The New Dispossessed

Right wing US talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has been dismissing the danger of passive smoking. And pinning the blame for all the lies about it firmly on the political left:

Again, the lesson here is that you were lied to by a bunch of leftist busybodies. You were lied to in order to be forced to live your life the way they wanted you to.  You were being denied freedom.  You were being lied to and manipulated into believing something that wasn’t true so as to impact the way you and everybody else lives, and you were converted into a member of the army of the anti-smoking who would go out and harass anybody else who smoked.  You were lied to, to further the lies of a bunch of zealots.

That’s the important point here, and who are these people?  They’re leftists.

This set me wondering a bit. There certainly seems to be a lot of truth in what he’s saying, because if anyone supports smokers at all, they mostly seem to come from the political right. In Britain it was Tony Blair’s Labour party which brought in the 2007 smoking ban, with most Conservative MPs voting against it. And in the USA, the one person who personifies antismoking (for me at least) is Hillary Clinton (and maybe Michelle Obama).

But I’m puzzled.

Marx and most of the leftists of the 20th century were nearly all smokers.

The 1945 British Labour government was led by an avid pipe smoker called Clement Attlee. And there were lots of smokers in the Labour party, including people like Tony Benn. So exactly when did the British Labour party become an antismoking party? The old Labour party was the party of the working class, and therefore almost by definition the party of beer and cigarettes.

Equally, I don’t remember John F Kennedy or his brother Robert, or Lyndon Johnson, or any other US Democrat politician of that era being antismoking. So when did the Democrats become antismoking? The old Democrat party, as I remember it, was the party of minorities, of the Civil Rights Movement, that reached out to help the downtrodden. The new Democrat party, as evidenced by NY City Council’s decision last week to ban e-cigs, is more than happy to trample people underfoot, and to create new despised minorities.

I’ve said before that I used to vote Liberal-Democrat in UK elections as regular as clockwork. They were classical liberals and democrats after all: that’s what it said on the tin. I only realised that they weren’t when more or less every single Lib-Dem MP voted enthusiastically for the illiberal and undemocratic UK smoking ban. I’ll never vote for them again in my life.

And outgoing NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg was a Republican, although my US friends immediately point out that he’s a RINO: a Republican In Name Only. Does that mean that NY City Council’s Christine Quinn and James Gennaro are DINOs: Democrats In Name Only?

Maybe the answer is that all these political parties have become empty vessels, and in the process been populated by RINOs and DINOs, in a process more akin to metastasizing cancer than healthy self-renewal. As the old party stalwarts died away, they were replaced by people who could mouth the old rallying cries but who actually had very different priorities than their forerunners.

It may be that political parties have a natural lifetime which is about equal to a human lifetime. At the outset, there are a core of true believers in The Cause (whatever it is), and in time they get elected (by fellow believers in the electorate), and they do whatever they set out to do, and then they die off one by one. And The Cause more or less dies with them, because the The Cause is no longer shared by the next generation of voters and politicians.

And so in the UK, the Labour and Conservative and Liberal-Democrat parties are actually dead parties whose current members are trying (largely unsuccessfully) to bring them back to life. And the same is true of Republicans and Democrats in the USA. And maybe everywhere in Europe too. But the voters in all these countries will carry on voting for them like they always did (and like I did) until they suddenly realise that the parties they’re voting for no longer stand for what they thought they did (like I realised). And then their share of the vote collapses. And then nobody knows who to vote for, and all politicians become suspect.

We are at a point of dissolution and reformation. And it’s at this point of time that new Causes appear, with a new set of true believers. And in the UK one of these parties – UKIP – with its anti-European platform may well be one of the parties of the future. And its leader, Nigel Farage, is a man of conviction, like all true believers.

But what of the future? Almost all of today’s politicians have no interest in the smoking bans they have so casually introduced. The result is that there are now millions and millions of excluded and demonised and vilified smokers in more or less every country in the world. They are the new dispossessed. And they have appeared simultaneously everywhere, sharing exactly the same grievances. And it’s only going to be a matter of time before some new Gandhi or Mandela or Martin Luther King emerges to unite them, perhaps with a rallying cry like, “Smokers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your bans.” Whoever manages to do that will have an international following far greater than Marx or Mao ever managed.

I think that something like this is bound to happen. Because, if nothing else, writing this blog has made me realise that Smokervoter in California, and Walt in NYC, and Wiel in the Netherlands and Reinhold in Bavaria all have at least one strongly shared value (and quite possibly a lot more than one). And as a result I have a far more international perspective than I did only five years ago, and see the war on smokers as peculiarly international in ways that almost nothing else is.

So my tip for the future is that the global war on smokers is going to weld smokers into a global political force. The antismokers have sown the wind, and they will reap a whirlwind.

I spent a while today watching the above-mentioned Tony Benn on YouTube, talking about his political beliefs (strongly bottom-up democratic, socialist, and anti-EU). But I looked in vain for any words from him about the UK smoking ban. But after seeing the following video, in which he stands with lit pipe firmly clenched between his teeth, and quotes Shakespeare, I wondered if there was really any need for him to speak about it.

About Frank Davis

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

53 Responses to The New Dispossessed

  1. ijcd36 says:

    You are forgetting the psychological front of the Cold war hiding behind the terror threat of ICBMs. See my book “Psychological Cold War” – Nobody realised that by the time of the Labour election victory of 1964 the Party had been quietly taken over by the Communists and the Communist Party appeared to disappear. A lot went by while you were taken up by being a young chap, flower summer and all that.
    Here are some facts of life, gathered in a general practitioner’s consulting room, that lie at the root of the problems of our times:

    • Rose says:

      How right you are.

      In my research on the early days of anti-tobacco in England I keep running into the vociferous members of the Socialist Medical Association.
      http: //

      Sir George Godber; “Horace Joules and the Hope of Prevention”
      27th January, 1978

      “Sir George quoted Joules’ letter to the Lancet in 1953 which Ball had also referred to. In it he had criticised the Chief Medical Officer of Health’s report which referred to the “mysterious and inexorable rise of lung cancer” after Doll and Hill’s paper.
      Joules had outlined the need for action then, and Sir George did not feel the action taken 25 years later was adequate. The WHO, for example, had made no move till 1970.

      Sir George deplored the situation where it was illegal to advertise a cancer cure but legal to advertise smoking, a carcinogen.
      He felt smoking should be seen as an infestation of the home, to be wiped out like head lice.”

      Click to access 00011035.pdf

      Doll himself was a staunch Communist, who, on his own admission, being too drunk to sit his mathematics scholarship exam, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, became one of the world’s most famous epidemiologists, until he was found out, his legacy of misdirection only being discovered after his death.

      They had a great admiration for the Communist health service of the time.

      “Social medicine had been the main ideology working for change in public health in the interwar and wartime years, becoming an international movement with an exchange of ideas and models, derived in part from Soviet social hygiene experiments after the Revolution.”

      “It’s influence extended to the United States, Latin America, and European countries like Belgium, where Rene Sand took the chair of social medicine in 1945, a post established with funding from the US Rockefeller Foundation.”

      “n Britain, the ideas of social medicine were taken up by academics in medicine and the social sciences and the ideas developed as part of the more general discussion of health planning after the war.”

      “Social medicine also intersected directly with the smoking and lung cancer story, for it was the social medicine networks which initially took the smoking issue forward.
      The tenets of social medicine in the 1940′s were close to the interests of the Socialist Medical Association, of which Richard Doll was a prominent member.”

      “The Social Medicine Unit was one of those originally considered for the smoking and lung research. Dr Horace Joules, medical superintendant of of the Hospital, was a member of the Socialist Medical Association; the hospital became a powerhouse of social medicine sentiment.”

      Click to access 0-19-926030-3.pdf

      Horace Joules – 1951
      The Russian Health Centre
      http: //

  2. chris says:

    As a response to a conservative resurgence in the 1980s, the US left became more “conservative”. It banished its former anything goes, sex, drugs and rock and roll ethos to counter charges of “immorality” and so developed its own set of repressions, based, like right-wing repression, on fear, especially fears about the environment and health. These were 2 areas in which the left had made considerable cultural inroads and originally for good reasons. Now much of the left are nattering killjoys, not so different from their wild eyed counterparts on the right. And they consider libertarians a real threat, since lots of people are unhappy with the status quo, but they don’t want all the cultural baggage that comes with the left. For example, I’ve been invited to progressive get-togethers in my area and the invitation tells me “Bring a vegan dish to share.” Well, what if I don’t want to eat vegan? Or know exactly what constitutes a vegan dish? Plenty of people who’d be willing to hear what leftists have to say about economics and foreign policy are kept away by the idea that they might have to don Birkenstocks,etc.
    At least, that’s my take on it.

  3. Reinhold says:

    and Reinhold in Bavaria

    Oh, thank you, but there are much keener contributors than me e.g. in Philadelphia, California, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Illinois, Canada, Greece, Spain, Australia, Denmark, Swizzerland, Austria, Bulgaria, and other countries too (including Germany).

  4. Shodan71 says:

    Actually, the Republican Party was arguably more important in the Civil Rights Movement than the Dems (for example MLK was a Republican, and the Ku Klux Klan was originally an offshoot of the Democratic Party).

    I think the left/right smoking thing is confusing because of the existence of political parties, and people forming loose alliances based on some shared values. The ‘right’ for example, seems to consist of a mix of free market Social Conservatives, and free market Social Liberals (I suppose as a Classical Liberal I’d put myself in the second category).

    The ‘left’, on the other hand, seem to be a very loose alliance of hardcore Socialists, Greens, top-down micro-managing controlling nanny-statists, contradictory opportunists (RESPECT, I’m looking at you) and people who’d probably label themselves as libertarian, if that didn’t sound kind of ‘right-wing’, and if helping to save the poor/planet by opposing capitalism didn’t sound so damn romantic.

    I meet a lot of the last type, as I work at a university and interact with a lot of students. Those people I tend to like, can argue over politics with for half an hour, then have a friendly drink and a smoke with them afterwards. We’d probably still vote opposite ways, though.

    And then there are people who’d be on the ‘right’, like me, who’d probably fake a coughing fit if I even brought out my cigs and lighter (Hint to antismokers: – at least wait until the damn thing’s lit). Strange bedfellows, and all that.

    I vote for UKIP based on my political beliefs, and because of a deep dislike of unaccountable bureaucracy. I don’t care how many Poles or other continental European people are here, as long as they’re here for honest reasons (and the Poles I work with are all very hard-working and send money home to their families each month), and that they respect our laws.

    I suspect, though, that if I went to a UKIP conference, maybe half the people I met would be like me, but the rest would have very definite ideas on the virtues and vices of the different types of ‘johnny foreigner’, not know the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim, and try to engage me in a conversation about golf (fun to play sometimes, tedious to watch in my opinion).

    Hopefully they’d enjoy a crafty fag, though, and some of them might turn out to be relatively non-racist (they might be in favour of Gurkhas being allowed to settle here, for example….fighting for the UK and once taking some shrapnel in the right buttock in the service of the Queen more than makes up for them being sort of brown, I suppose).

    All I know for sure is that I’m more likely to get along with smokers (and vapers, and people who don’t mind being around smokers), than more strait-laced people. You can have a good conversation with the former group. The latter group will just talk AT you. Loudly.

    • Frank Davis says:

      All I know for sure is that I’m more likely to get along with smokers (and vapers, and people who don’t mind being around smokers), than more strait-laced people. You can have a good conversation with the former group.

      I have the same experience. It’s always been like that. The fun, easy, outgoing people were the eaters and drinkers and smokers (of whatever substances). Precisely the target social groups of the new puritans.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Merry Xmas we are dodging tornadoes…………

  6. waltc says:

    speaking of dispossessed….

    When I got home Friday night the doorman handed me an envelope from the building manager. The enclosed letter read: “Please be informed that your neighbors have complained about the smell of smoke coming from your apartment. Smoking inside your apartment is against the house rules. Kindly refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.”

    To begin with, the whole thing was baloney and I wondered at exactly which hour of yesterday the c’ksucker thought I was born. I’ve lived and smoked here for more than 20 yrs and never, in my various adventures, lived with anyone who didn’t smoke. I will only reproduce 2 of the early paragraphs of my response:

    First of all, there is no “house rule” against smoking in any apartment in this building nor can there ever be, certainly not as applied to statutory tenants. [which I am] The terms of my original lease, which does not bar smoking, must by law be continued in perpetuity as you undoubtedly know. Nothing can supercede it.// I have no intention of not-smoking in my apartment nor barring anyone else here from smoking and would consider any further discussion of the matter and any implicit threats therein as harassment.”

    I established by direct questioning that the couple next door with whom I share most contiguous walls, had not complained (“never smelled anything; didn’t know you smoked; wouldn’t care if you did’) and instantly knew it was the very (very) rich couple with the 2 rugrats who’d moved in diagonally across the hall about a year ago. I don’t know what they think they perhaps smell when they pass my front door on their way to the elevator but I bet they believe just passing my door is killing their babies. There was a case that made the papers here about a year or more ago about exactly that. Rich couple sues old lady bec. passing her door endangers their kids. Upshot: after nearly bankrupting her with legal fees, she gave up and moved. So…we’ll see.

    These are the same people–well, the husband– who’d approached me about 6 months ago asking me to sign a petition they and another couple were getting up to have a guy on the far other end of the hall (about half a block’s distance) evicted because there was the odor of maryjane in the hall in front of his door– which they’d have go way out of their way to have smelled. I told the guy (truthfully) that I’d never smelled anything, wouldn’t try to get anyone evicted, and suggested, in a friendly way, that instead of working petitions that he stand in front of the door, inhale deeply and chill out.

    Apparently, one does not kid around with Nazis.

    • prog says:

      Good luck, by targeting you it seems they’ve bitten off more than they can chew. Obviously I don’t know the full facts, but if you’re 100% sure of the terms of your contract perhaps there’s a case for threatening legal action citing intimidation and harassment. Furthermore, the onus on the neighbours would be to prove that your SHS is damaging their health.

    • Frank Davis says:


      I suppose that with wealth there must often come a vast sense of entitlement.

      So, they don’t like the smell of either tobacco or marijuana. What about boiled cabbage, or fried garlic, or eau de cogne? Do they like the smell of anything at all?

      And if they’re so damn rich, why aren’t they living in a penthouse or a detached town house?

    • margo says:

      Gosh, waltc. Bastards! Well, it was only a matter of time before one of ‘us’ here would get clobbered by this kind of thing. You’ve done well so far. I look forward to seeing how this pans out and wish you all the best with it.

    • Great that you’re standing up to the cretins, Walt, give ’em hell.

    • beobrigitte says:

      I established by direct questioning that the couple next door with whom I share most contiguous walls, had not complained (“never smelled anything; didn’t know you smoked; wouldn’t care if you did’)

      This is what normally happens; you pay every month for your flat, so you treat it as your home!!! (My home, too, has ashtrays on the tables!!!)

      and instantly knew it was the very (very) rich couple with the 2 rugrats who’d moved in diagonally across the hall about a year ago.

      My course of action would be to knock on their door and ASK them. If they squirm you know. If they have the guts to admit it was them, remind them, that you, too, are a PAYING inhabitant of one of the flats. Also, you might want to ask them how they think you reached the age you are and how come there are so many pensioners about.
      If they play the money card, I refer to Frank’s question:
      And if they’re so damn rich, why aren’t they living in a penthouse or a detached town house?

      THAT will SHUT them up!

      • jaxthefirst says:

        You’re all terribly civilised on here, you lot. Writing firm but polite letters back. Knocking on doors and asking these people if they complained. Having civil conversations with them.

        Oh no, no, no. People with children (particularly anti-smokers with children) should never complain about anyone else, ever, for any reason. Why? Because they have too much to lose through counter-attacks.

        Social Services, anyone?

  7. waltc says:

    Oops. Forgot to un-italicize. Frank, can you do the honors?

    • beobrigitte says:

      Will this Soubry person-thing manage to complete her apprenticeship?
      If she was trying to be intellectually humorous she failed on both accounts.

      Anyway, why hasn’t she been sacked a few month ago????
      If I remember correctly, she, as an apprentice politician, went over the government’s head and rushed off to Brussels just in case Poland was not voting for the smoking ban……

  8. And so in the UK, the Labour and Conservative and Liberal-Democrat parties are actually dead parties whose current members are trying (largely unsuccessfully) to bring them back to life.

    They really are, but their attempts are doomed to failure. I have a good rapport on Facebook with a genuine Conservative MP (Henry Smith, Crawley), who voted for an EU referendum and against SSM and seems like he acts as the name of his party implies, but he’s deluded that the very few like him can change the party back. He believes Cameron’s latest ‘promise’ of an EU referendum in four years’ time (or says he does). The very fact that it’s so far away demonstrates that it’s another con trick, especially as his MPs were whipped into voting against a referendum two years ago.

    As Dr Ian says, as he kicks off this game, Labour were infiltrated. True. Not just by the KGB (I’ll repost my Yuri Bezmenov video again for those who don’t understand how and why these massive changes to our lives are happening), but the Fabian Society, which possibly founded the Labour Party to realise their dream of a totally socialist country – completely nannified.

    But all the main parties (and the SNP up here) have all been infiltrated now. Our ancient customs, laws and freedoms mean nothing to most of the people who control these parties. And it’s the same the Western World over – socialist subversion to create, not just national, but global socialist one-world governance.

    I know I’ve said all this before and this isn’t a copy and paste job, but there has to be a mass awakening. We hear about football matches being fixed by Far Eastern betting syndicates and it’s big news, but all the political parties have been fixed and it’s never mentioned by the mainstream media, because they’ve all been fixed too.

    It is a global war against smokers, but why? We know it’s not about health. We know that for a fact. I know that the local NHS doesn’t give a fig about my health. That has been proven and which I have spoken about. GPs are just a joke around here; maybe everywhere now thanks largely to the Dept of Health. The War on Tobacco? Is it the possible link to increased IQ when they are dumbing us down in every other conceivable way? Is it to keep people from meeting, so they stay at home and ideas don’t spread? Is it just another divide and conquer technique, creating hatred among the people where (almost) none existed before? Is it to add gravitas to the idea of blaming every ill on tobacco, so they can get away with nuclear tests and continue to poison our food and water with additives? Or just because they can: to satisfy their lust for power? Or all these things – all useful when you want to demoralise and deconstruct a society.

    And it’s the same with the climate con and marshalling countries into blocs before melding them into one. It is all happening simultaneously because it is being orchestrated. The UN is a front for global governance, not the benign peacekeepers the public imagines.

    KGB-style subversion has been ongoing for decades in every country – not just by the KGB, obviously, but even before they were founded. Now we have 27,000 fake (i.e. mainly government-funded) charities acting as change agents, one of which is Common Purpose with their global socialist fingers in every institution subverting and perverting the minds of children in schools and the minds of everyone through the media and perhaps most famously, one of their operatives removing children from foster parents who voted for UKIP.

    But I’m starting to bore myself going over the same old ground, but most people still don’t understand that we’re under threat of global tyranny and being governed by traitors.

    This is the issue that needs to be addressed before anything else can be fixed – people need to understand – fully – that we’re being led by traitors helping to create a global socialist government.

    • Rose says:

      I found this article very helpful when I was trying to sort out what happened to this country and the sudden rush of laws and the silencing of dissent.

      The old communists of New Labour – 2002

      “The influence of the Communist Party on New Labour has been neglected. One day it will be an important subject for a dissertation or PhD by a university graduate. It is not merely the case that a significant number of figures in the Government machine – John Reid, David Triesman, Peter Mandelson, Charlie Whelan to name a few – belonged to the Communist Party of Great Britain in all its King Street grandeur.

      Many others – Stephen Byers and Alan Milburn among them – were connected in one way or another with the obscure sub-Marxist organisations that abounded in the 1970s, doing their best to tear down capitalism. Even those, like Jack Straw, who had no Marxist sympathies at all, were obliged to come to terms with communist methods and adversaries in the shadowy internecine struggles of the 1970s and 1980s. It is these methods – as opposed to the now despised Marxist dogma about ownership of the means of production – that have endured to influence the Blair Government.”

      “But the obsessive secrecy, centralisation and intolerance of dissent which were such overwhelming characteristics of the Millbank operation reek of the CPGB”

      • Frank Davis says:

        Yesterday when I was listening to Tony Benn speaking, he said several times that New Labour was a Thatcherite party, and that Margaret Thatcher regarded it as her greatest achievement. And I thought he was quite right. But no doubt there are plenty of communists in the party too. There always are.

        But I must say that I never understand the attraction of Marxism. Many years ago, I fought my way through the first six chapters of Capital (every sentence was an uphill battle). I concluded that Marx was a classical economist much like any other classical economist of his time, and didn’t really have anything very interesting to say. However, his language was so impenetrable that I felt that his attraction may well have lain in his verbose obscurantism (Hegel is another). Anyone who thought they understood him had a sense of knowing pride, and regarded themselves as standing apart from and above those numerous lesser mortals who had never managed to even get through the first paragraph.

    • prog says:

      Churchmouse Campanologist has an extensive library well worth browsing

      • churchmouse says:

        Thanks, Prog!

        Frank — great post!

        And commenters here have brought to the fore a lot of recent leftist history to consider.

        Best wishes to all for Christmas and the New Year.

  9. UK: The vaping bans – life with the smokers. Millions of people smoke despite years of persecution. And I consider myself a smoker. I haven’t actually smoked a cigarette for over two years, but I think like a smoker and the smoking ban turned me into a recluse like so many other people my age. I remain an angry smoker.

  10. margo says:

    You’re right, Frank This ‘left/right’ thing is most confusing. I think the ‘left’ as we knew it disappeared with Blair. I used to vote Labour mostly until he came along. I’ve always had a strong regard for Benn. I wish he’d been our Prime Minister (then we wouldn’t have a smoking ban, I think, wouldn’t be in the EU and would have played no part in the Iraq war). By the way, I never understood the wholesale fear of Communism. There’s never been a truly communistic regime (Russia wasn’t one) and I’d be interested to see one. I’m not much sold on where we are thanks to Capitalism.
    Anyway, Left has gone. When it flourished here all the libertarians I knew were left-wingers.

  11. Rose says:

    I see Geoffrey Kabat is still understandably furious.

    The Passive Smoking Issue Is A Rorschach Test For The Ability To Think Scientifically

    15 May 2003

    “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98.”
    James E Enstrom Geoffrey C Kabat

    As reported in the Telegraph at the time.

    “It was a rare good news story in an otherwise grim week. A landmark study into the effects of inhaling other people’s smoke revealed that fears that passive smoking kills more than 1,000 a year in the UK alone are unfounded.

    After studying the health of tens of thousands of people married to smokers, US researchers found that they face no significant extra risk of lung cancer or heart disease. It may sting your eyes, take your breath away and make your clothes smell, but other people’s cigarette smoke will not kill you.

    The demise of a supposed major risk to public health might be expected to prompt celebration among medical experts and campaigners. Instead, they scrambled to condemn the study, its authors, its conclusions, and the journal that published them. The reaction came as no surprise to those who have tried to uncover the facts about passive smoking. More than any other health debate, the question of whether smokers kill others as well as themselves is engulfed in a smog of political correctness and dubious science.”

    But he was unlikely to have known that the WHO had already started the Partnership Project with the drug companies in 1999 and his study would be anathema, after all you can’t force people to give things up if they are not harming anyone else.

    The secondhand smoke theory was essential to the FCTC, such a treaty would be impossible without it.

    Also in 2003

    “192 member states of the WHO took part in negotiations, producing a draft text, adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2003.

    28 countries, including the UK, signed the treaty in June 2003.”
    http: //

    And they had all agreed to –

    “Recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability, and that there is a time lag between exposure to smoking and the other uses of tobacco products and the onset of tobacco-related diseases.”
    http: //

    You can’t have 192 countries with egg on their faces, not to mention the embarassment to the WHO.

    Without a reason for smoking bans the whole thing would collapse.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The reason is gone up in smoke………………

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Rose what I like about your posts and well many others they lay out their subject to back up their statements……………

    • beobrigitte says:

      Due to the strong social and political pressures, it became hazardous for scientists to try to do careful, rigorous work on passive smoking.

      Political pressures, YES. Social pressures is something the anti-smoking brigade resuscitated ………

      One analytical chemist who wrote the foremost textbook on the composition of, and exposure to, passive smoking used to end his lectures with the words: “If you like to get verbally abused, study ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] and publish politically incorrect scientific findings.”


  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank todays fighters are the next leaders…………………This is how it works.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Kabats making statements that seem to only perpetuate the lie…….The question is WHY!

    Ive taken his statements to task here on a few notes:

    The most careful studies that have evaluated the actual exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke in the home, at work, and in other settings indicate that the average exposure of a passively exposed non-smoker is roughly equivalent to smoking about 10 cigarettes PER YEAR.


    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.

    However, even assuming similarities on an equal mass basis, ETS-RSP inhaled doses are estimated to be between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers. Differences in effective gas phase doses are expected to be of similar magnitude. Thus the average person exposed to ETS would retain an annual dose analogous to the active MSS smoking of considerably less than one cigarette dispersed over a 1-year period.

    Id just like to know the source of the other studies putting it at 10 cigs a year when everything else Ive seen says much less..

    10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers……………….This is approximately one-thousandth the exposure of the average smoker

    Really how did he come to such a conclusion

    Even at 10 ciggys a year it still comes to 14,600 years of exposure to equal 20 years of smoking at a pack a day and still be able to donate your lungs…………

    Then Their own study showed after the 39 years basically the same outcome no effect and only a slight raised risk for 30 years or longer with a smoker in house. That was during the highest possible exposure time period. So to state that because theres less smoking since the 90s and exposures a lower outcome would be expected its just posh junk and bending to the anti-smokers…….It makes one think they bought Kabat off!

    • beobrigitte says:

      I doubt they “bought” Kabat; but I would not put it past “them” to lean strongly on him!

      Nevertheless, I do have an issue with this:
      This study involved 76,304 postmenopausal women who were followed for an average of 10.5 years. Over that period of time, 901 women were diagnosed with lung cancer. However, only 152 of the lung cancer cases occurred in never-smokers.

      Postmenopausal means the age 60 and above. Also, NOTHING is being said about where these women live(d); how high background radiation levels at the various locations were; whether these ladies travelled/stayed at home; the number of times they suffered from viral infections, if so which ones?; all the participants’ immune-system in this study in “full working order”?; how high were the dioxin levels in the fields they got their food stuff from?; did some of the participants show perfect health albeit also showing ‘abnormal’ e.g. potassium/sodium/ etc.etc.etc. levels? Has this biological variation been taken into account?; how many of these women worked in e.g. chromium industry?
      And so on.

      If you do want to attribute a cancer to one SINGLE cause, you better do your best to exclude ALL other possible causes.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one

      • harleyrider1978 says:


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.