2014 in review

I had an email from WordPress today, with an annual report on my blog. It included the option of publishing the report, which I have chosen to exercise.

I suppose that from my point of view 2014 has been the year when the average number of views per day has risen above 1000. I seem to remember that when I started my blog, the figures were more like 30 or 40 views per day.

But if 2014 has been notable in other ways, it’s perhaps that UKIP has become a real force in UK politics. And the principal reason why I now vote for them is because they – and they alone among the major parties – are in favour of a relaxation of the UK smoking ban to allow smoking rooms in pubs.

And I was thinking last night that the latest round of attacks on smokers (and drinkers and fat people) can only help UKIP. For where else can the persecuted turn?

So roll on, Deborah Arnott & co. Do your worst. It will only serve to stiffen resistance to the bully state you work for.

All the rest of today’s blog was written by WordPress.

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 440,000 times in 2014. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 19 days for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to 2014 in review

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Dr. Siegel is a Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health

    Doc do you and this Doctor Frankenstein work together shes creating monsters out of thin air does it run in the family of the medicos in Boston or something!

    Elizabeth Russo, lead author of the study and MD, Boston Public Health Commission, Research and Evaluation Office.

    Smoking in Buildings Affects all Residents

    The presence of smoking in a building can significantly diminish the air quality of other units, even those occupied by non-smokers.

    A new study has found that blanket bans on smoking achieve a major reduction in hazardous airborne contaminants throughout entire building structures.

    The new study from the Boston Housing Authority published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research compared indoor air quality in multi-unit houses where smoking was completely prohibited with those where smoking was permitted.

    The study concluded that median household levels of fine particular matter – which is significant of the transfer of second-hand smoke, were roughly 40 per cent lower in buildings with blanket bans on smoking, at 4.8 micrograms per cubic metre versus 8.1.

    The new study confirms previous work indicating that hazardous airborne particles are readily capable of infiltrating non-smoking units from smoking ones, leading to an overall degradation of air quality.

    “It’s (smoke transfer) not something that nobody ever knew about before, but it’s demonstrated here again, and the fact that the smoking policy of the building is associated with aerosol levels is supportive of having [building-wide smoke free] policies,” said Elizabeth Russo, lead author of the study and MD, Boston Public Health Commission, Research and Evaluation Office.

    The study examined environmental markers for the presence of second-hand smoke, using aerosol monitors to measure fine particulate matter as well as nicotine monitors to determine whether or not such matter was the product of tobacco smoking.

    Five different residential developments were included in the study, including 15 households with resident smokers and 17 households without resident smokers. The building types varied, including a three-storey walk-up, as well as mid-rise and high-rise structures.

    The study found that particulate matter rose in adjacent units of non-smokers whenever smoking residents indulged in tobacco usage. Levels of particular matter also increased in non-adjacent areas and common areas at times that smokers reported smoking, although to a lesser extent.

    “This is just further evidence that having smoking areas within the same building and non-smoking areas within the same building does not confer the same level of protection as having an entire building be smoke-free,” said Russo.

    Published on 31 December 2014

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Perhaps you would rather just outlaw yourselves and all the other human carcinogen machines from even existing! Or the New Building VOC’s that release constantly in new buildings that also can create a cancer risk. He should also want to ban Cooking,Campfires, Industrial output, Barbecuing,Breathing,having indoor plants that release constant Isoprene! You see no matter the contempt and daily scares these folks toss out you will never escape natural elements and chemicals such as whats in tobacco smoke or the normal everyday air we all breathe and exhale. We are all sources of the same thing these prohibitionists are trying to outlaw and criminalize!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Schuman’s Expert Witnesses Testify in Secondhand Smoke Trial

        The plaintiff’s expert witnesses spoke up on day three of David Schuman’s case against his housing cooperative, Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (GHI), for its failure to prohibit the nuisance created by his townhome neighbors, the Popovics’, secondhand smoke.

        Courtroom and Plaintiff’s Townhome Register Similar Carcinogen Levels

        But, an incident from Repace’s testimony Thursday came back into play Friday during cross examination. Goecke pointed out that on Thursday, while demonstrating the carcinogen monitor, Repace had measured the concentration of carcinogens in the court room — which is in a smoke-free building — and the amount he recorded there was similar to what Repace had reported recording in Schuman’s townhome in July of 2011.


        Guess where ole Repace set his carcinogen meter up at in the Schumans home……..Kitchen where cooking was done!

        For those who remember the Schuman vs. Popovic case where James Repace (the self proclaimed second hand smoke expert) where the plaintiff (the anti-smoker neighbor) lost, you’d be happy to know that he also lost his appeal with the court finding the following about Repace:

        ”The court also found that Repace had some bias because he was the father of one of Mr. Schuman’s friends.
        Finally, Repace tested the courthouse – – where smoking was prohibited – – for nicotine in the
        air and the reading was similar to the reading he had received in Schuman’s home.”

        Full appeal court decision here: http://www.gazette.net/assets/pdf/PN13929175.pdf

        • If you’re interested in the Schuman case, here’s another article:


          AND… you’ll notice the thread of 323 comments beneath it. Those comments are notable because Repace himself, with his usual over-inflated ego, jumped right in to “clear things up” and ended up running away from 13 separate requests that he clarify a single claim he’d made. He eventually went to other boards to complain about the “tobacco industry spammers” (heh, US!) and he was far enough out of line that I indicated to two of the webmasters that he’d laid grounds for possible libel. They quickly made his claims disappear, but not before I’d documented the whole thing iCytes (see pgs 368/69 of TobakkoNacht (TAE) for a brief but informative summary if you want to skip the 323 comments etc. LOL!

          Hmm.. OK… I also did a sort of mini summary in my last comment at the Patch about two years ago. I’d forgotten that because, for a while, the Patch article’s comments had disappeared. They reappeared at some point after I left a note there pointing people to where I’d saved them on an iCyte page.

          In any event, here’s that last posting:

          Schuman had his condo rates go up (along with everyone else in the condos there) to pay for the expenses incurred by the Association in fighting his lawsuit. I believe he has appealed the case supposedly at his own expense, probably at the urging of the SmokeFree DC folks and Mr. Repace.

          Meanwhile, Mr. Repace’s comment about me on SmokeFree DC (a comment which I considered to be libelous since referring to me as one of a group of “industry moles” indicated a hidden and paid relationship with the tobacco industry) has been removed after sitting up there for quite some time in public view. See:


          SmokeFree DC refused to publish my response letter at all and has since replaced both letters with a short, unsigned, antismoking post that was supposedly posted to them between the two. You can see the replacement letter, along with my (still invisible to the public and held in moderation letter as they appeared on DC site on Dec. 12th) at:


          Repace extended his charge in a letter to the Patch community urging that Patch shut down my ability to state arguments against him, calling me a “semi-pro tobacco industry spammer” and an “industry mole”:


          His charge sat there for two months until I answered it. The charge & my defense were then evidently removed.

          – MJM

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Oh I remember Mike like it was yesterday! That shit got hot and it truly was the end of Repace as a authority in BS after that round. He brought it all upon himself. Its ashame people with the brain power to actually earn real degrees and PHD’s letting hatred rive not only them but their professional lives as well. But then Grant moochers I guess are about the lowest form od scum next to those providing the moocher funds. Look how many professionals have basically ruined their own careers in pursuit of Voodoo junk science and the cost of lost public confidence in science,law and the system in general. Public health being enemy number 1 as the 80% poll this week showed in the UK!

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Mike the last 3 links are all dead………damn it.


          That page was not found.

          Sorry. Perhaps you typed the wrong address?

        • OK… the links are posted but because they’re just links they’ve triggered the moderation filter. Frank will probably approve them after his morning coffee ‘n smoke.


        • Frank Davis says:

          I can’t “approve” the links, because they’re genuine bad (truncated) links. I suggest MJM repost them.

          Correction. I hadn’t noticed that MJM had reposted them, but they were awaiting approval.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Thanks Mike Got them lil brats locked up now in a file

    • Some French bloke says:

      “The study concluded that median household levels of fine particular matter[…] were roughly 40 per cent lower in buildings with blanket bans on smoking, at 4.8 micrograms per cubic metre versus 8.1.

      The first question would have to be: is that 4.8 figure to be taken as some kind of universal marking: i.e. would it represent the average exposure level in an average smoke-free building in Bolivia or in Nepal – or in some nearby ‘cancer alley’ for that matter -, or solely in their 17 ‘households without resident smokers’?
      The next (or primary) question would have to be: so what?
      If ETS accounts for 3.3 extra micrograms per cubic meter then each of its 4,000 or so chemical compounds comprising the ‘fine particular matter” would contribute an average of 850 femtograms to the mix (a femtogram being one thousandth of a billionth gram)…
      Even if 60 of these compounds are ‘suspected’ carcinogens all that amounts to is 51 nanograms (billionths of a gram) of ‘suspected’ carcinogens per cubic meter.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    We got em on the run Frank and we aint quittin til the last Yankee Prohibitionist is run out on a rail as that’s where all this shit started in yankee land after the civilwar. I was watching how the states were made and the guy nailed all of it from source to outcome and he even included tobacco in his examples not just alcohol and other so called sins. Yankee abolishionists those against slavery and radical religious fanatics like John Brown were also behind demon rum and anti- tobacco drives.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

  4. LOL! Frank, you’re right up there with the Louvre! Wonderfully done guy!


  5. junican says:

    “So roll on, Deborah Arnott & co. Do your worst. It will only serve to stiffen resistance to the bully state you work for.”
    I agree entirely, which is why I think that Simon Clark has the wrong attitude to requests for responses from newspapers to the press releases of ASH (equals the College of Physicians, which owns ASH) et al. In my opinion, it would be better if Forest concentrated on its relationships with MPs and such. Why allow your organisation to be used by the MSM for its own purposes? If Forest does respond, it ought to give not one inch. Smoking in cars with 17 year old kids present? No evidence whatsoever of harm. “Smoke in cars 17 times more dense than X?” 17 times zero harm equals zero harm. In other words, either take the opportunity to deny everything or do not respond at all. Simon, bless him, seems to think that the count of his appearances and quotes is important. It is not. What is said – or not said – is what is important. But what is really sad about Forest is that it is underfunded and weak – not SC’s fault. (Which leads me to another point. If tobacco companies fund Forest to a certain extent, why not exploit that fact? Make ASH explain the source of their funding. Brag about it!!)
    The one really, really important tyranny has been the smoking ban. Everything else (except perhaps the vicious persecution of the poorest people by taxes) pales into insignificance.
    But one can analyse the situation in an interesting way. One could ask:
    1. “What measures hurt people?”
    2. “What measures damage things?”

    The smoking ban ‘hurt’ smokers and independent publicans especially. It ‘damaged’ the things called pubcos. A car smoking ban would ‘hurt’ drivers. PP would ‘damage’ those things called tobacco companies.
    Thus, the new TV advert is of no real importance to me, in itself, because it does not hurt me. It is just words and pictures. Ecig manufacturers could make a killing by following each showing of the obscene ‘rotting’ advert with an ecig advert.
    You are right. Bring it on. Do your worst, Tobacco Control Industry. The more that you push, the greater the resistance. The more that you lie and cheat, the sooner people will realise the truth.

    • Frank Davis says:

      You are right. Bring it on. Do your worst, Tobacco Control Industry. The more that you push, the greater the resistance. The more that you lie and cheat, the sooner people will realise the truth.


      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Was there ever any doubt!

      • Rose says:

        A weird thing happened last night. I was watching Battleship and in the advert break, to my surprise, they played last years anti-tobacco Christmas Special on Dirty Blood instead of the new one. Perhaps they just got the tapes mixed up but this years one is ludicrous.

  6. Rose says:

    Thank you for posting the report, Frank, it made for very pleasant reading.
    440,000 visits in a year is pretty impressive for an online cyber pub.

    • nisakiman says:

      It’s our ‘local’, and Frank is our affable and occasionally grumpy host. We come here to chew the fat, exchange ideas and offer opinions. It’s a thoroughly comfortable environment. That there is also a great deal of passing trade is testament to Frank’s skills as a host.

      I’m just coming up to midnight here in Hanoi, so a Happy and prosperous New Year to all the regulars. And the visitors. May 2015 be good for all of us.


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      That’s 440,000 smokers lives saved Frank.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Public places bans backed by environmentalists

    editor | December 30, 2014

    Environmental experts have called for strict implementation of India’s ban on tobacco smoking in enclosed public places as a way of restricting where cigarette butts are discarded, according to an IANS (Indo-Asian News Service) story.

    The non-biodegradable nature of a cigarette butt, which comprised a hazardous solid waste, meant that it was challenging to deal with, environmentalist M.K. Prasad was quoted as saying in a statement.

    The butts contained dangerous chemicals such as cadmium, arsenic and lead.

    ‘Stricter implementation of laws on public smoking will not only improve public health but also restrict environmental damage,’ said Prasad.

    ‘Developed countries have woken up to this fact and have undertaken steps to identify the enormity of the problem. According to one estimate, the overall littering rate for cigarette butts in America is 65 percent.’

    • Rose says:

      The butts contained dangerous chemicals such as cadmium, arsenic and lead

      I thought that India grew it’s own tobacco.

      Arsenic, cadmium, and lead in California cropland soils: role of phosphate and micronutrient fertilizers.

      “Phosphate and micronutrient fertilizers contain potentially harmful trace elements, such as arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb). We investigated if application of these fertilizer increases the As, Cd, and Pb concentrations of the receiving soils. More than 1000 soil samples were collected in seven major vegetable production regions across California.

      Benchmark soils (no or low fertilizer input) sampled in 1967 and re-sampled in 2001 served as a baseline. Soils were analyzed for total concentrations of As, Cd, Pb, P, and Zn. The P and Zn concentrations of the soils were indicators of P fertilizer and micronutrient inputs, respectively. Results showed that the concentrations of these elements in the vegetable production fields in some production areas of California had been shifted upward.”

      Nothing like a bit of selective information to further the cause, eh? Never mind the cigarette ends, what about the vegetables?

      Another reason I always use manure.

  8. garyk30 says:

    Happy and Blessed New Year to all

  9. smokingscot says:

    Sod some museum in France.

    Your place beats the living daylights out of all bar a half dozen towns for overseas visitor numbers and none of this rot about having to get there and back, nor having to put up with loud music, nor being talked over, smelly loo’s and such. Oh, and no chance of being ripped off.

    357 post in one year. That’s ultra impressive. Thank you all for a fine year and fingers crossed we see a thudding great jack hammer crunching its way into Westminster in 2015, before it’s pointed at the DoH.


  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    New York Court Upholds Ban On Outdoor Smoking In Parks

    A ban on outdoor smoking in New York parks was upheld Wednesday by a midlevel court, reversing a judge and dismissing a challenge filed by a smokers’ rights group.

    ALBANY, N.Y. (CBSNewYork/AP) – A ban on outdoor smoking in New York parks was upheld Wednesday by a mid-level court, reversing a judge and dismissing a challenge filed by a smokers’ rights group.

    The Appellate Division, ruling unanimously, said the ban was consistent with the mission of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, “to allow all patrons to enjoy the fresh air and natural beauty of its outdoor facilities.”

    The five justices concluded the agency didn’t usurp the Legislature’s authority with regulations that banned smoking at state parks in New York City and at designated areas at other parks around the state. The panel acknowledged there’s no specific legislative directive to restrict park smoking outdoors.

    They noted the Legislature has prohibited smoking at indoor public spaces and expressed “its determination that tobacco smoke, including secondhand smoke, is hazardous to one’s health.”

    “Furthermore, the record does not indicate that the designation of no smoking areas continues to be the subject of great public debate,” Justice Karen Peters wrote. “In fact, 91 percent of the comments that respondents received on this rule were favorable and many commenters expressed their desire that smoking be banned outright in all state parks.”

    The rules established no-smoking areas in February 2013 at various parks statewide, including popular beaches and all nine state parks within New York City. The city has a separate outdoor smoking ban for its parks and beaches, which had City Council backing and wasn’t challenged in this lawsuit.

    Judge George Ceresia ruled last fall that state parks officials exceeded their authority, ordering they stop enforcing the outdoor ban and take down the signs. He noted that the Legislature had previously considered but failed to enact an outdoor ban.

    A call to the parks office was not immediately returned.

    Edward Paltzik, attorney for NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, said he’s disappointed Ceresia’s ruling was overturned and will encourage his client to appeal. He had called the previous ruling “a vindication of individual rights in the face of government overreach.”


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      So the court had actually no legal justification to allow the ban to go forward and decided on its own that because of the indoor ban outdoors is somehow the same as smoking indoors….absolutey Nutz! Insanity and then also using so called opinions expressed by likely anti-tobacco groups to also use as justification for illegally and it is illegally disallowing smoking outdoors as he court even states as much as the state refused to do it which is the legal authority to do such to start with.
      I think we all know what this is called LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH!

      This decision is the classic example of using NO PROOF to let a smoking ban go into effect. Excuses and nothing else is what they did…………

      What does a judge mean by debate on this has waned and popular opinion etc etc…………..that’s total BULL SHIT and they know it. It has no legal bearing what so ever in a court of law NONE!

      Furthermore, the record does not indicate that the designation of no smoking areas continues to be the subject of great public debate,” Justice Karen Peters wrote. “In fact, 91 percent of the comments that respondents received on this rule were favorable and many commenters expressed their desire that smoking be banned outright in all state parks.”

      In fact, 91 percent of the comments ……….WHAT you wanna bet that was str8 from tobacco free kids………..ehh! I hope this judge enjoys her BRIBE as that’s what it woulda took to write such trash with str8 face and call it legal law! There is no standing for it anywhere in law.

      Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Your Liberties are your rights!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Lord if Im this mad I can just see Audrey sizzling………

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          There is no standing for it anywhere in law. Opinion polls are not evidence in a case like this anyhow. Its simply here say and has no legal standing in any written law anywhere. Its not allowable as evidence yet they did it anyway. Youd think John Banzhaft of ASH wrote the opinion for the court as its using all their normal advocacy dribble as a rule of law! BS!

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        Since the courts have been compromised there is little chance of a fair hearing. Just like in Nazi Germany where the courts were ‘coordinated’ by the parrot. The compromised judges were ultimately tried at Nuremberg (at the Jurists’ Trial of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings). Since judicial process has been politicized the only viable solution is political pressure.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Rebellion sounds good too! Now whered I see those 15,000 tanks just up the road from me at Ft Knox……………Oh in a building named HOLDER with level upon level of underground storage of armored vehicles.

        • Smoking Lamp says:

          I think auto-correct is a conspiracy. “Parrot” above should have been party.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Police In Scotland Tweet Out Plans To ‘Investigate’ Any ‘Offensive Comments’ On Social Media

    from the really-guys? dept

    So we just had a story about a 19-year-old guy being arrested for making a (bad) joke tweet about an out of control garbage truck. The Northumbria police who arrested Ross Loraine are insisting that the bad joke was a “malicious communication” under The Communications Act. Many people have been calling out this rather ridiculous attack on free speech, but police in Scotland seem to be doubling down. They just sent out the following tweet:

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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