The Tobacco Control Pandemic

Tobacco Control regards smoking as a disease, and sees the prevalence of smoking as an epidemic that claims millions of lives. In their view, it’s essentially no different from typhoid or dysentery or bubonic plague.

But, in my way of thinking about disease, it’s something that’s accompanied by symptoms of one sort or other – like spots, fever, vomiting, tiredness, etc -. Disease entails dis-ease, lack of ease. You don’t feel good if you’ve got bubonic plague. Not one bit.

And it’s this dis-ease that makes the disease. Because if there are no dis-ease symptoms, there’s no disease.

For example, to the best of my knowledge, my gut is filled with bacteria, and always has been. One could say that I’ve had a bacterial infection for my entire life. If it had a name, it would be something like IBI: Internal Bacterial Infection.

But, even though I have all these bugs inside me, there are no dis-ease symptoms. I don’t feel bad all day everyday. In fact, I feel fine.

So it’s not a disease. Because there’s no accompanying dis-ease.

Maybe from time to time there’s a bit of a peak in my internal E. Coli population, and I get a spot of Dire Rear (that is how you spell it, isn’t it?), but even that isn’t anything that I’d think of as dis-ease.

And, funnily enough, the same goes with this other disease I’m supposed to have: the tobacco smoking disease. Because there are no dis-ease symptoms that accompany it.

Sure, from time to time I maybe smoke too much, and start coughing a bit. But I wouldn’t call that dis-ease either.

So, since there are no dis-ease symptoms, it’s not a disease.

But over the past five years, I have been experiencing considerable dis-ease of a different sort. I’ve not been at all ‘at ease’. And it’s not something that’s been caused by anything I’ve drunk or smoked or eaten. The absence of ease comes from not being able to sit in a pub, and drink a pint of beer, and smoke a cigarette. Because to do that was to be at ease. And I haven’t been ‘at ease’ that way for five years. I haven’t been at all comfortable.

It hasn’t killed me yet, but some days the dis-ease symptoms are overwhelming, and I can’t do anything other than feel enraged all day. Because rage is one of the dis-ease symptoms. My temperature rises, and I think my blood pressure rises too. Some days I worry that I might burst a blood vessel, just like Gian Turci.

And I know what the cause of this disease is. It’s Tobacco Control. And it’s something that seems to have infected pretty well western country over the last 10 or 20 years. It’s a rampaging epidemic disease. Even a pandemic. Tobacco Control is causing the dis-ease, and so Tobacco Control is the disease.

But the Tobacco Control pandemic is an unusual disease, because it’s one that’s been generated by the medical profession. It’s an iatrogenic disease. And it spreads in the upper strata of the medical profession. Senior doctors seem to be its carriers. And it spreads from them into the universities and political classes and the media. In this respect, if human society can be regarded as a human body, the Tobacco Control pandemic is one that afflicts the brain and nervous system. It’s a sort of brain cancer. Or a brain infection. Or a disease of the immune system, if doctors can be regarded as the ‘immune system’ of human society.

And because it’s arisen within the medical profession, doctors are unable to treat it. The physicians can’t cure themselves. And so it’s going to have to be lay people – ordinary men and women – who must take on the role of being doctors, in order to combat this new disease.

Tobacco Control must be eradicated. It must be eradicated just like typhoid or plague.

For the most part, when I think about how to eradicate the disease of Tobacco Control, I think in terms of closing down all its sources of funding, and starving it to death. That would kill off ASH and CRUK pretty quickly. But it wouldn’t flush out the carrier-doctors from the medical profession. To do that would require taking political control of the medical profession, and expelling the carriers. And there seem to be quite a lot of them. But I think this is what will have to be done. They’re going to have to be purged.

But there’s more. If Tobacco Control has been such a successful disease, it’s because it’s advanced by pretending to be the cure for a disease – the disease of tobacco smoking (which isn’t, as noted earlier, a dis-ease at all). Tobacco Control offers a poison that it pretends is a cure (and perhaps even a panacea). And what better way is there for a disease to spread and multiply than if doctors are its principal carriers? They are among the most trusted members of society. Which is why they have so easily infected the political classes and the media and the universities. “Trust us,” they say, and people do trust them. And they keep taking the Tobacco Control ‘medicine’ which causes Tobacco Control dis-ease.

We must ourselves take on the role of doctors. We must reverse the roles, and turn the doctors into the patients. We ourselves must write the prescriptions, and issue the Doctor’s Orders. We must become epidemiologists and oncologists and virologists. And one day, when we can finally issue the doctors a clean bill of health, we can let them be doctors again.

I think that, in time, the dis-ease symptoms of the Tobacco Control pandemic – social disintegration, economic stagnation, etc, etc – will become increasingly evident to more and more people, and they’ll firstly stop taking the Tobacco Control ‘medicine’ that is causing so much dis-ease, and then set out to eradicate Tobacco Control. The human race is not stupid. They eventually identify and defeat their enemies, even if they have initially been completely duped by them.

Anyway, after thinking about all those IBI bugs multiplying in my intestines, I’m feeling a bit queasy. So, purely for medicinal purposes, I’m going to drink some bactericidal whisky, just to keep the inner hordes at bay. And smoke some tobacco too, because smoke is also bactericidal. I don’t think E. Coli will be able to resist the twin assault.

And if they do, I’ll just have to drink and smoke some more.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to The Tobacco Control Pandemic

  1. beobrigitte says:

    Tobacco, indeed, has medicinal uses;

    Mental Illness

    Although people with mental illness are twice as likely to smoke, there may be some benefits to their habit. That being said, the medical profession does see some benefit to mentally ill patients using nicotine.

    According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, those that suffer from mental disorders such as ADHD/ADD, schizophrenia and other disorders may experience positive effects from smoking. Apparently, doses of nicotine have a short term normalization effect on the EEG (electrical activity in the brain).

    Alzheimer and Dementia
    Those that suffer from Alzheimer’s can also benefit from doses of nicotine. According to studies, patients cognitive abilities slightly improved.

    Isn’t the smoking ban in mental hospitals and EMI Rest Homes particularly bad?

    So in older patents over 50, where the long term dangers of tobacco are not likely relevant, smoking is an acceptable risk considering the alternative of losing all mental function and complete disability.

    Read more:

    Tobacco has plenty of applications that are not well known. Tobacco as a natural herb contains useful anticancer compounds called cembranoids. Furthermore, the alkaloids like nicotine may be used medically but they can become carcinogenic when they are fermented by nitrosation which occurs during the curing process of commercial products. Fresh green tobacco should be used instead for herbal extractions.

    Tobacco cembranoids can also help with addiction by functioning as nicotinic antagonists. And also can be useful in protecting against neurodegenerative diseases like alzheimer’s and parkinsons disease. Both the alkaloids and the resin of the tobacco plant can serve very well as drugs and models for synthetic drugs to combat mental illnesses like schizophrenia and depression. However, Smoking is not a good way for mentally ill people to medicate.

    Read more:

    Naturally there have to be “warnings” at the end:
    There are many other wonderful uses of this plant. Please don’t let the the abuse by the industry lower the value of tobacco. It can really be a good thing if used wisely.
    The tobacco Control industry is doing all it can to lower the value of tobacco. Cutting funds (why should they be funded at all?) in order to create and spread this madness of a smoke-free society would most certainly be the first step forward.

  2. Walt says:

    Sorry for dropping an OT (or is it?) so fast but: The punishment for smoking in an Atlanta GA park under its newly passed law is a $1000 fine or six months in jail.

  3. PeterM says:

    In Australia we have seen the genocide perpetrated by the medical “profession” and other imbeciles that advocate this anti-smoking crap.

    About 2007 our wowser PM at the time (the fool Rudd – now deposed) trotted out some retiring professor who claimed 98% of all disease was the result of smoking. Despite 5 years of crippling taxes on cigarettes and record numbers of smokers being forced to give up the cancer rates have been skyrocketing, autoimmune diseases are going through the roof and of course the numbers of Parkinsonian and Alzheimers sufferers are rising fast. Not surprisingly no hospitals have closed, no doctors have been forced into early retirement and business is booming.

    We are in the ludicrous situation where those charged with the responsibility of reducing disease rates and curing them when they gain hold are actually the main drivers of disease in the country. The Type 1 Diabetes numbers are now at 1 million (from a population of around 22 million) as a direct result of this assault on citizens. Research funds have been redirected from real science aimed at eliminating pathogens to fattening the bank accounts of the slimy lying lobbyists that are systematically dismantling any semblance of sanity or what passes for real medicine. These psychotics are a clear and present danger to us all. Doctors have forfeited any right to control access to medicine. They need to have any payments withheld until they actually cure people.

    • Margo says:

      Nail on head. I’m with you all the way.

    • Frank Davis says:

      The Type 1 Diabetes numbers are now at 1 million (from a population of around 22 million) as a direct result of this assault on citizens.

      Type 1? How so?

      • beobrigitte says:

        Type I Diabetes (often called “juvenile” Diabetes) occurs in young age and tends to be mostly the result of an autoimmune reaction; you encounter a virus or bacteria with a pretty similar protein coat of that of the insulin producing cells of the pancreas and the antibody produced as a response to the virus cannot distinguish between both; it destroys both.

        It would be worthwhile studying why smokers are seemingly more resistant to autoimmune diseases.

  4. Rose says:


    “Document disclosures resulting from the Minnesota litigation have had an extraordinary influence on the global regulation of the TTCs under the leadership of the WHO.

    In the late 1990s, former WHO Director General Gro Harlem Brundtland launched a landmark inquiry into the tobacco industry’s efforts to undermine global tobacco control, as evidenced by tobacco documents made public in Minnesota.

    The 2000 WHO expert report concluded:
    At the most fundamental level, this inquiry confirms that tobacco use is unlike other threats to global health. Infectious diseases do not employ multinational public relations firms. There are no front groups to promote the spread of cholera. Mosquitoes have no lobbyists. The evidence presented here suggests that tobacco is a case unto itself, and that reversing its burden on global health will be not only about understanding addiction and curing disease, but, just as importantly, about overcoming a determined and powerful industry.

    The WHO’s regional offices also directed substantial resources into mining the tobacco documents that were made public in Minnesota.

    In direct response to the WHO inquiry, the 54th World Health Assembly (WHA) passed resolution WHA54.18 Transparency in Tobacco Control62 in 2001. This resolution urges WHO member states to monitor and to inform its membership about industry affiliations with its membership, as well as to communicate information about identified efforts of the industry to subvert health policy.62 As stated by the WHO, the documents were instrumental in developing the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC):”


    “The internal documents of the tobacco industry have also been used in parliamentary and legislative hearings. In July 1999, the UK House of Commons Health Select Committee24 reviewed documents made public by the Minnesota settlement, set forth nearly 60 recommendations for reducing the health burden of tobacco use, and urged the government to act on its recommendations”

    But before that report was published in 2000 the WHO had already announced it’s Partnership with the Pharmaceutical Industry to Help Smokers Quit.

    So what were in those documents that led to the organised denormalisation of millions of unsuspecting people across the world?

    I seem to have found one.

    Study reveals tobacco worked with makers of candy cigarettes
    “LONDON —
    “Internal tobacco industry documents recently made public confirm that tobacco companies cooperated with the makers of candy cigarettes in designing snacks that promoted smoking to children, according to new research”.

    “The study of the documents by researchers at the University of Rochester School of Medicine in New York found that some tobacco companies tolerated trademark infringement and granted confectioners permission to sell candy that used cigarette pack designs”

    “Letter from Vice-President of Consolidated Lithographing Corporation to W. R. Hendrichs requesting permission to use Avalon cigarettes’ brand name and label for candy cigarettes. Cites prior permission for use of Wings, Raliegh and Kool brands.
    Includes sample labels and package recommendations.”

    Yes, and?

    “Industry documents made public in 1998 as part of a lawsuit settlement with the state of Minnesota form the basis of three reports published this week in the British Medical Journal
    Experts say the studies confirm common knowledge and long-held suspicions among some organizations working to curtail smoking.

    ”While not earth-shattering to people who have observed the tobacco industry over the years, the fact that these conclusions are based on the industry’s own words makes them compelling to policy-makers, the public and … the courts,” Stanton Glantz, a professor at the Institute of Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a critique of the three studies.”

    “A second study in the journal reported that executives of seven major tobacco companies met in England in 1977 to coordinate a worldwide ”defensive strategy” on smoking issues. They agreed not to acknowledge the dangers of smoking, the study said.”

    I’m not a bit surprised.
    The soda manufacturers, salt companies and brewers are probably doing the same right now, if they have any sense.

    The industry document in question would be nice, if any visiting member of TC would be kind enough to provide it.

    “In 1994, copies of internal documents from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation were leaked and were ultimately published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1995.5 Although these documents were not numerous (4000 pages), they were selected because of their damning content and were sent anonymously to Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, a widely recognized tobacco control researcher.”

    So, a bit like Climategate then.

    • magnetic01 says:

      “The soda manufacturers, salt companies and brewers are probably doing the same right now, if they have any sense.”

      It’s even more striking for the tobacco companies. What has been completely overlooked/ignored is the history of antismoking in the USA pre-WWII. Baseless, inflammatory claims about smoking had been made from the mid-1800s. These baseless claims were peddled by both the Temperance and Eugenics Movements. These claims reached a peak through the first few decades of the early 20th century where smoking bans were instituted in a number of American states with the intent by activists at a national ban on smoking/tobacco. Although baseless, these claims did their dastardly job in the short term. It took a few decades to discount/discredit the bulk of these claims.

      Immediately post-WWII, bosses of tobacco companies would have been familiar with the antismoking insanity of only decades earlier. When the inflammatory, antismoking propaganda started up again in the 1950s, if I was heading a tobacco company, I, too, would have been questioning to the nth degree every claim by antismoking activists, given the damage these fanatics can do.

      For an insight into the depths of antismoking derangement, consider the website of Leroy J. Pletten, a rabid, long-term antismoker and asthmatic. He has numerous, long, long pages of fear and hate-mongering nonsense. There are few statements in all of that verbiage that are accurate. He has cherry-picked references and hearsay that go back over a hundred years, claims that have long been discounted and discredited, presented as if they are currently factual, as if they are long-lost “knowledge” of the “perils” of smoking. He makes numerous slanderous remarks about smokers. It is a “hatred of smokers” site. Amongst other deluded claims, he notes that the medical establishment is a “pure” authority worthy of complete trust in its claims. He writes that those that say that correlation is not causation don’t know what they’re talking about, etc., etc. Sub-amateurish and argumentatively incompetent, he is “dabbling” way over his head, only feeding his considerable, demonstrable derangement. It’s surprising that someone hasn’t sued him over the content on his site for incitement to hatred. The tragedy is that there are other antismoking websites that link to his website as if it contains a wealth of “knowledge”.

      Pletten was the vice-presidential candidate for the Prohibition Party in the 2004 and 2008 US elections.

      Peruse the site, but be advised. This is his introduction to the site:
      This site is sponsored as a public service by
      The Crime Prevention Group.

  5. magnetic01 says:

    “It’s Tobacco Control. And it’s something that seems to have infected pretty well western country over the last 10 or 20 years.”

    The West certainly leads the way. But, given the WHO FCTC and activists, the insanity is spreading globally, e.g., India, Philippines, Middle East. This is the latest from Saudi Arabia:

    Saudi women can divorce smoking husbands, judge says
    Those who knew about the habit prior to finalising
    their marriage contract excluded

    And these [unquestioned] “snippets” from the [agenda-driven] article:

    “How can I convince my husband to quit smoking?”
    asked a Saudi woman.

    “I have a smoking brother and I can’t stand him,” noted
    another man in a sarcastic tone.

    “Thousands of workers die annually as a result of
    inhaling the smoke of fellow smokers during working
    hours. A recent poll, which included smokers and
    non-smokers, revealed that an estimated 98 per cent
    would like smoking ban at their work environments,” a
    press report that was published last year said.

    Don’t you know that smoking is very harmful to
    pregnant women and its baby?” a Saudi woman posted
    online. “My brother-in-law is a smoker and my sister
    gave birth to a deformed baby boy.”

  6. magnetic01 says:

    It seems that bloggers questioning plain packaging are referred to as “affiliates” of the tobacco industry:

    The tobacco industry and its affiliates have stepped up their lobbying in the United Kingdom against proposals to introduce standardised plain packaging on cigarettes and other tobacco products, say health campaigners and industry observers.

    The rise in campaigning against plain packaging since the Department of Health launched its consultation in April has been “massive,” said Andrew Rowell, a research fellow at the University of Bath. He added, “There has been a huge amount of lobbying by industry, both direct and indirect. It is reaching a crescendo to coincide with the end of the consultation.”

  7. jaxthefirst says:

    Absolutely spot-on as usual, Frank. There are so many dimensions to the damage which the anti-smoking movement has done, and some members of the medical profession’s almost orgasmic relish in zealous, finger-wagging hectoring in preference to the hard, grisly, gutty business of healing sick people is just one of them.

    It’s one of the items on my “if I ruled this country” list. To sort out the cash problems in the NHS, I’d simply do away with anything – any service, any staff or any extraneous spending – on anything which wasn’t directly concerned with healing sick people or mending injured ones. I’d explain that preventative medicine is all very well, but it was only ever a luxury within the NHS which we were able to indulge in when the country – and thus the NHS itself – was much better funded. In times of hardship it simply isn’t possible to indulge in those “luxuries for long-term benefit” any more, because short-term needs – like treating people who are already ill – must necessarily take precedence. In the same way as, when one loses one’s job, if one is sensible and realistic, one foregoes one’s holiday in order to ensure that you have enough money to pay the rent.

    So, all the NHS-run family planning clinics and youth sex advisory centres would go, huge swathes of diet-and-exercise projects would be scrapped, large numbers of bean-counters and administrator/managers would be chopped and, of course, all those stop-smoking clinics would have to go, too. This wouldn’t be because they weren’t offering a very valuable service, because some of them are, but it would simply be because they would be luxuries that we just couldn’t afford in the short-term. The bottom line would be that a service would only be regarded as “essential” if any patient would be almost certain to suffer immediate (maybe in the next six months?) health problems – or even death – if the service they needed was withdrawn.

    I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of re-introducing these “luxury add-ons” at a future time of greater prosperity, but I’d make it absolutely clear that the core purpose of the NHS – to treat sick people free of charge at the point of delivery – would at all costs remain the top priority, to be usurped by nothing. And, yes, I’d get rid of any doctors or nurses who tried too hard to argue otherwise (just saying it is a pity would be OK, because in many ways it would be a pity, and I can see that), because if they were genuinely of the opinion that prevention should take priority over cure at such a time of economic restraint, then that attitude in and of itself indicates that, somewhere down the line their own view of their own role had shifted from one of well-meaning healer to condescending preacher – a role which for which there would be no use in the new, “streamlined” medical profession.

    So, not much chance of me being put in charge, then, is there? :)

    • Frank Davis says:

      So, not much chance of me being put in charge, then, is there? :)

      Ha ha!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Frank think about this way,with a thousand hits a day plus if you were on BBC nationally youd be in like Flint! Popularity is what elections are all about and telling the truth can bring great rewards like a concious one can live with…….besides big big donations!

  8. chris says:

    To me, antismoking–and its alarming acceptance–resembles nothing so much as the witch hunts of old: group delusions that turn people against their neighbors for trivial reasons.

  9. magnetic01 says:

    The current antismoking insanity has been medical-establishment produced. In addition to the very considerable medical damage that the medical establishment does, the medical establishment’s attempts at social engineering, e.g., antismoking, and the mental, social, moral, and ideo-political dysfunction they produce are also iatrogenic. The contemporary medical establishment is dangerously out of control.

    Concerning antismoking, this is the sort of inflammatory trash that at least a subgroup of medical practitioners is feeding its patients:
    Findings from a convenience sample of primary care providers who participated in a web-based survey, suggests that many primary care providers are advising parents to protect children from SHS exposure, encouraging patients who smoke to maintain smoke-free homes and cars, and advising smokers on ways to avoid exposing others to SHS. Healthcare providers are encouraged to advise patients to avoid SHS exposure and to refer patients who use tobacco products to cessation services.

    This sickly approach also serves their pharmaceutical masters. There are even doctors telling never-smoker, lung-cancer patients that their LC was “caused” by exposure to ambient tobacco smoke. For example, consider an episode of the nationally-televised “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” (Australia). The host typically asks some background questions before getting to the “money” questions. He asked one contestant about an illness she was recovering from. She indicated that she had lung cancer, had part of a lung removed, and was now better. Then the usual question – “You’re a smoker?” The contestant replies, “No”, she is a never smoker. She continues that her doctor told her that her LC was “caused” by secondhand smoke; the school where she taught allowed smoking in the teachers’ room. The host, fully accepting the claim, asks how she felt about that, to which she replies, “very, very angry”.

    We also know the treatment that questioners of the “official position” will receive, e.g., the recent O’Reilly/BMA incident.

    Consider, too, the work of Little Johnny Winickoff (and his UCSF pals), another antismoking zealot whose research essentially feeds from FAMRI – money extorted from smokers to be used for antismoking purposes. Winickoff is pushing SHS (and almost thirdhand piffle) through the [mis]use of blood tests for cotinine. According to Winickoff and his buddies, children with a measurable level of cotinine in the blood “means” that they have been exposed to tobacco smoke. Winickoff knows that there are other sources of nicotine (i.e., food) that will produce a cotinine level. But he never mentions these sources. Even when parents say that their kids haven’t been exposed to SHS, Winickoff et al. tell them they’re wrong.

    And these buffoons want cotinine testing to be made mandatory:
    Testing for cotinine is currently not readily available to the general public. Benowitz said it is also fairly expensive at about $90 to $100 per test, but that the price might come down as it becomes more widely used.
    Winickoff said the best approach would be to integrate cotinine testing with routine lead testing.

    All of this is subterfuge to get smoking banned in progressively more places, particularly apartment complexes.

    • magnetic01 says:

      This is a post by someone else (possibly Rose) on another blog that sheds more light on the matter:

      Test children for tobacco smoke exposure
      25 March 2011

      “DESPITE the stereotypical image of smokers being irresponsible parents, it turns out that they are more enthusiastic than non-smoking parents about testing their children at age 1 and 2 for exposure to tobacco smoke.”

      Jonathan Winickoff at the Massachusetts General Hospital for Children in Boston, and lead author, is pushing for the US government to adopt the test, which screens blood for a nicotine breakdown product called cotinine.
      He argues that evidence of exposure will strengthen smokers’ resolve to quit. Likewise, a positive test for an infant with non-smoking parents may prompt them to look for the source.”

      But behind the window dressing, this is what they are really after is it? They just need to give themselves permission.

      Acceptability of Testing Children for Tobacco-Smoke Exposure: A National Parent Survey

      Most parents agree: Test children for smoke exposure

      “The majority of parents agree that children should be tested for tobacco smoke exposure during primary care visits, according to a study published online March 21 in Pediatrics.

      The study found that of 477 smoking and nonsmoking parents, 60% say children should be tested for smoke exposure as part of pediatric exams. Among smoking parents, 62% agreed with having children tested. No surveys previously measured parental acceptance of tobacco smoke exposure tests in the context of children’s health care visits, according to the study (

      The findings dispel a misconception that parents who smoke would not want their children tested for tobacco exposure, said study author Jonathan P. Winickoff, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children.

      “One of the barriers to testing kids for tobacco is: ‘Maybe it will alienate parents who smoke,’ ” he said. “I think that’s why the results are so surprising. We found quite the opposite.”

      Parents with lower education, women, nonwhites and people who live in homes where smoking occurs were more likely to want their child tested, the study showed. These attitudes could reflect fear of greater tobacco exposure in their children or curiosity about whether efforts to prevent exposure are working, the study said.

      The results show that tobacco contact weighs heavily on the minds of parents, Dr. Winickoff said, and that tobacco testing is an appropriate responsibility of primary care physicians.”

      “Although tobacco exposure can be tested a variety of ways, including through urine analysis, the survey found that most parents prefer the test as an add-on to a blood test. The finding helps to decide how best to incorporate tobacco tests into regular examinations, the study’s authors said.”

      (cut to the chase)

      “More testing for tobacco in children could have positive impacts, such as the discovery of an unknown smoking source. That could be a previously contaminated house or tobacco seepage into a home by way of multiunit housing. Families living in multiunit housing can be exposed to tobacco from other units because of shared airspace, Dr. Winickoff said.
      Positive tobacco test results in children could prompt more landlords to prevent smoking in their buildings, he added.

      The American Medical Association adopted policy in June 2010 that smoking be prohibited in multiunit housing.”

      Don’t you love being told what “most smokers think” by people being paid handsomely to denormalise them?

      “Hammond et al state that “social denormalisation” strategies seek “to change the broad social norms around using tobacco—to push tobacco use out of the charmed circle of normal, desirable practice to being an abnormal practice”.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Magnetic spot on,I learn more from you about this dispicable ban history than anywhere!

        Keep it up,Im on a feeding frenzy with your stuff.

  10. Forest says:

    There is an open invitation for everyone to turn up for a pro smoking protest march on sunday 29 july, washingborough Road Lincoln, we are hoping for a couple of hundred to turn up with local press and local radio confirmed, drinks and nibbles laid on.

    53.21965,-0.52227 copy and paste those coordinates into google maps

    see you at st swithins at 1pm, for a march down washingborough Road from st swithins to toll bar lodge.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Note the use of junk science in the story.followed by the usual big name players

    Bar owners file for preliminary injunction to stop smoking ban

    While Indianapolis’ smoking ban is being fought over in the courts, several bars are hoping to stop the ban from being enforced.

    Mark Small is the attorney for ten Indianapolis bar owners. He says the bars have filed for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the ban while the case is being litigated in the federal district court in Indianapolis.

    The bar owners say they’ve seen a 60-percent drop in business since the ban went into effect June 1st. They’ve had to lay off staff or cut hours. Small says revenue brought in from pool tables, juke boxes, and dart boards is also down.

    If the preliminary injunction is granted, it would prevent the city from enforcing the ban until the district court can consider the merits of the lawsuit.

    Small says his clients run “small, neighborhood taverns” that they’ve poured their life savings into, and that they’re concerned the smoking ban is putting them out of business.

    The bar owners’ filing also attacks the studies cited by the city to justify the ban. Those studies found that secondhand smoke is dangerous to bar employees. Small calls it “junk science” and criticizes the studies as flawed, although secondhand smoke has been classified as a cancer-causing agent by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.…#.UAp-26Nhl2A

  12. Walt says:

    As a postscript to Magnetico above, this is now official US medical policy:

    As a 2011 panel chair for the Joint Commission on Accreditation for Healthcare Organizations, Michael Fiore co-authored a mandate that all hospitalized smokers not only have to be counseled (aka harangued) but further must be given some form or other of quit-smoking drug. Patients, he opined, may be easily softened up to accept this drugging in order to ease the symptoms of the “forced abstinence” imposed by the hospitals’ bans on smoking. Or in other words, the drugs can be used to solve the problems that the hospitals cause. See

    Fiore is also up to his eyeballs in Big Pharma money. See Seigel blog of Oct 17, 2011 (sorry no link but you can find it in his archives as “Chair of panel setting Joint Commission standards on smoking cessation for hospitals is financially conflicted.”

    • Rose says:

      I wonder how that’s working? Any noticeable rise in death rates?

      Nicotine patches may boost intensive care risk

      “Nicotine given to intensive care patients to ease their withdrawal from cigarettes may put them at a greater risk of death than going “cold turkey”, researchers say.

      “A preliminary study of more than 200 smokers placed in intensive care suggests they are better off simply enduring withdrawal symptoms than receiving nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

      Nicotine replacement therapy has become common in hospitals’ intensive care units (ICUs) in the last five to 10 years. The drug reduces withdrawal symptoms, such as headache and irritability, among smokers in these units, who are too sick to go to an area where they can smoke.

      Bekele Afessa at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota, US, and colleagues expected to find that patients comforted by (NRT) fare better than smokers who do not receive it.

      The team examined the intensive care records of 224 smokers, half of which received NRT, mostly via skin patches.

      Surprisingly, they found that 18 of the patients on NRT died, compared with just three of the smokers that did not receive nicotine. Also, the average duration of an ICU stay for patients given nicotine was 24.4 hours, about 2 hours longer than their cold-turkey counterparts.

      “We have to be aware that we may be doing some harm [by giving patients NRT],” Afessa warns.”

      He notes that many of the patients in the study had been admitted to the ICU because they had gone into sepsis due to an infection. Sepsis can cause the body to release myocardial depressant factor, a molecule that reduces the pumping power of the heart.

      Septic Shock: Nitric Oxide Beneficial After All

      “Scientists at VIB and Ghent University in Flanders, Belgium have found an unexpected ally for the treatment of septic shock, the major cause of death in intensive care units.

      By inducing the release of nitric oxide (NO) gas in mice with septic shock, researchers Anje Cauwels and Peter Brouckaert discovered that the animal’s organs showed much less damage, while their chances of survival increased significantly. That’s contrary to all expectations, since it is generally assumed that nitric oxide is responsible for the potentially lethal drop in blood pressure in septic shock.

      Septic shock, or sepsis, is a medical condition in which acute inflammation, low blood pressure, and blood clotting cause a dangerous decrease in the delivery of blood to the organs.
      Because of the lack of oxygen, the patient’s organs start to fail, one after the other.
      Currently, only supportive treatment is available.”

      So it would seem that by stopping their patients smoking, they are doing exactly the wrong thing and giving raw nicotine makes it even worse.And it doesn’t seem to work anyway.

      Nicotine Substitution Does Not Reduce Intensity of Withdrawal Symptoms in Hospitalised Smokers: Presented at ERS

      “VIENNA, Austria — September 22, 2009 — Offering nicotine substitution to smokers hospitalised for elective surgery does not have a significant effect on reducing cravings or other nicotine withdrawal symptoms, according to a phase 3 study presented here at the 19th Annual Congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS).

      In addition, no further differences were seen in rates of smoking cessation 1 to 6 months following the study.

      “Hospitals have been smoke free by law since 2006 in Belgium, so we saw in-hospital smoking cessation as a teachable moment for patients,” explained Kris Nackaerts, MD, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, on September 16.”

      Teachable moment indeed! Do they really think that we are so completely unaware after having had the availability for nicotine patches rammed down our throats for decades.

  13. Rose says:

    The arrogance of preventive medicine

    “Preventive medicine displays all 3 elements of arrogance. First, it is aggressively assertive, pursuing symptomless individuals and telling them what they must do to remain healthy. Occasionally invoking the force of law (immunizations, seat belts), it prescribes and proscribes for both individual patients and the general citizenry of every age and stage. Second, preventive medicine is presumptuous, confident that the interventions it espouses will, on average, do more good than harm to those who accept and adhere to them. Finally, preventive medicine is overbearing, attacking those who question the value of its recommendations.”

    “But surely the fundamental promise we make when we actively solicit individuals and exhort them to accept preventive interventions must be that, on average, they will be the better for it. Accordingly, the presumption that justifies the aggressive assertiveness with which we go after the unsuspecting healthy must be based on the highest level of randomized evidence that our preventive manoeuvre will, in fact, do more good than harm. Without evidence from positive randomized trials (and, better still, systematic reviews of randomized trials) we cannot justify soliciting the well to accept any personal health intervention. There are simply too many examples of the disastrous inadequacy of lesser evidence as a basis for individual interventions among the well:”

    “Experts refuse to learn from history until they make it themselves, and the price for their arrogance is paid by the innocent. Preventive medicine is too important to be led by them.”

  14. Rose says:

    I do wonder how much further they intend to take this.

    Lodi News-Sentinel
    September 3rd 1993

    Nicotine in vegetables?

    Dr Dean Edell can be heard on KJAX, KFBK and so forth. He is supposedly a medical authority with input from network research staff, AMA and several prestigious medical journals.

    His broadcast Sunday described nicotine content of vegetables such as potato,tomato, cauliflower and eggplant. The eggplant has the highest content of nicotine which is 110 nanograms. To quote Dr. Edell, this is the amount of nicotine which can be absorbed from a smoker seated next to you over a period of continous smoking for three hours.

    Therefore, we should take precautions against these vegetables.
    Possibly an ordinance or legislation should be passed requiring outdoor preparation of these vegetables.
    Further, possibly they should be consumed outdoors.

    The human respiration continues while eating and their breath contains carbon dioxide and nicotine vapors.

    Consider writing to your local council member and/or legislators to protect us from the night shade family of vegetables.”,270747

    • churchmouse says:

      That’s a great link, Rose.

      I’ve read that news story about the nicotine content before in the Evening Standard (around 10 or 12 years ago). It was worded rather weirdly; for half the story as a ‘normal’ thing and the other half as ‘dangerous’. Quotes aren’t direct, just to give the gist of the tone of the article.

      Funny, I’ve read one of Edell’s books. Yes, as one would expect from a contemporary American physician, he’s not a fan of tobacco, but I don’t recall that he mentioned to beware of foods with nicotine content in the book. If he had, I’m pretty certain I would have remembered.

      The book was mostly about recapturing an authentic diet. From that point on, in our house we’ve adopted the rule, ‘If your grandparents didn’t eat it, why should you?’ Hence, most of what we eat is homemade and fresh from the shops. Very few ready-prepared things — crab pate being the only thing which comes to mind.

    • Rose says:

      I’m sure Dr Edell didn’t say it, but if people are led to believe that nicotine is a deadly, addictive drug rather than a common plant chemical that most people eat every day, some people will indeed panic.

      82% think nicotine causes cancer – Getting the facts right about NRT
      14 June 2005
      “A recent survey has revealed the worrying lack of knowledge about nicotine and smoking. 82% of people think nicotine causes cancer1A and a third believe NRT is unsafe because it contains nicotine.1B Even the professionals seem unclear as (45%) of GPs questioned believe that nicotine causes cancer.”

      Or that letter could of course be being sarcastic, but as we seen,these days preposterous ideas have a nasty way of turning into laws a few years later.

  15. garyk30 says:

    If smoking is a ‘disease’; then, a personality disorder like ‘pathological narcissism’ is also.

    Most of the people in Tobacco Control suffer from(wallow in) ‘pathological narcissism’ . This does explain why they act the way that they do.

    The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders describes narcissism as a personality disorder that “revolves around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement.”

    The problem is that it is often difficult to spot narcissism when it becomes a pathological disorder.

    In the case of the cult that Jim Jones fostered, it ended with the suicide of some nine hundred of his followers who gave a poisoned drink to their children and then took it themselves.

    History is filled with examples of men whose disorder led to the deaths of countless people to satisfy their delusions about themselves.

    Some of the criteria of a narcissistic personality include:

    1. Feels grandiose and self-important; exaggerates their achievements.

    2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequaled brilliance, etc.

    3. Is firmly convinced he or she is unique and can only be understood by other high-status people.

    4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation.

    5. Feels entitled and demands automatic and full compliance with their expectations.

    6. Uses others to achieve his or her own ends.

    7. Is devoid of empathy and is unable to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others.

    8. Is constantly envious of others; believes they feel that way about him.

    9. Is arrogant, has haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted.

    This description is taken from the American Psychiatric Association (1994) manual cited above. It is based as well on the writings of Dr, Sam Vaknin, an authority on narcissism and author of “Malignant Self-Love.”

    A key point Dr. Vaknin makes is that the narcissist is NOT self-aware; he lies to others and to himself, and he is “master of disguise.”

    • Frank Davis says:

      So, when are they all going to drink the kool-aid?

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Feels grandiose and self-important; exaggerates their achievements

        Sorta like this:

        WHO anti-smoking award for China

        The World Health Organisation (WHO) is giving China’s health minister an award for tackling smoking.

        Why did he get the award quite simply:

        WHO suggests China smoking tax
        Submitted by alex.folkenflik on 19 July 2012 – 6:31pm
        WHO Director-General Margaret Chan called for more taxes on Wednesday after awarding Health Minister Chen Zhu a certificate in recognition of his efforts to combat smoking, China Daily reported.

      • churchmouse says:

        Well, Jim Jones was a Communist and, before the Guyana incident, made a name for himself in San Francisco. Plus, he used Flavor Aid instead of Kool-Aid. (Hmm — Flavor Aid. Same principle, though.) Emphases mine below.

        ‘In 1951, Jones became a member of the Communist Party USA, and began attending meetings and rallies in Indianapolis …

        ‘On his way to Brazil, Jones made his first trip into Guyana.[29] After arriving in Belo Horizonte, the Joneses rented a modest three bedroom home.[30] Jones studied the local economy and receptiveness of racial minorities to his message, though language remained a barrier.[31] Jones was careful not to portray himself as a communist in a foreign territory, and spoke of an apostolic communal lifestyle rather than of Castro or Marx .[32] …

        ‘After Jones’ return to Indiana from Brazil, in 1965, Jones claimed that the world would be engulfed in a nuclear war on July 15, 1967, that would then create a new socialist Eden on earth, and that the Temple must move to Northern California for safety.[13][36] Accordingly, the Temple began moving to Redwood Valley, California, near Ukiah.[13]

        ‘While Jones always spoke of the social gospel’s virtues, before the late 1960s Jones chose to conceal that his gospel was actually communism.[13] By the late 1960s, Jones began at least partially openly revealing in Temple sermons his “Apostolic Socialism” concept.[13] Specifically, “those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment — socialism.”[37] Jones often mixed those concepts, such as preaching that “If you’re born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you’re born in sin. But if you’re born in socialism, you’re not born in sin.”[38] …

        The move of Peoples Temple headquarters to San Francisco in 1975 invigorated Jones’ political career. After the Temple served an important role in the mayoral election victory of George Moscone in 1975, Moscone appointed Jones as the Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission.[41]

        ‘Unlike most other figures deemed as cult leaders, Jones was able to gain public support and contact with prominent local and national United States politicians. For example, Jones and Moscone met privately with vice presidential candidate Walter Mondale on his campaign plane days before the 1976 election and Mondale publicly praised the Temple.[42][43] First Lady Rosalynn Carter also personally met with Jones on multiple occasions, corresponded with him about Cuba, and spoke with him at the grand opening of the San Francisco Democratic Party Headquarters where Jones garnered louder applause than Mrs. Carter.[42][44][45] …’

        There must be something in the water there …

  16. Lars Folmann says:

    When patients show irrationel fear for something beninge, medical science use to call it a psycosis. Since there is no scientific evidence for the danger of SHS, it must be a psycosis by definition. A tobacco psycosis.

  17. Forest- Lincon smokers march update says:

    We are hoping the president of the Lawn Tennis Association and also lord and lady Trethgaron and several other v.i.p’s will be arriving at the canwick park golf club opposite st swithins shortly after the march for a (special invites only)lunch to hear a speech about the benefits of joining the British airways executive club.

    Unfortunatley i may miss the actual march but i will be available for a short chat after the lunch in the golf club car park- weather permitiing.

  18. Mark Small says:

    I have found the information on this website helpful. I also have found helpful information I have received from a couple of persons in the mail. On your side of the pond I believe one would say “in the post.” We have fully engaged the City of Indianapolis on its ban. There are several matters at issue. First, at issue are the personal liberties of the owners of the bars and the patrons—all over 21 years of age, by Indiana law—who voluntarily choose to operate and frequent, respectively, bars that allow smoking. Second, at issue is the truth: the basis for the ordinance is the alleged harm from SHS. Since there has been no such harm demonstrated, only falsehood can perpetuate this ordinance. Besides, the only persons in the establishments who arguably are not there voluntarily as adults are employees of the places. Most of the employees smoke. Besides, under Indiana law, employees have been deemed—in the context of urine screens to determine if they are on drugs—to have no proprietary interest in their jobs. Those are a couple of thought I have as I sit here in my office on a holiday (U.S.: Labor Day) at work on the case. Thanks to all who have expressed support for our cause.–Mark Small, Attorney-at-Law, Indianapolis, Indiana.

  19. Hi there! I realize this is somewhat off-topic but I
    had to ask. Does managing a well-established website such as
    yours require a large amount of work? I am completely new to blogging but I do write in my diary every day.
    I’d like to start a blog so I can share my own experience and thoughts online. Please let me know if you have any kind of recommendations or tips for brand new aspiring bloggers. Thankyou!

No need to log in

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

You are commenting using your 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.