a thought!

    • Frank Davis says:

      We’re not as easily brainwashed as the younger generation

      Are they easily brainwashed? Might it not be said that it is our older generation which has been the most thoroughly brainwashed (I’m think of 60+ years of antismoking propaganda, which has been swallowed whole by almost everybody, myself included).

      I don’t have much to do with young people, but two or three years ago, when I was staying with a friend, I was gratified to be asked by a young lad of 16 for some tobacco. It was something I would not have dared to do when I was his age. I concluded that the kids, by and large, were all right.

  7. Rose says:

    “I’ve personally imposed something like extreme austerity on myself,”

    So have I,but I think it’s a perfectly natural reaction to being under siege by a hostile enemy.

  8. nisakiman says:

    “But why can’t governments see what’s happening? The answer, most probably, is that they’ve been taught brainwashed by Tobacco Control to disregard the opinions of smokers …”

    I’m wondering, Frank, if we’ve perhaps got this the wrong way round, and that Tobacco Control are merely the Useful Idiots being used by the government for their own ends.

    There was an interesting article in today’s Telegraph by Christopher Booker:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9261122/Keeping-the-country-short-of-water-is-now-government-and-EU-policy.html

    in which he points out that one the one hand the people of the UK are going to suffer droughts; there will be water restrictions; fines for transgressors, and the inevitable rise in the cost of water. He then goes on to say:

    “…only a few years back, the last government was gung-ho about the companies’ plans to build five major new reservoirs in the south of England alone, where the shortage is most acute, and to extend three others. So what happened to all those plans? One after another they have all been shelved or turned down altogether by the Government, as when last year our Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, vetoed Thames Water’s plan for a huge £1 billion new reservoir near Abingdon, saying that there was “no immediate need” for new reservoir building. This was only months after she had sent back to the drawing board another well-advanced scheme near Portsmouth. “

    All this behind-the-scenes manipulation seems to be to justify the ongoing claims of “catastrophic climate change”, which as we know is not happening as they would like.

    As you’ve pointed out before, Frank, there are many parallels between the AGW scam and the anti-smoking purge, and it seems to me that governments have a vested interest in both, that vested interest being greater control. The government has no interest in the health aspects of smoking. However, I can’t imagine that they didn’t know what the impact of the smoking ban would be. There are too many clever and devious people in the corridors of Westminster. And just as “multiculturalism” and rampant immigration were specifically designed to fragment British society (to ease UK’s entry to the EU), so the smoking bans were designed to do the same thing.

    Divide and rule. Divide and rule.

    I really am starting to think that government have seen the likes of ASH as a useful tool in their armoury in the drive to overcome resistance to the EU, which in itself is just a stepping stone to the New World Order.

    Am I starting to sound like I should invest in a tinfoil hat?

    • Frank Davis says:

      I am myself in two minds (and perhaps even three or four minds) about the matter. I don’t know what is driving what.

      But on the face of it, it would appear that organisations like ASH are very broadly affiliated with the WHO’s Tobacco Control, and via the WHO they are outgrowths of the UN. And via the UN they are linked with the EU which is also a nation-uniting political programme. Their implicit but largely unstated goal is one of a single world government, and if not that, a single European government. There is a growing population of these international/supranational bodies – ASH, WHO, UN, etc -, none of which appear to be democratically accountable. (Has anyone ever heard of UN representatives, or UN elections? The Secretary-Generals of the UN seem to emerge from nowhere, a bit like Popes in the Vatican.. And while there don’t seem to have been very many of them, one of them was called Kurt Waldheim.)

      Somehow or other, this vast consortium of supranational bodies appears to have acquired considerable political clout (much in the way that the Vatican historically exercised considerable political clout, and could legitimize and de-legitimize kings), and seems to have been able to take control of the political agenda of nation states. I am puzzled that the UN/WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is a treaty. I had thought that it was only nation states which made treaties with each other. The fact that the UK (and about 150+) other nations have signed up to this strange treaty seems to suggest that the UN/WHO now has the characteristics of a nation state.

      Meanwhile, our UK political class seems to have more or less completely signed up to the internationalisation/unification process, and now takes its instructions from the UN/EU/WHO rather than from its electorate.

      And that, very broadly, is how it appears to me. It’s not that the UK government has set out to ‘divide and rule’, because no national government ever does this. Such governments always seek unity. The problem is that the UK political class has broadly signed up to the EU/UN political programme, and are now subservient to its goals, and therefore not to the interests of its own people, which it is supposed to represent.

      And I’m not talking conspiracy theory here. I’m talking about things that are happening in plain sight, and have been happening in plain sight for a great many years, but which remain largely arcane.

      • I think you’re right there. I always thought conspiracy theories were a bit of a joke – the Illuminati, Devil worship, lizards from the 4th dimension, world domination and all that! But the ‘world domination’ part is not so far-fetched after all. The UK government, and governments of other European countries are more and more, answering to the UN/WHO/EU instead of the electorate. So it seems, really that the government has very little power. I used to be all for the EU – freedom of movement, being able to work in other EU countries if you wish, and all those sorts of things. I’ve been in two minds about it for a long time and now find I’m actually against it. It’s becoming a superstate.

        • michaeljmcfadden says:

          Conspiracy theories? What Conspiracy theories?? It’s all REAL I tell you!!! Just listen to what THIS woman has to say:

          Skip to the 2:20 mark in the video, then lean back and be ENLIGHTENED!!!

          – MJM

  9. smokingscot says:

    When compared to surveys of “Telegraph readers” or “Vogue readers” it’s a perfectly legitimate readership survey and, as such, is probably the most comprehensive survey I’ve seen on the subject of smokers attitudes.

    Within the context of “anti-ban” it carries some weight because yours is one of the top six blogs of this type in the UK.

    Some might “nudge” you to put it them in a side bar so they run for another week as not every reader pops in every day, especially and weekends.

    There may be some confusion between regular commentators and readers. Yes older people and those with their own web space are far more likely to sit down and comment. Yet you had around 100 people fill in the survey and no one has the slightest clue as to their age.

    When the survey results confirm what’s happening on the ground, that simply confirms what we’ve known individually and suspected as a group. You could ask DP and LI and CS to repeat the survey on their blogs, however my suspicion is they’d show pretty much the same results.

    The question is this Frank. What will you do with the final results (especially if you run these polls for a few more days)? Neat sidebar jpg and perhaps a “press release” to similar media outlets?

    • Frank Davis says:

      What will you do with the final results (especially if you run these polls for a few more days)?

      Both polls will run for a week. That was the period that I requested when I set them up.

      But you must bear in mind that, in the background, I’m trying to organise an international survey of smokers which will be rather larger than the two that I’ve run on my own blog. And it’s because I’ve been thinking about what sort of questions to ask that I’ve tried using my own blog (which is currently getting 700-900 hits a day) to try out some of the ideas that I’ve been toying with, or which have been suggested to me. So the two polls that I’ve run on my blog over the past few days have had the nature of trial runs.

      That said, I was shocked at the results that emerged yesterday from the second poll. And I think I expressed something of that shock in the piece above.

      So I’ll think carefully about your suggestion.

  10. magnetic01 says:

    Junican: What spurs me on is the knowledge that, eventually, all the smokers in denial will learn that, despite the ‘studies’, lung cancer is a very rare affliction, other than in the very old….

    Junican, this is the latest ad in the current Victorian government (Australia) antismoking “campaign”.
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/8465346/new-anti-smoking-ad-targets-young-parents

    It depicts a young smoker (around 30 years of age) waiting in a doctor’s surgery, fearing possible lung cancer. The ad concludes with “don’t wait until it’s too late”. Bear in mind that the smoking causes lung cancer “argument” has been predicated on the 30-40 year “incubation” period.

    The suggestion that lung cancer is a typical affliction of 30-year-old smokers is despicable: It is highly inflammatory propaganda. LC in 30 year-old smokers is an incredible rarity, let alone attributable to smoking. Yet the advert takes the highly atypical and makes it appear typical – a much-used theme in antismoking propaganda. Indeed it might terrorize some smokers into quitting. But the major damage is done with nonsmokers and children. Nonsmokers, believing that young smokers are routinely being afflicted with fatal “smoking-related” disease, become even more supportive of all attempts to eradicate the “evil” tobacco industry and restrict smokers “for their own good”. It also promotes the dysfunctional idea in children – already “educated” in antismoking propaganda from an early age – that their [young] smoking parents are likely to drop dead at any moment and leave them orphaned.

    And it’s not the first time that this sort of obscene propaganda – implying that young smokers die with considerable frequency (“killed” by their smoking) – has been foisted onto the populace as “education”. The current crop of “society/world-fixer” fanatics/zealots is exactly like its predecessor in America and Germany early last century. Erroneously convinced that they are either doing the “work of God” (Temperance) or that they are god (Eugenics), they embark on terrorizing and terrifying the populace into conformity with their deranged edicts, typically through inflammatory propaganda, i.e., pathological lying. These folks are seriously disturbed minds. Where these buffoons are set loose on society as “educators” and with complete government support, they will promote [at least] the same dysfunction in the population at large.

    • michaeljmcfadden says:

      Mag, thanks for sharing the news on this video. Your analysis, as usual, is right on target.

      – MJM

  11. magnetic01 says:

    Junican: I think that we ought to continue to dispute the statement that smoking causes lung cancer. Concentrate on lung cancer since that was the subject of the Doll Hospital Study and the Doll Doctors Study.

    Junican, as background, I would urge you, strongly, to read Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger, p.31-69. It is available for download at
    http://www.rampant-antismoking.com

  12. magnetic01 says:

    Nisakiman: Am I starting to sound like I should invest in a tinfoil hat?

    Not at all. To focus solely on groups such as ASH is to seriously misunderstand the current antismoking crusade or the obsession with population control (i.e., statism in a variety of forms) that’s occurring around the world. The “healthist” (neo-eugenics) problem is rooted in the global medical establishment, headquartered in the World Health Organization (an agency of the UN). The problem is in government health bureaucracies that have become infected with physicalism and the medical model, and that have hog-tied their nations to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. They are ideologically and financially (e.g., pharmaceutical cartel) compromised/corrupted. Politicians of any persuasion simply toe the bureaucratic line. Groups such as ASH have been legitimized/funded by medically-dominated officialdom.

    The model which was “perfected” in America of Medical Association, Cancer Society, Heart Foundation, Lung Association, Action on Smoking & Health has been replicated around the world. These are simply the front groups for a more entrenched medicalized infrastructure that give the impression of “independent support” for the medical domination of public policy.

  13. mummybest says:

    I am wondering if YouGov (Peter Kellner – Director ASH)) had done a survey of 100 smokers what the results would have been. I will bet that the YouGov poll would claim that 73% of smokers are delighted with the ban.
    As to the ages of the smokers that hate the pub bans, we must remember that anybody under the age of 23-24 have never been allowed to smoke in a pub. So they would consider this ‘normal’. I can remember that every hospital bed had an ashtray next to the bed (even maternity wards) and yet even I now do not think it is ‘normal’ to be in a hospital bed smoking. That is the power of brainwashing people.
    That is the plan of ‘denormalisation’ that we hear so much about.

  14. magnetic01 says:

    I’ve just watched a story on the local 60 Minutes. It was considering the decline of the tourism industry in Australia over the last number of years. One entrepreneur was suggesting building a new casino to attract the Chinese middle class.

    Nowhere in this story, or other stories concerning the tourism industry, was the smoking ban and antismoking fervor in Australia ever mentioned. One center of antismoking fanaticism is in what was once the tourist capital of Australia – Queensland. In that state there are indoor smoking bans. There are al fresco smoking bans. There are other outdoor bans. There are smoking bans on patrolled beaches. There are smoking bans in motel rooms. There are smoking bans for entire resorts. It was the leader in all of these bans. Tourist businesses were most probably fed the typical tripe that smoking bans will attract business.

    It becomes apparent very quickly that the smoking habit is seriously frowned upon in Queensland. Multi-hour tours do not cater for smokers whatsoever. It’s as if those who smoke are some distant alien group whose habit will certainly not be accommodated. Why would those who smoke go and place themselves in this situation, and for a holiday no less? If they are trying to attract the Chinese, they haven’t figured out that smoking is highly prevalent amongst adult Chinese males. Why would they want to come to Australia to be made to feel like a second-class citizenry?

    I think it took those who smoke from a variety of countries a few years to figure out just how antismoking Australia is. Once the insight came and word spread, why would smokers want to put themselves in such a situation, and pay for the privilege?

    Tourism operators seeing their businesses fail indicated that they would do anything to get the tourists back. Yet the smoking ban didn’t get a mention – nil, zip. Only more disturbing is that New South Wales has recently capitulated to outdoor bans, to be introduced from 2015. And Victoria is being severely pushed in the same direction.

  15. irocyr says:

    Let’s put it this way Frank. I own a company and can draw as much money from it as I need to live decently. Ever since the smoking ban I have needed to draw only half of what I used to pre-ban to cover my expenses. This is very revealing of how much less people who smoke are putting into the economy. I am lousy at maths and you can do your own figuring but even if only half or even a quarter of the 25 – 30% smoking population is spending only 20% less than what they used to, that’s an awful lot of money that is not being injected back into the economy. The upside of it all? I spend more money travelling to smoker friendlier countries.

    We have state operated smoke-free casinos in Quebec, one right in Montreal. They reported substantial losses when the smoking ban hit Quebec in 2006. Since then they have designed on-line gambling but that’s besides the point. I am no gambler, but I used to enjoy going to the Montreal casino maybe once or twice a year. I haven’t set foot in it since the ban, both because I can’t enjoy smoking when I’m there and because I refuse to give my government any money when I can help it. What do I do now when I want a good time out? We drive about an hour and a half from Montreal to a native casino in New York state. Natives are not under Canadian smoke-free laws as they are considered independent nations. Any time I went there (and I now go about once every two months), without a word of exaggeration there are at least 40% of people there who are from Quebec and it’s always packed. I know because I hear them speak in French and that’s not counting how many English speaking Quebecers and Ontarians (right across the bridge) go there. This is at least 40% (and perhaps as much as 80%) of Quebecers and Ontarians who are not spending their money locally! As a side-note, gas being cheaper in New York, we also fill up the car while we’re there and that’s probably what everyone does so our local economy is not getting a penny in custom out of these outings.

    In conclusion, indeed many people who smoke might not be fighting back or complaining about the legislation, but consciously or unconsciously they’re not accepting it and are either not spending or spending their money where they feel welcomed and comfortable (when they can find such places).

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ex-con gets 148 years in smoking confrontation

    .

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/11/state/n052303D13.DTL#ixzz1ukiGHj95

    (05-11) 05:23 PDT Bakersfield, Calif. (AP) —

    An elderly California ex-con has been sentenced to 148 years to life in prison for pulling a knife on a security guard who asked him to put out his cigarette.

    The Bakersfield Californian ( http://bit.ly/J3zoTb) says 80-year-old Billy Wayne Shrader also threatened to kill the police officers who arrested him and later threatened the life of the judge presiding over his trial.

    He was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced Thursday by a Kern County judge.

    Prosecutors say Shrader was smoking in a no-smoking area of a bus terminal last September when the security guard asked him to put out the cigarette.

    Shrader then tried to stab the security guard.

    Shrader has been in and out of jails and prisons for more than 30 years.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/11/state/n052303D13.DTL#ixzz1uki1dJjB

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ex-con gets 148 years in smoking confrontation

    .

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/11/state/n052303D13.DTL#ixzz1ukiGHj95

    (05-11) 05:23 PDT Bakersfield, Calif. (AP) –

    An elderly California ex-con has been sentenced to 148 years to life in prison for pulling a knife on a security guard who asked him to put out his cigarette.

    The Bakersfield Californian ( http://bit.ly/J3zoTb) says 80-year-old Billy Wayne Shrader also threatened to kill the police officers who arrested him and later threatened the life of the judge presiding over his trial.

    He was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced Thursday by a Kern County judge.

    Prosecutors say Shrader was smoking in a no-smoking area of a bus terminal last September when the security guard asked him to put out the cigarette.

    Shrader then tried to stab the security guard.

    Shrader has been in and out of jails and prisons for more than 30 years.

  18. Steve Kelly says:

    I’d as soon visit Hell as Australia for a holiday. Then again, where I live in the US, it’s just about as bad. You try to find work you can do in your own home or car if you want to avoid the constant monitoring. I also avoid the “public places” (90% of the Earth) where I’m constantly monitored; I don’t mind that so much, though, because it means I’m avoiding socializing with Nazis and their appeasers.

    Let them have their Hell. I stay out of it. I’d like to reclaim some, and then all of it, as a decent place to live though. The hold of the Healthist Hellians (or the Eugenics Inquisition?) on the world is very strong today. It can be loosened over time though. We can evade, and defy, and fight, and in time we can win.

    The 1950 Doll & Hill “Hospital Study” mentioned here does have a very low never-smoker count amongst both lung cancer cases and non-cancer controls. The authors evidently used a very strict definition of “never smoker”.

    If you look at all lung cancer and active smoking studies over the years they suggest that substantial smoking over decades promotes the possibility of lung cancer, typically in one’s retirement years (and next to never for 30-year-olds regardless of smoking history), and also that smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient in itself to produce lung cancer.

    On a purely logical basis smoking certainly isn’t properly considered “the cause or “a cause” of lung cancer. On the same logical basis, while colds and flu, for a number of reasons, spread more during certain times of the year than in others, it’s plain wrong to say that the weather, or cold weather, “causes” colds and flu.

    The “cause” of cancer is faulty cell reproduction, or in essence, the cause of cancer is cancer; if ever there’s to be a “cure” it will stem from understanding this.

    Eradicating smoking, hypothetically, would reduce lung cancer incidence, although not nearly so much as the modern eugenicists think it would. Eradicating smoking, literally, requires a Taliban-like society. That’s what the Healthists are working toward.

    I don’t doubt that considerable lifetime smoking (particularly of cigarettes) is a health factor. I don’t doubt either that cigarette smoking risks, for lung cancer and health generally, could have been drastically reduced (to the point of virtual eradication except for the heaviest smokers and very much less even for them) by the introduction of redesigned and market-acceptable low-risk cigarettes.

    This could have happened decades ago — the know-how was there before 1980 — and if it had happened the benefit would have been dramatically evident by this time. The Eugenicists From Hell stomped on the idea of safer cigarettes a long time ago and they’ve kept stomping on the idea every time it’s been raised since then.

    There is no doubt whatsoever that “secondhand smoke” is harmless. The alarms about it are without any basis whatsoever. One could as reasonably fear cooking fumes, or owning a pet bird, as some of the “lifestyle epidemiology” (or eugenics drivel) has tried to suggest.

    The Healthists are crazy. They are the new Nazis. They belong in Hell. They demand we live in Hell with them. Never. We can “de-normalize” and destroy them. In the end we will.

  19. tomsmith says:

    Good article but money invested in an ISA is money spent. How else do you get a return on it?

    • junican says:

      Hi Tom.

      I’d say that it is more about what the money is being spent on. Return on investments comes from income generated by the investment, which is normally via lending that money to people who use it to start or develop businesses. The catch 22 is that recession comes from such businesses not having customers and therefore not developing and therefore not needing to borrow. Big general terms, I know, but reasonably accurate.

  20. anonymous says:

    Anonymous test

    • michaeljmcfadden says:

      Sorry. Didn’t work. We know who you are and we know what you’re doing … and we are coming for you!

      Be Afraid.

      Be Very Afraid.

      Signed,

      The Evil Smokers.

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.