From Chris Snowdon:

Pupils are set to be turned away from tills and the addictive drinks removed completely from general display, with sales assistants fetching individual cans from back rooms for adult customers.

The ‘addictive’ drinks in this case are caffeine-rich energy drinks. But they might equally well have been Coca Cola or lemonade or ginger beer.

I’m beginning to think that if anyone likes anything enough to buy it regularly, they qualify as ‘addicts’. And that ‘addiction’ is really just a way of expressing disapproval for something some people don’t like.

So Beatles or Rolling Stones fans could be disapprovingly described as Beatles or Rolling Stones addicts.

I suppose that it’s only natural, when you find people enjoying doing something you don’t like doing, to conclude that they are some way deranged. Or that they don’t really like it, but only pretend to like it, because everybody else is pretending to like it too.

It’s the same with football fans. They could be called football addicts. What a bizarre thing for anyone to enjoy watching, a bunch of over-grown schoolboys kicking a ball around! Why should anyone like that? They can’t possibly like it. They must only buy tickets and watch football matches because everybody else is doing it, and they don’t want to be left out. They can’t really want to do that, can they? It’s only because of evil football pushers like FIFA that they’ve become addicted to this pointless game.

[the] claim that people do the opposite of what they really, truly want to do has been the calling card of prohibitionists through the ages.

Like chocolate, or bacon, or pizza? If you do, you’re an addict. Same with Shakespeare and Leonardo do Vinci. And smoking cigarettes and drinking beer and watching movies. They’re all addictions.

Maybe it’s that prohibitionists are people who never really like anything much. They don’t like beer or cigarettes. And they don’t like chocolate or bacon or pizza. And they don’t like poetry or art. And they don’t like swimming or sun-bathing. You name it, they don’t much like it. And they can’t understand why anyone else should like what they don’t like. They see it as a form of madness. And then they try to stop people enjoying what they shouldn’t/mustn’t/can’t really enjoy. For theirs is perhaps a terminal boredom with absolutely everything: nothing excites them at all. They are completely disenchanted.

And they’re the same people who detest what they call ‘consumerism’ and ‘consumer society’. For consumers, as they see them, are people who compulsively buy things they don’t really need or want. The ‘consumer’ is addicted to shopping. And he or she is only manipulated into buying useless things by skilful advertising pushers. And the anti-consumerists would really like to close down consumer society, and stop people buying anything at all.

And if the anti-consumerist prohibitionists hate beer and cigarettes above all, it’s because, of all the useless things that people buy, beer and cigarettes are the most useless of all.

After all, what do the beer and cigarette addicts do? They just sit drinking their beer and smoking their cigarettes, and it’s a complete waste of their time, and of everybody else’s time as well. Why should it be tolerated? It’s the most pointless activity in which anyone could ever engage. It’s almost as pointless as football. Or cricket. Or the Beatles. Or Shakespeare. Or all those damn paintings stuck up on the walls inside the National Gallery.

For them, everything is addiction. Liking anything at all is addiction. It starts with beer and cigarettes, and it moves on to soft drinks and sugar and chocolate and meat and salt. And then it extends to holidays and tourism and cars and roads and jet planes. And armchairs and televisions and cushions and curtains and shoes and socks and trousers and Christmas cards. And it’s all addictive behaviour which must be stopped.

And the green world to which they aspire is one from which all the addictive non-stick saucepans and fedora hats and over-stuffed sofas and half-timbered houses and one-way roads have been eradicated, and the world has been returned to the original green purity and simplicity from which it was corrupted when people first got addicted to clothes and shoes and houses and roads and music and poetry and video games.

And all that’s left are the animals that are addicted to eating plants and breathing air, and all the plants are addicted to sunlight and water and carbon dioxide. Which they’ll all have to be weaned off, now that they want to ban carbon dioxide too.

They are not just anti-smoking: they are anti-life. And not just anti-human life, but anti all the forms of life that have ever lived.

About Frank Davis

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

50 Responses to Addicts

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    I was just reading that and bam Frank your newsest pops up on the side of VelvetGlove.

    Heres a darling Chris tossed out there Lord the Insanity of Mental nanny illness

    Pupils don’t want to be sold the drinks even though they’re buying them”

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Frank I really think these prohibitionists hate themselves more than anything else. To live life with only one issue,to make everybody as miserable as themselves…………I simply cant fathom such people as that.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    BBQ for Cancer Research UK

    Host a BBQ on the big weekend of 19th – 20th July, invite your friends to donate to attend and cook up some cash to help beat cancer sooner.

    Charcoal or gas, rain or shine, join in this July as gardens, parks, and rooftops across the land turn up the heat on cancer.


    Someone ought to tell them that BBQ’s ’cause’ cancer!

    BBC NEWS | Health | Barbecue cancer warning
    Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests.
      A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes.

      Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer.

      The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages.”

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        ROFLMAO!!!! I think we should crash the cookout with our own smoking for a cure protest against the bans!

      • Marie says:

        Thats marvelous, Harley. I have shared this!

      • Marie says:

        It takes me 20 years to smoke 220.000 cigarettes :)

        • Marie says:

          Any connection between BBQ and lungcancer? BBQ has just been common since the 70th/80th. In the 50th noboby was BBQing.

        • P. Ondrin says:

          Back in the 80’s I remember there being concerns about the output from cremation. The burning of chipboard coffins seemed to be releasing some real nastiness. With the use of higher temperatures and filtered chimneys all is now good – they say.
          BBQ is nothing in comparison. 1/220,000 of a cremation? 48,400,000,000 cigarettes?
          Who said you couldn’t make it up?

        • Marie says:

          Ha, ha, P. Ondrin. Thats for more lifetimes :)

  3. legiron says:

    I’m quite partial to a can of chemical fizz now and then. Not the real Red Bull, not when generic clones can be had at four tins for a pound in many places.

    Addicted to it? Nope, it’s just a pleasant tasting chemical fizz. It’s entirely artificial, even the ones with ‘fruit flavourings’ but it’s a nice drink.

    So now it will have to be brought out from the back room. Soon there will be nothing on display in any shop anywhere. It’ll just be a bare counter and if you don’t know about a product you cannot ask for it.

    So, no more new products of any kind at all, no innovation, no point investing in any kind of attractive packaging for anything. All those graphic artists, trained at taxpayer’s expense, will have nothing at all to do.

    Anyone who works in advertising, packaging, display unit production, shop design, any career linked to any of those things, will be out of work permanently.

    And all because of, ultimately, the smoking ban. Which most of them still support.

    Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh. It’s either that or go mad.

  4. waltc says:

    I think they do like it. All of it. Or fear they might like it. But they think they shouldn’t like it and don’t want to ever be tempted to like it so they want it entirely banished from the earth. Get thee behind me, Satan. In the old days, it was that: Pleasure as sin. Maybe several sins. Lust. Sloth (lookit those barflies, lazing around the zinc there, drinking and smoking and next thing you know I imagine they’ll be f’king). In the new days, it’s a secular sin against Health. And perhaps secondarily against Productivity. Or the State Coffers. But mostly they’re people who are scared of temptation and the terrible thought they might give into it. Others, who actually know their own moral and physically prudent limits (yes, I’d smoke a joint; no, I wouldn’t mess around with LSD) and draw their own lines have nothing to fear, nothing to prohibit for anybody else who crosses those lines. To each his own.

    I said this before in another context on another thread: The old motto was “If it feels good, do it.” The new motto is, “If it feels good, don’t.”

  5. roobeedoo2 says:

    The Antis are addicted to hate

  6. For a while the Antis sought refuge in tests that showed smoking made MRI brain scans light up in the same regions as cocaine, and thus “prove” their addiction model. Unfortunately for the Antis’ argument it eventually came out that watching TV, gambling, playing computer games, and just about everything else that some people find enjoyable and engage in on a repeating basis lit up the SAME areas of the brains.

    – MJM

    • roobeedoo2 says:

      I wonder if the same parts of the Antis’ brains light up (pun intended) when they engage in their hate-filled entertainment? Some research is needed into that me thinks…

      • beobrigitte says:

        This bit I think is funny. Nonsense “science” for the pursuit of an agenda.

        However, “Science” has never provided information with respect to “normal” levels of e.g. serotonin etc. in numbers and units; let alone “normal” fluctuations within e.g. 24 hrs. This does not stop the medical establishment from prescribing (dosing!) such.

      • Rose says:

        Apparently so, Roobeedoo.

        Bullies’ Brains Light Up With Pleasure as People Squirm


        “The brains of bullies—kids who start fights, tell lies, and break stuff with glee—may be wired to feel pleasure when watching others suffer pain, according to a new brain scanning study.

        The finding was unexpected, noted Benjamin Lahey, a psychologist at the University of Chicago and co-author of the study, which appears in the new issue of the journal Biological Psychology. Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago, is lead author of the study.”

        “But the bullies’ empathetic response seemed to be warped by activity in the amygdala and ventral striatum, regions of the brain sometimes associated with reward and pleasure.

        “We think it means that they like seeing people in pain,” Lahey said.

        “If that is true,” he added, “they are getting positively reinforced every time they bully and are aggressive to other people.”

  7. I think there are different types of Anti. For example, after a decade of alcoholism (1988-98), I was very anti-alcohol, not that I ever dreamed of trying to have it banned. But my efforts to do *something* to ease Scotland’s terrible problem with alcohol led to my starting a pressure group (which consisted only of me) and I helped with a Scottish ‘Executive’ consultation (and was credited in an appendix), but I see things differently now.

    Some of you might hate me for this, but one of the things I recommended was for warnings on the labels. You could run a poll, Frank.

    “Do you find Stewart Cowan to be a despicable individual for his previous attempts at alcohol control”




    “I think he is despicable anyway.”

    But you have to understand that I did it with the very best of intentions. It was hosted on my domain name:, which is too good a name to have doing nothing, but I don’t know what I should be doing with it, seeing as ‘truth’ these days is whatever people want it to be. Moral relativity.

    So, OK. I had a horrendous time on the drink. Truly awful. My intentions were pure.

    Then there are the professional subverters. The taxpayer-funded fake charities that campaign for what the government pays them to campaign for, so you get blanket smoking bans to help destroy the social fabric of society.

    Re. your poll yesterday, I couldn’t vote in it as I don’t think I’ve been in a pub post-ban, but certainly, the best part about working in central London in the 80s was having a couple of pints and a smoke after work. The pubs off Oxford Street were vibrant when the offices closed. Can’t imagine what they’re like now. In fact, I can’t imagine what it’s like to have a group of people round a pub table which is continuously being interrupted with constant comings and goings to stand outside for a smoke.

    Actually, I was at a 70th birthday party in a bowling club three years ago, where just a few people left for a smoke, most of them being ex-smokers having been cajoled into giving up many years before. I met one old friend, 74 years old, standing outside having a smoke and begging me not to tell his wife. Like I would have. What a way to live.

    As far as I know he’s still as fit as a flea. His never-smoking wife had her cancer cleared up. Can’t remember where it was. Have know them all my life – pretend aunts and uncles and at 50 myelf, I still call them aunt and uncle!

    I’m going off-topic again. It’s lonely being in a office all by yourself. It’s a very regular situation, so must be an addiction, right?

    So there are the genuinely concerned citizens and the professional society-wreckers. There are those who are employed by the thousands of fake ‘charities’ and must toe the line or will be out of work.

    There are the killjoys, who maybe have a psychological aversion to any sort of enjoyment. The UK especially seems plagued with depressed people, with even British teenagers being the “unhappiest in the world”.

    British schoolchildren are among the most stressed, unhappy and “sedentary” in the developed world, academics and authors warned today.

    If they don’t have a lust for life as children, what are their adulthoods going to be like? Drink and drugs, a long string of failed relationships, no job prospects due to disinterest in life, poor health due to their ‘sedentary’ nature. Hardly surprising, when the social engineering subverters won’t let them be children, but each one is a state-owned guinea pig in this great experiment to destroy our culture.

    While pretending to care so much for the cheeeldren, the government and their fake charities have been abusing them. Using them as tools to change society and not caring what damage it does to them. Regardless of the paedophile ring(s) in Westminster, MPs have been abusing children for years.

    The subversion started a long time ago, so it’s also no surprise that most people are allowing anyone posing as ‘authority’ to walk all over them, so ten million Brits stand in the cold and wet for a smoke, carry on voting for the parties that made their lives miserable and apparently live like automatons.

    But I didn’t come here to depress you. Oh no I didn’t. There is still much good clean fun to be had for those who know how to take joy in nature, the arts (excl. modern ‘art’ unless you go to laugh at it), good company and who knows, maybe the people will wake up and decide they don’t have to be miserable the whole time.

    I’ll try it today!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      A reformed Reformer……………now that’s a title!

    • beobrigitte says:

      The UK especially seems plagued with depressed people, with even British teenagers being the “unhappiest in the world”.

      I have to agree with this. Is it because a lot of them spend most of their life nannied, having to live up to nanny’s expectations, and by the time they are supposed to be adults, they know NOTHING about life. By the time they reached their twenties, quite a few of them are ready for death. (This year in the space of 8 weeks I went to 2 such funerals; I knew these kids since they were little and became friends with my offspring!)

      ALL punishment for children is on a psychological basis – this does much more damage than the quick smack!!! I got a lot of that and don’t remember much about them – I do, however, remember the psychological ‘coercion’, rarely applied by my mother!!! It did make me feel depressed!!!

      I do admit that I did NOT use the psychological route bringing up my offspring. I never had to give any of them a huge hiding, either. When they were toddlers the smack on the nappy covered bum took them by surprise!!! That was all that was needed. Later on it was grabbing their arm to turn them around and just tap their bottom. Same effect.
      When they reached teenage age, I just pointed out that I have no problem with embarrassing them in front of their friends. It did work 95% of the time. No psychology – just the truth.

      Over the years my offsprings’ friends became my “other” sons and daughters – even if it was only for a laugh!
      I vividly remember the evening of 17.12.2010; I had been in work and got ready for bed pretty early. My niece just had given birth to her second son and both were in intensive care. For the baby it was a case of “the next 24 hours…..” I just did not want to sit by the phone to wait for bad news…. (There never was, both, mother and child did survive and are fine!!!)
      When my offspring pointed out that it was snowing, I just said:” don’t hold your breath; it’ll stop and the snow will be gone by 9 pm”. It carried on snowing and my son’s friend came round. Silliness in all of us took over and we went outside. Much past my planned bed time another friend of my offspring turned up – we spent a lot of time laughing and having snowball fights.
      At this point in time I never thought that I would attend this friend’s funeral 4 years later.

      Then, 8 weeks later, another one.

      The one that came round in Summer on a hot day. I went out shopping and since my offspring and his friend were going out, I left them the second key to lock up. When I got back, both were still sat in the garden, downing a sixpack of whatever.
      “I thought you’re going out”? “Yeah, will do….” 2 hours later I pointed out that dinner was ready….. We did have a lot of banter about the “going out” bit and spent the evening yapping away.
      And again, I never thought that I’d find myself going to this kid’s funeral, too.

      Both used fail-safe methods. So, no “cry-for-help” lark.

      It really should have been the other way round!!! I am moving up the ladder just by age to be called: “Next”!

      Is interference in our private life going to kill more people than any war could?

      • Five years ago, my cousin hanged himself, aged 35. Maybe it has something to do with expectations, as you say. Seems the young expect to be rich and famous whereas my (our?) generation (well pre X-Factor, etc.) wanted a spouse, a decent job, nice house, a nice meal in a restaurant, to be left alone to live as WE saw fit and without feeling the need to be a big pop star to feel fulfilled. My poor cousin had always found it hard trying to live up to others’ expectations.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Both youngsters were in their twenties. One threw himself in front of a train, the other went to a secluded spot and hung himself – he was found a day or two later!

          Living up to a much publicised vision of an ideal world is the hardest thing.

  8. Hopkins & Co Ltd says:

    For thousands of years our species have used a variety of “treatments” for freaks,weirdos and
    malcontents,ranging from ritual drowning in swamps to shipping out to fleapits like Australia .
    Now in our enlightened liberal paradise we elevate these wackos to positions of influence and authority………untill some rise from their coma and start adopting traditional cures…..untill then
    carry on dreaming.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Carry on dreaming right now is the base for reality to come.

      You see, Australia is lost:
      For thousands of years our species have used a variety of “treatments” for freaks,weirdos and
      malcontents,ranging from ritual drowning in swamps to shipping out to fleapits like Australia .

      It’s Tobacco Control’s.

      I see, Tobacco Control has only adopted inhumane politics that became my inheritage to deal with.
      It has failed to evolve.
      When it’s failure is official I will post the list of WHY tobacco control has failed. AFTER cementing the stone they crawled underneath from.

  9. wobbler2012 says:

    I’m still wondering why it happened, we never had any bullshit like this back in the 80’s and before then. Now it seems that there are hundreds of people wanting to ban everything, it really pisses me off. Back then people like them would have been told to F-Off, it’s a sorry state of affairs.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Wobbler they got control in the UN,the EU,America and a thousand other political places besides control of the medical community and the scientific community either by outright indimidation or thru grant sponging…………..Its a despicable world in which we find ourselves now and its actions will ultimately lead to wars and a world war no doubt.

      The power of controlling others when its like an epidemic the world over can only lead to one end,

    • beobrigitte says:

      we never had any bullshit like this back in the 80′s and before then.

      We did. I inherited the mess.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    More on the Risks of Smoking

    Gary Giovino in East Aurora, N.Y., writes:

    I read with consternation your response to a question about smoking-attributable mortality. [June 8, 2014] Your correction of the readers confusion about the percent of smokers who die from diseases caused by their smoking is accurate. Your portrayal, however, of the estimates of smoking-attributable mortality is not. You state, “… [N]onsmokers also die of cancer and heart attacks, but when smokers die of those same diseases they are said to be related to their smoking.”

    Estimates of smoking-attributable mortality (SAM) are based mathematically on the relative risks for diseases determined by the surgeon general to be caused by smoking. The process of determining a causal relationship involves a set of criteria that assess the nature of the relationship, including biological plausibility. Please read the report by the U.S. General Accounting Office on the CDC’s calculation of SAM. Estimates of SAM remain essentially unaffected when potential confounders are considered (JAMA. 2000; 284(6):706-712. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.6.706). Relative risks that are calculated in epidemiologic studies are “relative,” i.e., deaths in smokers are compared with deaths in nonsmokers. The relative risks for lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are very high (> 20), which is understandable, given the exposure to cigarette smoke that occurs in the lungs. The relative risks for heart are smaller. Cigarette smoking is an independent cause of coronary heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases. For a review of the literature, I refer you to the 2014 report of the Surgeon General ( Not all cases in smokers are considered to be caused by their smoking.

    Marilyn responds:

    Thank you, Gary. However, please understand that my response did not refer to either this report or the CDC’s calulation of SAM. It referred to the many interpretations misreported by the press. The real statistics about the risks of smoking are bad enough to stand alone. Reporters who misunderstand or exaggerate them hurt the cause they are trying to promote. Please see the letter from a reader tomorrow.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    New Jersey lawmakers not sold on bill to raise tobacco-buying age

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Why the massive black market trade in cigarettes affects you even if you don’t smoke

    Fake Western brand cigarettes for sale in Shaqlawa, Iraq

    A National Academy of Sciences committee meets this week to study a large, growing and little-understood black market in drugs. But rather than cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine, the committee members will be discussing tobacco cigarettes.

    The global black market in tobacco is estimated to supply 11.6% of the world’s consumption, a startling 650 billion cigarettes a year. And there are two components to this market that have drawn the particular scrutiny of law enforcement: fake cigarettes and tax avoidance.

    The reason why fake cigarettes are big business will be obvious to anyone who tunes in to Mad Men. Cigarettes have arguably been marketed internationally more effectively than any other American product. The resulting worldwide recognition of the Marlboro Man, Joe Camel et al. means that hundreds of millions of smokers are willing to pay a premium for famous Western brands. This has created a lucrative opportunity for criminals – overwhelmingly based in China — to repackage over 100 billion cheap cigarettes a year as marquee Western brands.

    While not enthusiastic about the amount of revenue being generated by fake cigarettes, U.S. policymakers have been even more concerned about smugglers avoiding taxes for selling genuine cigarettes.

    Some of the tax avoidance is conducted via off-shore suppliers who take orders over the Internet. But in recent years policymakers and law enforcement have cracked down on this trade, with formal and informal controls on credit card companies, shipping companies and the U.S postal service.

    However, there is a simpler way for criminals to evade cigarette taxes which requires neither a shipper nor an Internet connection: Buy them in bulk in a low tax jurisdiction and physically transport them to a high tax jurisdiction. For example, the tax difference between Virginia and New York State cigarettes is just over $4 a pack, and even more in New York City where further taxes are applied. An individual who throws two cases of legally-purchased cigarettes in his car trunk and drives from Richmond to Brooklyn can make a thousand dollars re-selling them illegally; someone driving a loaded tractor trailer truck can make over a million.

    This smuggling raises multiple problems. First, criminals sell the smuggled cigarettes at a lower price than locally-purchased cigarettes in the high-tax jurisdiction, thereby undermining the public health benefit of higher prices (i.e., more smokers quitting). Second, governments in high-tax jurisdictions lose an unknown but undoubtedly large amount of tax revenue from smuggling. Third, major league criminals – perhaps including terrorists – are reaping substantial income from the trade, with which they can fund other even more dangerous activities.

    California has had some success reducing tax evasion by requiring more sophisticated, hard to counterfeit tobacco tax stamps. But the policy that would help high-tax states the most in the battle against cigarette smuggling – increased tobacco taxes in low tax states – is the hardest to implement. States with low tobacco taxes tend to have significant tobacco production and the economic and political clout that goes with it to protect those low rates.

    Could the federal government end the smuggling incentives that are created by the disparities in state-level taxation? A hike in the federal tax on tobacco, which the Obama Administration proposed last year, would not change the dynamics of cross-state smuggling because the differences between state tax amounts would stay the same. A federal tax that was partly or fully refunded to states which set their taxes within a particular range could in contrast reduce the financial incentive for cross-state smuggling. But at the moment that idea appears to have no strong advocates in Washington.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      This post is intended to be facetious]

      There are two basic ways to ensure that public revenue and public health are protected by taxing those who engage in behavior that imposes costs on the rest of society.

      First, Health Insurance providers can be required to test their insureds (customers) for certain attributes such as BMI, or drug consumption (including all illegal drugs as well as alcohol and nicotine and/or marijuana). Customers who fail these tests can be requred to pay higher premiums, which will be split between various levels of government and the health insurance firms. If the health insurance is provided by the gov’t, then fines can be mandated for insureds who fail to stop smoking or lose weight etc. Incarceration should be an option for those who cannot or will not pay the appropriate fines, on the grounds that incarcertion will permit the government to impose the required healthy lifestyles. Or – as an alternative – the body parts of those who are unwilling or unable to pay the government-imposed fines can be sold on the open market, in order to generate revenue.

      The second option for the government is to extend the notion of “denormalizing smoking” to other behaviors that are considered inappropriate for the protection of the public health (i.e. excessive consumption of unhealthy food as indicated by blood tests, or other behaviors such as smoking). To bring the full brunt of “denomalization” to bear on the miscreants responsible for lowering the average standard of public health (and thus imposing burdens on innocent taxpayers), non-compliant members of society can be required to wear certain demarcations in public. For example, a scarlet “A” (for “adipose”) can be required to be worn by those who have an excessively high BMI or other such measure. Naturally, appeals to special courts of public health will be available, for those who can claim that they are unable to lose weight as a result of genetic conditions (etc.).

  13. beobrigitte says:

    I have been wondering WHY so many people accept unquestioningly that they are “addicts”. Accepting to be an e.g. “sugar addict” implies that you just cannot help it. You are helpless. You NEED HELP!!! All responsibility for your own actions are taken away from you.

    “Smokers need HELP”!!! (didn’t ASH a while ago bleat manipulating stuff like this?)

    Mass control continues……… I wish people would wake up to it!!!
    If we wish, we can stop smoking, we can lose weight, we can eat less fat etc.etc. etc. if we retrieve and rescusitate common sense.

    • Marie says:

      In a debate on FB about the new ban of smoking on railway platforms, there was a commender telling, that woke up one morning and looking in the mirror, he saw an addict. Then he stopped smoking and blaming himself very much for this addiction in the past. I too wondered, where he got that from.

      • beobrigitte says:

        there was a commender telling, that woke up one morning and looking in the mirror, he saw an addict
        Who told/nudged/pushed him to “see an addict”? Propaganda did.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Beo look at the wording of the post. The commentor was a smokefree Nazi from one of the hate groups. In other words a PLANT………..Nobody says such things and I mean nobody unless there a plant to provoke or lead the comments. They’re easily shut up.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          I think by now anyone of us is a professional at shutting their mouths up………..

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    I bought me a lead smelter the other day and have been casting my own bullets saving me tons of cash. From 25 cents buying the lead bullets made Im now down to a cost of 12 cents each on my reloads. If I was buying them factory made itd be about 80 cents a piece……….

    • beobrigitte says:

      Lol, Harley!!! I might require your services in about 25 yuears of time. There is NO WAY I will be found in a smok(er)-free old folks’ home. I’ll stay in my own. A gun and bullets will come in handy!!!

  15. harleyrider1978 says:

    Drinking Coffee, Smoking May Protect Against Cholangitis
    Last Updated: July 08, 2014.

    In women, hormonal factors may influence primary sclerosing cholangitis

    More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook Share on myspace Share on google Share on twitter

    Coffee consumption and smoking might protect against the development of primary sclerosing cholangitis, according to a study published in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

    TUESDAY, July 8, 2014 (HealthDay News) — Coffee consumption and smoking might protect against the development of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), according to a study published in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

    Ina Marie Andersen, from the Oslo University Hospital in Norway, and colleagues distributed a questionnaire to 240 patients with PSC as well as 245 randomly chosen individuals from the Norwegian Bone Marrow Donor Registry (control subjects).

    The researchers found that a lower proportion of patients with PSC were daily coffee drinkers than control subjects, both currently (76 versus 86 percent; odds ratio [OR], 0.52; P = 0.006) and at the age of 18 years (35 versus 49 percent; OR, 0.58; P = 0.003). Differences among men mainly accounted for these associations. In patients, 20 percent were ever (current or former) daily smokers, compared with 43 percent of control subjects (OR, 0.33; P < 0.001). There was an association between ever daily smoking before PSC diagnosis and older age at diagnosis (42 versus 32 years; P < 0.001). Among females, fewer patients ever used hormonal contraception versus controls (51 versus 85 percent; P < 0.001). There was a strong correlation in women between increasing number of children before the diagnosis of PSC and increasing age at diagnosis (P < 0.001).

    "Coffee consumption and smoking might protect against development of PSC," the authors write.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a disease of the bile ducts that causes inflammation and subsequent obstruction of bile ducts both at an intrahepatic (inside the liver) and extrahepatic (outside the liver) level. The inflammation impedes the flow of bile to the gut, which can ultimately lead to cirrhosis of the liver, liver failure and liver cancer. The underlying cause of the inflammation is believed to be autoimmunity;[1] and more than 80% of those with PSC have ulcerative colitis.[2] The definitive treatment is liver transplantation.

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Extreme obesity cuts lifespan more than smoking: JUNK study

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – That obesity can cut life short by causing strokes and other illnesses comes as no surprise, but a study reported on Tuesday quantifies the toll: The most extreme cases cut a person’s lifespan more than cigarettes.

    The analysis, published in the journal PLOS Medicine, is the largest-ever study of the effect of extreme obesity on mortality. It found that people who are extremely obese — for someone of average height, carrying an extra 100 lb (45 kg) or more — die 6.5 to 13.7 years earlier than peers with a healthy weight.

    The study, based on data from 20 large studies of people in the United States, Sweden and Australia, comes as rates of obesity have soared. Worldwide, nearly 30 percent of people, or 2.1 billion, are either obese or overweight.

    “Overweight” is defined as having a body mass index, or weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters, of 25.0 to 29.9. At the low end, that is 150 lb (68 kg) for someone 5 feet 5 inches (1.65 meters) tall.

    “Obesity” means a BMI of 30 or higher (180 lb at 5 feet 5 inches). “Extreme obesity” is a BMI of 40 or higher, or 241 lb at that height.

    The study included data on 9,564 adults with extreme obesity and 304,011 of normal weight.

    The overall risk of dying at any given time rose continuously with increasing BMI within the extremely obese group, mostly due to heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

    People with a BMI of 40 to 44.9 lost an average of 6.5 years of life. Those with a BMI of 45 to 49.9 lost 8.9 years, while BMIs of 50 to 54.9 cut 9.8 years and 55 to 59.9 cut 13.7 years. Among people with a healthy weight, those who smoked lost about 8.9 years.

    The study, by scientists at the National Cancer Institute, did not calculate whether less extreme obesity shortens life, and the researchers could not say whether the results would hold for poorer, non-Western populations.

    Because extreme obesity was so rare in the past, it was not possible to calculate its effect on mortality until now.

    The new calculation is unlikely to cause people with extreme obesity to shed pounds, for “that presupposes that the main reason people don’t lose weight is lack of willpower, and I’d argue that’s not the case,” said Dr Lee Kaplan, director of the weight center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “But it could have a beneficial effect if it galvanizes society to change in ways that stop promoting obesity and to develop aggressive treatments for extreme obesity.”

    In the United States, 36 percent of adults are obese, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The incidence of BMIs of 40 or higher has more than quadrupled since the mid-1980s, and about one in six U.S. adults is extremely obese.,0,3574669.story

  17. Pingback: For the Children… and the Adults | Real Street

  18. Pingback: For the Children… and the Adults | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

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.