What are the Psychological Effects of Smoking Bans?

H/T Rose:

“NHS chiefs have sparked outrage by banning smoking within the grounds of all the mental health facilities in East Lancashire.

It means patients detained under the Mental Health Act are forced to abstain from smoking during the course of their admission, as they are unable to leave the premises.

Bosses said the policy, which also covers e-cigarettes, follows national guidance and patients will instead be offered nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or chewing gum.

But staff and campaigners have raised serious concerns, saying the ban could lead to increased agitation, aggression and violence on the wards.

One nurse, who asked not to be named for fear of being disciplined, said: “What I have observed so far is a significant increase in patient harm due to the ban. Violence has increased, with emotional distress and frustration subsequently having a detrimental effect on patients.”

And Rose again:

Drug use, smoking ban stoking mental health unit’s violence: union
2014

“The impact of smoking bans at the unit is also a concern for ACT Mental Health Consumer Network executive officer Dalane Drexler.

“Consumers are reporting to us that it’s a significant concern for them,” she said.

“Not only do we have people in there who are saying that there are violent incidents surrounding smoking and it’s not always the smokers who are becoming aggressive, we also have reports from consumers who won’t admit for voluntary treatment because they’re a smoker and they don’t want to be forced not to smoke when they’re already in a very distressed state.

“When somebody is mentally unwell and they lack capacity to make decisions, they’re a risk to possibly others and certainly themselves, that is not the time to be forcing somebody to stop smoking.”

I share the disgust expressed in the comments. And in particular Magnetic’s:

If an involuntary patient is asking for a cigarette, they obviously don’t want to quit. Forcing smoking cessation on them is going beyond the scope of treatment permitted for the patient and violating informed consent (either patient or court). It’s bureaucrats and antismoking activist bigots terribly messing with vulnerable patients. Mental patients are not some experimental quantity whose entire lives are at the complete disposal/whim of psychiatrists/bureaucrats. There is very serious misconduct occurring here. The problem is that an ideological crusade – the smokefree “utopia” – now trumps the humane treatment of patients. It is a cruelty inflicting further distress and anguish on mental patients masqueraded as “duty of care”, i.e., iatrogenic.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Tobacco Control must be destroyed, and every single last one of the bastards kicked out of the medical profession and wherever else they are to be found. And we could do with a Nuremberg trial for the worst offenders.

But never mind mental patients. After reading this, I found myself wondering what the psychological impact of smoking bans on ordinary sane people might be. Because it’s not really as if there are two discrete groups of sane and insane people, but a sort of continuum (and I very often count the psychiatrists among the insane).

What is the response of ordinary people to being excluded, demonised, and threatened? What is their response to being made into second class citizens?

I don’t really know, to be honest. For as a social outcast, I spend very little time talking to people these days. So I have little idea. I really only what my response has been. I used to count the 1960s as the most ‘disturbing’ period in my life, but now I think that the present day is the most disturbing. Because back in the 60s my ‘hippie’ period only lasted 4 or 5 years, after which I ‘came down’. But smoking ban has now lasted over 7 years, and has quite knocked me sideways, and brought numerous changes of attitude. And there seems to be no way to ‘come down’.

I think the main psychological effect I’ve felt is anger. I felt angry on 1 July 2007, when the ban came in, and I’ve remained angry ever since. In the beginning I would sometimes spend whole days in rage, to the point that I began to worry that I might suffer some sort of apoplectic fit. I don’t get that angry now, but it remains a smouldering underground fire that can burst into flame easily, and quite frequently does. I’m a much angrier person that I was before 2007.

Wiel Maessen once asked me whether I was depressed, and seemed to disbelieve me when I told him I wasn’t – which left me guessing that maybe Wiel or his Dutch friends were. But somehow anger trumps depression. And I far prefer being angry to being depressed.

Neither do I feel in the least bit lonely, despite hardly knowing anyone any more. But this blog is probably a big help in that respect. George Speller once commented, “But you’ve still got us.” At the time that didn’t seem much to be glad of, but now I think he was right. I may have lost a lot of my face-to-face friends, but I seem to have won quite a few from all over the world – which is a rather wonderful thing. I’ve left one local community, and joined a global community.

But what about everyone else? Is there any way of measuring the psychological state of a population? Count the number of meds they’re on? I’ve no idea.

In summer, I occasionally meet up with a few acquaintances I’ve made in my new Herefordshire locality. And the smokers all seem to be quite cheerful. But I know from the ISIS survey, which included a few of them, that they’ve been suffering just as much as everyone else. But they seem to just carry on as if nothing was happening. They don’t talk about the smoking ban. They just carry on smoking anyway. Perhaps it’s a sort of wartime ‘blitz spirit’. They won’t let things get them down. And anyway the cure for everything is a cup of tea and a cigarette.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

65 Responses to What are the Psychological Effects of Smoking Bans?

  1. wobbler2012 says:

    I said this on Twitter but will repeat it here as I have more characters.

    It takes a very sick kind of motherfucker that would deprive a person in a very poor mental state a cigarette or an e-cig. These people making these rules up are demented bastards. A lot of it based in the SHS bullcrap and even if there were damage from SHS they won’t even let these people light up outside. I’m with you Frank, these fuckers need to be destroyed. Man I’m mentally sound (I hope) and a non-smoker but this shit makes me very angry. These people with mental issues need help in their hour of need, not this nanny state ban bullshit.

    • Lepercolonist says:

      wobbler2012, I love your posts. Keep’em coming brother.

    • Even the crazies can see thru the BULLSHIT…………The crazy ones are the Nazis look at the shit they can think up………….

    • absolutely!

      Those health nazis are showing their true faces, in how they treat people who cannot defend themselves. How they deprive them of their only hope, the only thing that they can look forward to. At a very difficult time in those people’s lives.

      Those health nazis remind me of the Spanish Inquisition, of guards in concentration camps, living out their cruel and inhuman viciousness on defenseless victims. Reveling in their unlimited power over defenseless human beings. Enjoying the desperation of their victims.

      They make me sick.

      • Some French bloke says:

        “They make me sick.”

        Same here. The main problem with this modern-day “Spanish Inquisition” being not that ‘nobody expects it’, but that hardly anybody seems to notice it, its myriad implications and far-reaching consequences, hence the lack of significant organized opposition.

  2. kin_free says:

    This appears appropriate here;
    http://www.euract.eu/resources/documents/finish/23-documents/209-the-death-of-humane-medicine-and-the-rise-of-coercive-healthism-petr-skrabanek–1994
    Death of Humane Medicine
    ‘The roads to unfreedom are many. Signposts on one of them bear the inscription HEALTH FOR ALL’. The pursuit of health is a symptom of unhealth. When this pursuit is no longer a personal yearning but part of a state ideology, healthism for short, it becomes a symptom of political sickness. Extreme versions of healthism provide a justification for racism, segregation and eugenic control since ‘healthy’ means patriotic, pure, while ‘unhealthy’ equals foreign, polluted.”

    “…In a weak version of healthism, as encountered in western democracies, the state goes beyond education and information on matters of health and uses propaganda and various forms of coercion to establish norms of a ‘healthy lifestyle’ for all. Human activities are divided into approved and disapproved, prescribed and proscribed, responsible and irresponsible.”
    “Politicians find the facile rhetoric of healthism rewarding. It increases their popularity at no cost, and it enhances their power to control the population.”
    Petr Skrabanek 1994

    “weak version of healthism” in 1994 is becoming extreme today. Western democracies are treating their aged, infirm, ill and injured with increasing inhumanity, verging on torture.

  3. nisakiman says:

    I am by nature a very easy-going, live and let live type of person, and any anger I have is generally very short-lived. But as I’ve articulated on a number of occasions here and elsewhere, the ban on mental patients smoking when they’ve been incarcerated makes me so angry that I can’t really find the words to express how much I despise the bastards who have imposed their warped morality on the helpless; the ones who find themselves in the clutches of this monstrous system. I become incandescent with rage when I think about it. It is just so unnecessarily cruel, and it is the cruelty of the gloating bully who knows that his victim has no recourse to retaliation in any way, shape or form.

    I feel the same, albeit to a lesser extent, about the bans in hospital grounds. To subject patients and their families to the indignity and discomfort of going out onto the street (which in many cases is a considerable distance from the hospital building) to have a cigarette, which will do them far more psychological good that it will do (even if you believe the hype) physical harm is just pure malignant insanity. I have nothing but contempt for the disgusting creatures who inflict these pointless torments on people who they are supposed to be caring about. I’m not vindictive, but I would welcome their very public humiliation. Preferably endlessly.

  4. waltc says:

    Completely OT. On that (questionable?) report that 2014 had ” record-breaking” heat –though way down in the NYT coverage we learn it was only by something like a hundredth of a degree — we get this quote:

    “The steady and now record-breaking rise in average global temperatures is not an issue for another day,” Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who is spending tens of millions of dollars of his personal fortune to battle climate change, said in a statement. “It’s a clear and present danger that poses major economic, health, environmental and geopolitical risks.”

    Good. Anything’s good if it diverts his money and boundless energy away from fighting us.

  5. waltc says:

    Also OT–a list of the CDC’s sins. Note the money devoted to “healthy living” programs while people die of unchecked disease

    http://nypost.com/2015/01/14/disease-uncontrolled-swift-decline-of-the-cdc/

    • carol2000 says:

      “The CDC’s budgeteers slashed $85 million from domestic preparedness, adding instead $80 million for grants to community organizations for “healthy living” — funds easily misused for political activism.”

      “Misused”? But political activism is their intended purpose.

      “CDC Director Frieden, who battled big sodas as New York City’s health commissioner, has embraced the Nanny State.”

      Another Clueless One. It’s scientific fraud, not “nannyism,” and the CDC has been at the forefront of it for more than four decades.

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        So I guess the threat of terrorism (including bioattacks) has diminished? Remember anthrax anyone? In a time when terrorist attacks are once again on the rise, they fund antismoking, anti-soft drink propaganda exercises. This funding should be going to the Epidemiological Intelligence Service and response to acute communicable disease outbreaks!

      • waltc says:

        It’s both, Carol. Since it’s quite possible to have nannyism w/o fraud and fraud w/o nannyism.

        • carol2000 says:

          Fraud is a serious matter. Fraud misrepresents matters of fact upon which policy is based. Fraud utterly destroys any grounds for trust in the integrity and accountability of the government. Fraud by the government is an act of war against its people. Nannyism is merely annoying. To call them “nannies” is a declaration of trust and belief in their crap. It whitewashes their crimes and rationalizes inaction and acquiescence. Anybody who calls them merely “nannies” is guaranteed to do nothing about them.

        • Rose says:

          Call it classic British understatement, Carol, we all know exactly what they are.
          I think that you will find in most cases, Nanny, is used as a term of contempt.

        • carol2000 says:

          It seems more like people do not know what they are, because they never denounce the method of the fraud. And “a term of contempt,” so what. Even a little kiddie can use a term of contempt (and is being more daring to do so).

        • junican says:

          Carol is right. Nanny says, “Naught boy/girl!”. Bully hits out.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Nazi state is even better.

        • carol2000 says:

          Especially the pseudo-science based on lifestyle questionnaires. However, the Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance, because nobody then knew about the role of infection. But today’s anti-smokers CANNOT hide behind that excuse. They’re simply ignoring it.

        • Rose says:

          Sssh Frank. : )

          The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45.
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf

        • carol2000 says:

          It’s not “little known.” It is periodically mentioned in the mass media. And Robert N. Proctor, whom you seem to think is some kind of hero for doing so, praises their garbage as “sophisticated,” which is not surprising considering that anti-smoker scientific fraud is based on it.

        • Rose says:

          Never assume anything, Carol.

          “little known” is part of the title and it was little known in 1996, except for the likes of Richard Doll.

          War of words

          17 July 1999 by Richard Doll, Oxford

          “Robert Proctor is correct in thinking that few people know much about the public health measures of Hitler’s physicians , but he is wrong to imply that scientists have been ignorant of the medical research of the period. Opinions may differ about its quality and the conclusions that could be drawn from it, but it is just plain wrong to say that “Richard Doll . . . knew nothing of the Schairer and Schöniger article until he [Proctor] sent him a copy in 1997″. I published its findings in an article on the causes of lung cancer in Advances in Cancer Research, vol 3, p 9 in 1955 and have invariably referred to it in appropriate circumstances ever since.”

          http: //www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321956.100

          I do not regard Proctor as a hero.

          Here is an article on his interference with witnesses for which the judge described him as the lowest of the low.

          UF students caught in middle of tobacco case’s controversy – 2009

          “To advance your own cause at the expense of graduate students trying to get through college strikes this court as appalling,” Judge Williams Parsons wrote in an order restricting Proctor’s contact with witnesses.”

          “These graduate students were doing totally appropriate work,” he said. “It’s a shame that someone that has an interest in the litigation would seek to interfere with them.”

          “The Volusia County judge’s order called Proctor’s behavior “the lowest of the low.” It ordered him to have no contact with witnesses among other orders about his testimony.

          Proctor said the issue was a “classic tobacco industry distraction.”

          http://www.gainesville.com/article/20091208/ARTICLES/912081008/1118?p=1&tc=pg

          Here he is again smearing “the father of American occupational carcinogenesis,” Wilhelm Hueper and staunch opponent of anti-tobacco as a Nazi.

          Dr Huepers Secret
          By Robert Proctor
          http://partners.nytimes.com/books/first/p/proctor-cancer.html

          I only posted the link in support of Frank’s statement, I’m surprised that you took issue with it

        • carol2000 says:

          I remember learning about the Nazis’ anti-smoking activities in school, and it’s well known among present company, so Frank’s mention of them doesn’t need supporting as if people are going to doubt him. And it’s not the title I was responding to. You seem to think it’s a revelation because you said “Sssh Frank. : ).” And as for “‘the father of American occupational carcinogenesis,’ Wilhelm Hueper and staunch opponent of anti-tobacco as a Nazi,” Proctor and Hueper are peas in a pod as far as their pseudo-science is concerned. Occupational carcinogenesis is as much a pile of crap as anti-tobacco and for the same reason: They ignore the role of infection. For all practical purposes, they’re both Nazis. Pot meets kettle. And Proctor praises it as “sophisticated.”

        • Frank Davis says:

          One way you can tell that Richard Doll was lying about not knowing about Nazi research is that the London Hospital study references a 1939 paper by Franz Müller. Really what he was doing was continuing it.

        • Rose says:

          You seem to think it’s a revelation because you said “Sssh Frank

          Another misinterpretation, Carol, if you really must know why I said Sssh Frank with a smile was because we all know that they don’t like reminding of the fact and for the benefit of anyone new to this, I gave the link.

          Oddly enough, when I make a flippant remark to Frank, I am not addressing you.

  6. Lepercolonist says:

    Since the ban: more anger, defiance and skepticism for me .

    We used to have a bi-weekly poker game among co-workers. The host remarried a woman who does not tolerate smoking in her house. Smokers must go outside with their filthy habit. Even though she has 3 dogs, 2 cats and a parrot. That was the end of our friendly poker game. I refuse to be treated like a barnyard animal.

  7. John Mallon says:

    Frank,

    Here in Ireland where our ban is going into its eleventh year, the only two indoor public settings are prisons and mental institutions. This fact was/is in recognition that a ban there would lead to violence and deaths among staff and inmates, (as it were).

    Like you also, millions of us of normal health with no criminal convictions have opted to stay home four out of five times and in doing so have discovered how cheap alcohol is when consumed in the home as well. As Irish drink driving laws make even a single glass of beer an offense, it is easier to remain in your own home with a beer/s and a smoke/s.

    Sad but true.

  8. mikef317 says:

    Ask people why they smoke; other than enjoyment, you usually get two answers.

    1) Cognitive enhancement. Many smokers say that tobacco improves their mental abilities. They can concentrate harder and longer; memory access is easier, and reaction time swifter. This isn’t subjective opinion. Take a group of people; give half nicotine, and half a placebo. Test everyone with math problems. Those exposed to nicotine finish the test faster and more accurately. Equally, give a group of people a simulated car driving test. When presented with unforeseen events (child runs into the road!) subjects exposed to nicotine react faster than those given a placebo.

    Math problems and car simulations are trivial, but millions of people earn their living with mental skills. Despite the alleged risks of smoking (lung cancer!), for many people, anything that improves the mind will be considered (correctly or not) as an offsetting benefit.

    I’m retired now, but when I worked I wrote user manuals for computer systems. I also tested programs for bugs and assisted users when they couldn’t get the programs to work. (Almost none of this was routine; everything was a new problem to be solved.) Except for the bane of corporate life (meetings!) I spent most of my day working on a PC, using my mind and fingers.

    My workday was filled with coffee and cigarettes. (Why coffee? I’m a “night owl,” and was always “sleep deprived” adapting to the 9 to 5 workday. Hence lots of coffee to keep awake.) Why cigarettes – hell, I could work faster and better.

    My efficiency was definitely reduced when smoking was banned in offices. Instead of smoking and typing words into a computer, I was down on the street, thinking of the words I would type when I returned to my desk. (And maybe I wouldn’t remember the exact words.) Instead of work, work, work, with uninterrupted concentration, it was work – go for a cigarette – work – go for another cigarette – work, cigarette, etc., etc. This made me much less productive. (In my opinion, this wasn’t due to being away from my desk – it was the result of not being able to stimulate my mind with nicotine at the exact time and to the exact degree that I wanted my mind stimulated.)

    ——————————————-

    2) Stress regulation. Nicotine can both decrease and increase stress depending on your initial mental state.

    High stress. Job interview. Take a test at school. Argue with your spouse. You are stressed. Smoking reduces stress.

    Low stress. Wake up in the morning. Eat a big dinner and get lethargic. Have a cigarette (and maybe coffee or tea for caffeine). Nicotine will make you more alert; it increases your stress level, so you don’t return to bed in the morning or take a nap after dinner.

    Controlling stress is one of the reasons why I smoke. Everybody gets stressed, but someone with a mental disorder is almost by definition under a continual state of stress. It’s hardly surprising that these people smoke (and maybe even “need” to smoke). To deprive them of tobacco is to remove one way that they’ve found of coping with their illness. How does this help a mental patient? It almost certainly hurts them.

    ——————————————-

    Re “ordinary” people, social isolation, etc. I basically agree. I started to write something about my own experience, but wasn’t happy with the words. Maybe I’ll post another comment if I can get the words to work.

    At any rate, good night from New York.

  9. This is not NEW. It’s just been picked up by the press….and made official

    In 2008 one of my children, in psychosis, courageously admitted herself to a psychiatric ward in the UK. She was assured she’d be able to smoke.

    Within twenty four hours of arriving, I discovered she’d been put on the “Nicotine Patch System” – which, every smoker knows, is NOT a substitute for smoking, but only a supply of nicotine. All the other chemicals to which the body is used, are suddenly withdrawn, leaving one shaky and distressed and emotionally unreliable. How disgusting it is to add that stress to the suffering of an already tortured soul unable to leave the wards like ordinary patients could do then (2008) who could smoke outside, forcing them to give up something that has been a self medication and comfort, and undermining their recovery!

    The “anti smoking” drive has infiltrated even into places where it is NOT APPROPRIATE. Damn them. But they were already doing it in 2008….the extra and unnecessary suffering our daughter went through STILL infuriates me even now.

    To ban vaping too, shows us who really has a mental health problem. :-(

  10. theonlygoodeuisadeadeu says:

    http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080723/full/news.2008.980.html

    Gates & Bloomberg => WHO => ‘Public’ Health England/NI/Scotland/Wales =>
    NICE (to do the fake lobbying) => so-called NHS Chiefs => You

    The NWO in a nutshell.

  11. Jay Nunga says:

    I used to enjoy quite a good social life, visited pubs, went to the local races, and community events, up until this obsession with smoking bans. Even when smokers had to go outside, I could enjoy the pub beer garden, (I live in Australia so the weather was usually good enough to enjoy being outside), and the smokers were always, (and I do mean always), the most interesting and fun people to be around. Even many non-smokers wanted to join us, and weren’t particularly bothered by the smoke, (it seems the ones that worried about SHS weren’t the ones going to the pub anyway). Now there is no smoking in beer gardens, smokers are shoved out onto the street, or out behind the toilets, so I no longer go to the pub. Vapers are treated with the same hatred, so even though I no longer smoke, I don’t go to the pubs.

    I used to enjoy going to cafes and catching up with friends, always being sure to use the outside tables if I wanted a smoke, now that is no longer an option, so I don’t go to cafes anymore.

    Now I vape at home, and visit my friends in their homes. It seems I am not alone in this, as the cafes and pubs in my town are slowly but surely dying, many have closed, and no new ones are opening. The pubs are simply places where teenagers go to get drunk. The cafes now make most of their money selling take away coffee.

    I’m past being angry. Now I just watch the once thriving town centre become a dead zone, except for tourists, and teenage binge drinkers on the weekends. Those non-smokers who wanted all these bans were never the ones who patronised those businesses anyway, so they don’t care if they close down.

    Places and events are now “family friendly”, no smoking , no drinking alcohol, and are now few and far between, because the numbers are just not there to support these events. I know many people that don’t go because they do not want to spend an evening with a bunch of parents with young children.

    Where and when will it end ? I don’t know, the fascists are in charge, they lie, they oppress, they steal the enjoyment out of life to line their own pockets. Will people wake up? I don’t know, many seem to be brainwashed to the point of supporting their own oppression.

    • carol2000 says:

      It fits right in with how they’ve rigged the system so that the wealthy are doing better than ever while the masses sink deeper in misery. The dead zones are the world that they’ve created for US, while the little enclaves catering to the rich are doing just fine, thank you. Then their media patsies focus on the little enclaves and gush that smoking bans don’t hurt business.

  12. Frank Davis says:

    In respect of taking more meds:

    People in France have reportedly consumed a record number of tranquilizers over the week that followed the deadly Charlie Hebdo attack, with the intake increasing by 20 percent in just a few days.

  13. You have your own guinea pig wandered back into his cage (no, I hadn’t been sectioned!). As I commented yesterday,

    “There – I’ve said it. I am a mental case. I suffer from depression and “generalised anxiety disorder with agoraphobia”. I haven’t been anywhere in nearly two years,”

    A smoke can calm me right down. It can cheer me right up. It can even stop a potential asthmatic-type fit, although I rarely suffer from it and have never had a fit, but this nips those feelings in the bud. Well not just in the bud, sometimes in almost full-bloom.

    To be deprived of tobacco in custody is a nightmare not worth pondering on. It is cruel and unusual punishment, which makes me wonder how it can possibly be legal and why there aren’t armies of lawyers fighting for their rights. If there are, I must have missed it.

    Same with the 90+% of smokers at the detox clinic who were meant to stay at least four hours a day, five days a week. I imagine few of those people would have signed up for that, which gets me thinking that it’s a deliberate way of saving money and getting rid of the ‘useless eaters’.

  14. Smoking bans and mental health
    J. Snel, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, T +31 20 5256840, E j.snel@uva.nl
    Stress harms health. Intuitively we know that pleasure is a strong antidote to these effects; pleasure is the positive stress in our life. Already in 1936, Selye, the Canadian endocrinologist, distinguished distress or negative stress from eustress, the good stress. People, cope with stress of daily life to find an optimum balance between negative and positive stress. In other words, all the things that give us pleasure, be it a chat with a friend, the enjoyment of a cigarette or celebrating a special occasion, are functional in helping us to maintain this optimum or balance between good and bad stress.
    Not much research has been done on the relevance of positive stress, happiness, fun, pleasure for our health and well being compared to the extensive research on such subjects as misery, hardship, bad health and substance abuse. Man’s nervous system is quite well equipped to experience pleasure. In the centre of our brain we find the so-called emotion lobe or limbic system, the seat of positive and negative emotions. The right half of the brain is relatively more activated by positive moods and experiences. When one feels happy, endorphins are released and more of the neurotransmitter dopamine. More recently, the reward system receives more attention since blocking this system deprives us of some of everyday pleasures such as smoking, good food and other pleasures. Pleasure is a natural part of life.
    Having pleasure is one of the ways to cope with daily hassles, unpleasant life events and depressive mood. Smoking is just one way to cope with stress. Joking, chatting, making a walk or taking an ice cream, may be used to deal with everyday stress. As for smoking, a survey on how offices workers cope with stress shows that 27 % of them enjoy a smoke to do so (Harris Research Centre, 1996).
    The pleasure of smoking not only comes from the effects of nicotine but from the context as well. Effects of smoking are in particular context-dependent. It may explain why only 2 percent has pleasure from it because of its stimulating effects (Harris Research Centre, 1996). Almost half of smokers (46%) enjoy their smoke to relax, a third (32%) to cope with negative stress, and 11% enjoys smoking as a social activity, This picture of smoking as a pleasure is worded in the 1988 New Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary as follows: “ a stimulant is an agent, such as nicotine, which produces a quickly diffused and transient increase of vital energy, activity, and strength in an organism or some part of it.” The Dutch van Dale Dictionary says that a stimulant is: “A substance used for one’s pleasure with no nutritional value but nevertheless the effect of stimulating the appetite and the digestive system, stimulating a cheerful mood, allowing physical and mental tiredness to not be felt, and so forth. For example… tobacco….”
    Paper TICAP J. Snel 31-01-2009
    2
    Motives to smoke Depression or depressive feelings and smoking are often found related. The association between cigarette smoking and depression is thought to arise because depression-prone smokers self-administer nicotine to improve mood. In one of those experiments, regular smokers without a history of major depression disorder and those with current or past major depression disorder smoked either a nicotinized or denicotinized cigarette during four sessions (Spring et al., 2008). They did so after experiencing a negative mood induction or while undergoing a positive mood induction. Previously depressed smokers showed a heightened positive mood response to positive mood induction when smoking a nicotinized cigarette. Nicotine also increased the degree to which positive mood induction dispelled negative mood in depression-vulnerable smokers. Also nicotine worsened the negative affect response to negative mood induction for all groups. Self-administering nicotine appears to improve depression-prone smokers’ emotional response to a pleasant stimulus (Spring et al., 2008).
    The relations between anxiety sensitivity and motivational bases of cigarette smoking, negative affectivity, and emotional dysregulation was evaluated among189 daily cigarette smokers (Gonzalez et al., 2008). It came out that anxiety sensitivity and emotional dysregulation were significantly related to smoking as a coping strategy. Negative affectivity or bad mood was only related to smoking for relaxation (Gonzalez et al., 2008). Whether smoking is induced by motives to be socially competent was studied in a middle and high school male and female student population. High levels of communal mastery withhold adolescent boys’ from smoking (Piko, 2006). It suggests that, adolescent boys smoke as a way to increase their social competence.
    Cultural context and ethnic differences in smoking motives play a role as well as came out from a comparison of smoking motives of school students in Hungary and the United States. For smoking, social motives were predictive only in Hungary, while boredom relief and affect regulation were more predictive in the US (Piko, 2007).
    Reasons for smoking among Black and White smokers, who filled in the Reasons for Smoking Scale and the Smoking Situations Questionnaire (Sanchez-Johnsen et al., 2006) are not much different. Although blacks, as compared to Whites, less strongly endorsed weight concern as a reason for smoking, no differences as a function of ethnicity were found in the motives for smoking: tension reduction, stimulation, handling and relaxation.
    That motives for smoking may have to do with body weight concern was also the aim of research in male and female cigarette smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation study (Hovland & Ceballos, 2007). The normal weight group endorsed smoking for relaxation as well as the sensation of having something to do with one’s hands. The overweight group exhibited a somewhat stronger preference for the stimulant effects of smoking, which might be linked to weight-related issues (Hovland & Ceballos, 2007).
    Whether smoking to reduce negative affect is related to affective vulnerability such as, anxiety sensitivity, anxious arousal, and negative affectivity) among daily smokers
    Paper TICAP J. Snel 31-01-2009
    3
    was the aim of a study among 25 year old adult daily smokers (Gregor et al., 2007). The motivation to smoke to reduce negative affect was significantly related to anxiety sensitivity and negative affectivity, but not to anxious arousal. These results suggest that the control of negative affect is an important smoking motive.
    A study of the relationship between the personality trait, impulsivity or sensation seeking, and smoking was done in 498 adults who answered a self-questionnaire including socio-demographic variables, and items regarding consumption of tobacco (Gurpegui et al., 2007a). After extensive control of confounding it was found that novelty seeking was associated with smoking. The relationship of smoking and novelty seeking was considered by the authors to be associated with low basal dopaminergic activity (Gurpegui et al., 2007a). In other words smoking may be used to enhance dopaminergic neurotransmission in order to control impulsivity. Affect regulation by smoking is not only practiced because of certain personality traits, but also by patients suffering from more serious mood and personality disorders. In general patients with personality disorders score high on smoking. Desire for calmness was the main reason for smoking which was more frequently found in patients with schizophrenia than in those with mood and personality disorders (Gurpegui et al., 2007b). Schizophrenia patients also showed the highest score of the cotinine/creatinine/number of daily cigarettes ratio in comparison with other patients and mood disorder patients (De Beaurepaire et al., 2008). Some people with a mood, attention, anxiety disorder or schizophrenia function permanently less well when they quit smoking (de Schipper, 2005). These findings strongly support the hypothesis that those who are vulnerable for mood and personality disorders self regulate their mood by smoking. In sum, the reasons why people smoke have to do with affect regulation, increase of social competence, pleasure and dealing with negative stress.
    Neurophysiological substrate The neurophysiological substrate of the pleasure of pleasure, reward and reinforcement of behaviour is seated in the reward circuitry of the brain. The pleasure of smoking is no exception. Pre-treatment with AM251, a selective antagonist of the cannabinoid receptor subtype (CB1) receptors found in the reward circuit of the brain, dose-dependently suppressed nicotine self-administration in rats (Shoaib, 2008). Other animal research also showed that disruption of de CB type 1 receptor blocked the nicotine reward. It is also shown in animal research that nicotine enhances the antidepressant-like effects of antidepressiva (Andreasen & Redrobe, 2009). And increasing the endocannabinoid levels magnifies nicotine reward (Merritt et al., 2008). Cannabinoid receptors are co-expressed in the brain reward circuitry and also human studies have suggested that ligands blocking the CB1 receptors may be efficacious to block pleasant habits such as smoking (Singh & Budhiraja, 2008). Both nicotine and cigarette smoking lead to dopamine (DA) release in the ventral striatum/nucleus accumbens, parts of the brain reward circuitry.
    That the pleasure of smoking context-dependent is, was confirmed in habitual smokers who got either denicotinized or regular cigarettes to smoke (Brody et al., 2009). Smoking denicotinized cigarettes led to reduced craving, but less pleasure than smoking regular cigarettes. More smoking was associated with more smoking-related mood improvement, a decrease of blood pressure and greater dopamine release in the
    Paper TICAP J. Snel 31-01-2009
    4
    ventral striatum, part of the reward circuitry in the brain. Also in male and female smokers compared with the placebo, nicotine improved measures of vigilance, memory and attention, improved mood and reduced withdrawal symptoms (Atzori et al., 2008). Repeated nicotine administration can improve cognitive deficits associated with nicotine withdrawal (Atzori et al., 2008). Not only in smoking abstinent smokers nicotine may remediate cognitive-attentional disruption as a cognitive enhancer. There is growing evidence from human laboratory studies on non-abstaining smokers ánd non-smokers that nicotine can have direct facilitative effects on cognitive functioning (Evans & Drobes, 2009). Summarizing: the pleasure of smoking is represented in the reward centre of the brain. Disrupting the chemical balance of the brain by abstinence from smoking increases the risk of depression and psychosis.
    Guilt, shame, stigmatization
    Daily pleasant occurrences (uplifts) and positive life events strengthen the immune system (Barak, 2006; Matsuzaki et al., 2006), also after having a smoke (Atsumi et al., 2008) and support good health (Alpert, 2008; Ryff et al., 2004). The pleasure of having fun and humour in life, the enjoyment of sweets, moderate physical activity, looking at humorous videotapes, laughter, dancing, music, love, they all have one element in common: pleasure. Pleasure promotes, well-being, health and lengthens life (Esch & Stefano, 2004). Is the pleasure of smoking the exception?
    Health promoters, health organisations and self-appointed health experts are very eager to recommend how to live, to be happy, healthy and normal. I quote: “all practitioners and geriatricians in particular, should promote the abstinence from smoking as a behavioural norm for a correct life style (Nicita-Mauro et al., 2008). This obsessive preoccupation with the other’s health is called ‘healthism’ or health tyranny. One is reminded of C. S. Lewis’ quote: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep . . . but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience” in: (Marcus, 2008). Because of the blaming of ‘abnormal’ and ‘sinful’ behaviour people feel guilty and ashamed when enjoying life. A comparison among eight West-European countries shows that from the 12 most common pleasant activities smoking gives most feelings of guilt. Feelings of worthlessness or inappropriate guilt may end in recurrent thoughts of death or suicidal ideation (McGirr et al., 2007) and may lead to difficulties in concentration or indecisiveness. An association between frequency of cigarette smoking and suicidal behaviour is largely explained by background factors and life circumstances, such as depression and anxiety sensitivity (Boden et al., 2008; Feldner et al., 2008). Shame and guilt are factors associated with depression, which is mediated, by worry and rumination (Orth et al., 2006). Smoking induced guilt and shame have a strong negative association with life satisfaction when a smoker is unable to cope adequately with the causes of this guilt, a ban on his pleasure.
    Paper TICAP J. Snel 31-01-2009
    5
    Feelings of guilt and shame, being blamed and socially disapproved form a negative chronic stressor, which is harmful to good health. Chronic stress not only affects our mental health by distracting our attention from the resources we need to stay attentive, and to do what we are doing, but is also the cause of making errors and worsened performance. Chronic stress weakens the immune system and makes us more susceptible to disease and infections such as the common cold.
    Views on health Coercion Paternalism is coercive, in its attempts to force other people to adhere a lifestyle that is not their own. The paternalist’s goal is not to inform per se, but to promote paternalized persons’ welfare as he sees it, hence public misinformation or biased information can be consistent wit paternalism. As a consequence of anti-smoking campaigns, smokers and non-smokers overestimate the health risks of smoking. It implies that accurate information about the health risks of harm for health ánd the chances of benefits would remedy this failure and lead to more smoking (Leonard, 2008). Is it ethically justified to overestimate the health risks of smoking and to withhold the information on benefits of smoking?
    Information on health is of relative truth Two examples: the maximum consumption of eggs recommended by official health institutions lies between 1 and 10 per week (Warburton, 1997) and changes from time to time (Kritchevsky, 2004) The same counts for the number of alcohol drinks per day which is recommended as being safe. This number runs from 2 glasses in Sweden to 7 in Basque country (Harding & Stockley, 2007).
    Opinions of health experts may change over time Coffee was said to raise blood pressure and cause CVD. Scientific evidence now shows that coffee is protective for Parkinson disease and diabetes. Eggs are full of cholesterol, the experts said, so stay away. The present opinion is that eggs not necessarily raise blood cholesterol levels. Not surprisingly, opinions on smoking and health differ among scientists. Smoking may have hormetic benefits that are far outweighed by its dangers (Gems & Partridge, 2008). Cigarette smoke and nicotine are protective against Parkinson’s disease (Quik, 2004; Quik et al., 2008). Quite probably. Nicotine has neurotrophic effects and may induce biotransformation of the enzymes that detoxify compounds that promote Parkinson disease.
    Views on health of experts and patients diverge The relationship of self-rated health to a measure of physical status, based on a professional rating of the individual’s health is low (Unden & Elofsson, 2001). A relatively large number of the health ratings were contradictory. Even among health specialists different opinions exist on how to handle patients who smoke. Thoracic surgeons don’t fully agree on supporting laws on smoking bans, probably based on their personal experiences with the health effects that smoking may have on those who are exposed to it (Dresler et al., 2008). In sum: information and opinions on health may be biased, relative and changeable
    Paper TICAP J. Snel 31-01-2009
    6
    Counterproductive effects Most emphasis is laid on what might be gained by legal prohibition of smoking, but hardly any discussion has focused on what might be lost by enacting such laws. Economic harm Anti-smoking policies reduce smokers’ fun; burden them with feelings of guilt, depression and suicidal ideation, which impair mental health. Impaired mental health, worries, lapses of attention, depressed mood and being seen as a social misfit with deviant, antisocial behaviour may lead to suboptimal task performance and under level work achievement. By that antismoking policies may decrease earnings and thus are likely to have harmful economic effects.
    Enforced loneliness One of the unintended consequences of smoking restrictions is that they push smokers to enjoy their smoking secretly and in solitude. By preventing people from smoking in public, anti-smoking policies eliminate the socializing motive of smoking and by that prevent solidarity and by that a loss of social capital. The increasing stigmatisation of those who continue to smoke, coupled with the spatial segregation as practiced in the hospitality industry and in public places, may produce ‚’smoking islands’ that may serve to reinforce rather than discourage continued smoking (Thompson et al., 2007). From this perspective, anti-smoking campaigns are not only harmful to the mental health of individuals but also to the economy as a whole.
    Traffic accidents An other unintended and unexpected counterproductive consequence of smoking restrictions is an increase of fatal traffic accidents involving alcohol following bans on smoking that is not observed in places without bans (Adams & Cotti, 2008). The increased distances driven by drivers wishing to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home following a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents (Adams & Cotti, 2008). As for Europe, since the ban on smoking on January 1, 2008, many Germans who smoke buy their gasoline in Austria and combine it with visiting Austrian bars or restaurants. The other way around, non-smoking Austrian citizens more often visit smoke-free Bavarian horeca (Anonymous, 2008).
    Obesity Obesity is the new pandemic. The ban of smoking might increase it. Change in waist circumference after smoking cessation was the subject of a Danish study in which 2408 daily smokers were followed one year after quitting smoking (Pisinger & Jorgensen, 2007). The mean weight gain in quitters was 4.22 kg (+/-4.3 kg) and 41% had gained at least 5 kg, women more than men. Smoking cessation resulted in substantial increase in weight and central fat, which attenuated some of the aimed at effects of smoking cessation. Abstinence from smoking was the most important predictor of short-term weight gain and increase in waist circumference.
    Violence and crime Restrictions and prohibition of the subject’s autonomous right to have his pleasure of smoking lead to antisocial behaviour. Illustrative for this point is the Prohibition of alcohol in the USA from 1920 to 1933. It resulted in inadequate alcohol consumption, violence and crime. Similar effects are found in the restrictive Nordic countries nowadays. Restrictions, disapproval, blaming and stigmatization laid upon the
    Paper TICAP J. Snel 31-01-2009
    7
    smoker, are similar to those put upon drinking during the Prohibition. Prohibition does not work; it drives the activity (smoking) underground (Brown & Langton, 2007), leads to the illegal import of cigarettes, imitated cigarettes, and smoke-tourism. About 70.000 Germans import their smoke ware from Mid-European countries (Anonymous, 2007). In the Netherlands after the last increase of excise taxes on cigarettes, the estimated excise revenues were 50 % lower (Douwes, 2007).
    Conclusion The stigmatization of smokers, feeling of guilt and the impairment of mental health represent an ineffective counterproductive and moralizing dead end. A mark of sociability has become deviant and antisocial. A formerly, well accepted public behaviour is now forced into a solitary, secret activity. The smoker as a sociable member of society has become a pariah, a social misfit… the object of scorn and hostility in: (Bayer & Stuber, 2005). This stigma imposes profound psychological and social burdens on those who are labelled deviant. Stigmatization also functions to buttress social subordination of the smoker who is already marginalized. Yet the concerns about the impact of stigmatization on the mental health, well-being and quality of life of those members of our society who smoke have been given little consideration.
    I quote: “If stigmatization does contribute to reduce human costs of smoking by encouraging cessation or prevention the onset of tobacco use, are the personal burdens it creates morally justifiable? Only when we understand the circumstances under which stigmatization transforms behaviours linked to disease and early death and are able to distinguish these from the circumstances in which stigmatization has negative impacts on public health will it be possible to weigh the competing moral claims of population health and the burdens that policy may impose on the socially vulnerable. Then it will be possible to make choices informed by hard evidence rather than wishful thinking” (Bayer & Stuber, 2005).
    Statements Smoking is a pleasure with beneficial effects on mood and cognition Bans on smoking, impose profound psychological and social burdens on smokers who are labelled deviant, which impair mental health. Enforced prohibition of smoking represent an ineffective, counterproductive and moralizing dead end. The concerns about the impact of smoking bans on mental health, well-being and quality of life have been given hardly any consideration. To deprive people from pleasure and by that harm their mental health is morally reprehensible.

  15. One Who Knows says:

    Sure hasn’t helped the live music business either. For years the “business model” remained unchanged. Now musicians have to deal with the piracy of the internet stealing their music along with less gigs and/or infrequent gigs that pay little money.

  16. George Speller says:

    Still there, mate.

  17. Rose says:

    Bosses said the policy, which also covers e-cigarettes, follows national guidance and patients will instead be offered nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or chewing gum

    Thinking of captive populations, I wondered how the prison ban in the Isle of Man was going.

    No smoking prison sparks drop in crime
    Dec 2009

    “A noticeable drop in recorded crimes on the Isle of Man is being attributed to the opening of Europe’s only completely no smoking prison.”
    http: //www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6900265/No-smoking-prison-sparks-drop-in-crime.html

    Prison has “lost control” of smoking ban according to chief prison inspector – 2011

    “That’s according to the chief inspector of prisons Nick Hardwick who inspected the prison in March.
    Along with a team from the HM Inspectorate of Prisons he visited the prison in Jurby and found that prisoners were flouting the smoking ban – often in full view of prison staff.

    The Isle of Man Prison is Europe’s only completely non-smoking prison. The ban was introduced in 2008 following the prison’s move from Douglas to the north of the Island.
    The report, which has been published today, found that the total ban had resulted in a “large number of negative outcomes”.

    Nick explained: “Many prisoners appeared to be intensively and creatively engaged in circumventing the smoking ban.
    “They boiled up nicotine patches, soaked fruit peel or other substances in it and then rolled cigarettes from the resulting ‘tobacco’ in pages from dictionaries and bibles held together with toothpaste. Lights were obtained from kettle elements and electrical wiring.

    “We saw this happening in full view of staff and were satisfied it was a wide spread and long standing occurrence.”
    http: //isleofman.com/News/details/16728/prison-has-lost-control-of-smoking-ban-according-to-chief-prison-inspector

    Ex-prisoners speak out on smoking ban
    Oct 2013

    “The Isle of Man’s prison authorities remain adamant the prison smoking ban is working, despite a number of claims to the contrary from ex prisoners.

    The prison’s deputy governor Nigel Fisher recently told the Isle of Man Newspapers the smoking ban was effectively enforced and a report two years ago claiming the situation was out of control with the ban routinely flouted was ‘somewhat exaggerated’.

    But following that statement a number of former inmates have contacted the paper to dispute this.

    ‘The lads make up their own cigarettes which is obviously 10 times more harmful – so it’s obviously not working,’ said Aaron Roberts from Anagh Coar who served a couple of weeks two years ago.

    He said cigarettes were often fashioned using Bible pages as cigarette papers stuck together using wood glue.

    ‘That’s using pages with ink on and glue so there are chemicals in there.’

    All former prisoners who contacted Isle of Man Newspapers said prisoners were using nicotine patches, issued to them to help them stop smoking, to make cigarettes. This was done by boiling them in water to extract the nicotine then soaking anything from tea bags to dried fruit peel or even fluff from the tumble drier – whatever was available – in the fluid. The substances were then dried out, shredded and used in place of tobacco.”
    http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/ex-prisoners-speak-out-on-smoking-ban-1-6171572

    Complete with helpful video showing you how to roll a prison style cigarette, including how to strip a nicotine patch.

    Isle of Man prisoner’s e-cigarette appeal rejected
    Nov 2013

    “A prisoner’s appeal to be allowed to smoke e-cigarettes in jail has been rejected by the Manx government on health and safety grounds.

    The home affairs department said not enough is known about the health implications of electronic cigarettes to sanction their use.”
    http: //www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-24773907

    I hadn’t spotted this one either, mind you it was published on Christmas Eve.

    E-cigarettes being sold in prison shops in smoking ban pilot
    24 December 2014

    “BBC News has learned that a brand of disposable e-cigarettes has been on sale in three prisons for two months.
    The Prison Service said last year it was committed to introducing a smoking ban across the prison estate in England and Wales to reduce health risks.
    A spokesman said it was looking into whether disposable e-cigarettes were suitable for use in prisons.

    The e-cigarette brand, Bull, is available in prison shops in the women’s jail Eastwood Park in Gloucestershire and the men’s prisons Preston in Lancashire and Stocken in Rutland.
    It is understood about 50 were bought in the men’s prisons in the first week and weekly sales are now in single figures.

    A ban is also being proposed because of legal action taken by prison officers and inmates who have complained about the effects of passive smoking.

    Officials at the National Offender Management Service (Noms), which runs prisons, started the e-cigarette scheme as a way of preparing the ground for what they acknowledge would be a “major change”.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30596976

    Despite all that, no doubt it will be hailed a “great success”

  18. waltc says:

    Harley
    What’s a ,ink for that U of Amsterdam paper?

  19. waltc says:

    Obviously, I meant link

  20. MUMMY says:

    The Law is not being broken by people smoking the the publicly owned grounds of the NHS. If the Trust has a ‘policy’ that there be no smoking outside then it would only be the contracted staff that would be obliged to follow this policy. Patients and visitors are not under contract and therefore do not have to take any notice of a Trust’s ‘policies’. Provided the person smoking is not being abusive there is nothing to stop them continuing to smoke. They are not guilty of trespass and therefore the police cannot be called to evict them from the grounds. If any of the NHS staff either try to remove the cigarette from the person or any physical action then it is they that are guilty of an offence. Very difficult where the hospital is a mental health facility unless the person knows their rights and is prepared to stick by them.

  21. Joe Jackson says:

    I also don’t feel depressed about the situation, but angry and frustrated. I’m angry at people like Mike Bloomberg, Stanton Glantz, Simon Chapman, ASH, the WHO etc. But the frustration is with the kind of situation I found myself in yesterday: chatting with 3 people I didn’t know very well, who, when the subject somehow got on to smoking bans, all said they didn’t really care about them because they didn’t smoke. Then someone said actually, if anything, I like them, because I’d rather not have the smell on my clothes etc., at which point the other two said yes, me too. Then I pointed out a few things: government intrusion into private space, property rights of bar owners, the unfairness of a total ban rather than more freedom of choice, that a smoking ban does affect them if their favourite bar closes, etc – and within five minutes, they were all agreeing with me. And we didn’t even get to the SHS fraud!

    What’s frustrating is that people like this – who are reasonable people and, I think, the majority – are simply not exposed to any point of view other than an antismoking one.

    I’m not sure why I’m posting this – apart from the fact that it’s nice to feel ‘among friends’ – but maybe someone somewhere will read it and it will spark a helpful idea. That seems to be about all any of us can do . . .

    • Frank Davis says:

      You’re very welcome here, of course, Joe. And you may not be the only rock star visitor either: I think my Danish commenter and occasional guest poster Klaus K may well be another one.

      And while I’m angry, I don’t share your frustration. I think we’re in a long war with the antismokers, a very long war. It’s one that’s been fought for 500 years. And this time they’ve got us on the run. But I don’t think they’ve won, by any stretch of the imagination. I think that what’s going to emerge, little by little, is the sheer amount of social and political and economic damage that these bans are doing. At the moment Tobacco Control are managing to pretend there is none, and that’s the official view. But I don’t think it’s sustainable in the long run. I think the awful truth is going to come out sooner or later.

      What I try and do is get smokers together, and toss around a few ideas. We have a communication problem. We’re shut out of the mass media. We can’t tell our story there. But we have the internet. And maybe we should see if we can do something with that. I’ve recently been starting to draw some cartoons, and I’m working hard on lots of ideas along these lines, because I think cartoons can travel a lot further than blogs. Visual ideas are much more arresting than plain text.

      So also are musical ideas. Perhaps more so. If I was a musician, I’d be wanting to write some very, very angry music centred on the smoking ban, with pounding drums and screaming guitars. I’m a bit surprised that this hasn’t happened already, given smokers like Keith Richards. And there must be lots of people like him in the music biz. Or are they all antismokers too now?

      Either way, we need to find a voice.

      No, I don’t feel frustrated. I feel interested. To me it seems like retreating before the Nazis in 1940, bloodied but not beaten. It’s not over.

      • I’m a wannabe singer/songwriter. My mum’s cousin co-wrote Side 1 of Atom Heart Mother (take it or leave it) so it could be in the family. Seriously considering, with my problems with depression and anxiety, to “do” a George Orwell and rent a place on Jura or some windswept place for a couple of years and finally get writing and making demos (although my people at the Int. Songwriters Assoc. make demos dead cheaply). Rest assured, plenty of angry stuff, but in a way to get everyone angry, like our friend Smokingscot who thinks he can chuck out all our Judeo-Christian heritage, culture, laws, fairness, childrearing, etc and be left with something better.

        What makes me depressed is how easily people roll over to get their tummy tickled with a ‘tax cut’ (added on double elsewhere) or their ‘minority status’ given high priority for divide and conquer purposes while their country and freedom go to pot.

        Even in my current state of desperate depression and incredible smörgåsbord of anxieties, I have more fight in me than most. People want an easy life, but they’re being walked all over and are strolling nonchalantly into another totalitarian mess, BUT this is the big one; the global one; the well-rehearsed one; the one with operatives in every school, hospital, council building and unfortunately: broadcaster and newspaper.

        Talking to people is good, but we have the massed propaganda of 1000 Goebbels to counter. The music industry is probably more tightly controlled than the rest of the mainstream, so YouTube sensation is the bet you can probably hope for unless you can get under the radar in code for the real meaning to surface a few years later.

        Sorry, just being realistic. Been studying their tactics too long. Their pan-national clubs have a hold on just about everything. It’s good to change minds one at a time, but it’s like King Canute trying to hold back the sea.

        • Smoking bans are just one part of the demoralisation process to break our will (Mr Bezmenov again). The attacks on drink and food are also part of it as are the dumping of the music that Joe makes in favour of the demonic sound-a-like clones making prepubescent children interested in sex. It’s all gone too far now (I think), although more people are seeing through the overall agenda.

          The only hope is in the proles and the social engineers made sure they were overweight and sickly and dumbed down and apathetic. See: all planned well in advance, which is why our chances are slim, not that it’s in me to give up. My Plan B is something to behold.

        • Frank Davis says:

          our friend Smokingscot who thinks he can chuck out all our Judeo-Christian heritage, culture, laws, fairness, childrearing, etc and be left with something better.

          That’s not the smokingscot I know. I think I would have noticed.

  22. Jude says:

    Part of the process of demonisation of smokers, and now vapers, is to pretend that all smokers and vapers are rude, inconsiderate people, this then allows those who are looking for something to be offended by, a license to bully anyone who smokes or vapes.

    What needs to be known, is the vast majority of smokers and vapers are very considerate people, we didn’t need laws to force us to do things, that we did anyway. How many smokers or vapers do you know that would deliberately smoke around young children and non-smokers? How many smokers or vapers would smoke or vape around people if asked politely not to do so? Now, with all the hatred and pathetic anti-smoking laws, based on lies, smokers, and vapers are treated as if they are criminals when in reality they are still, for the most part, considerate and polite people.

    In my state we have the most draconian anti-smoking laws in the country, but there has never been anyone actually convicted, why? Because the laws were for show, and to try and dehumanise and criminalise smokers, (and now vapers), if this isn’t the reason, than why make laws that criminalise what nobody was doing in the first place?

    • Frank Davis says:

      How many smokers or vapers do you know that would deliberately smoke around young children and non-smokers?

      Lots. My father. My grandfather. There wasn’t this stupid children and non-smokers thing back then… Us kids didn’t give a damn about smoking and drinking adults. And neither did the non-smokers.

      But smokers didn’t smoke in church. And there weren’t No Smoking signs in churches like there are now. It simply wasn’t done.

      • Jude says:

        I understand that before the “think of the cheeeldren” nonsense, that people weren’t bothered by smokers, but I’m really talking about the present day. Most smokers are considerate of others, as a former smoker I would not smoke in the houses of non-smokers, nor around those that politely asked me not to. I never smoked around children anyway, as smoking was my choice, and shouldn’t be forced on others. Most of the smokers I know are the same, polite, considerate people, who don’t go around blowing smoke in people’s faces, or smoking where they have been politely asked not to, its just good manners. I am the same with vaping, I don’t vape where I am asked politely not to, and I don’t go around blowing vapour in anyone’s face, again, its just good manners.

        Its the assumption from the ANTZ, that smokers, (and now vapers), need to be forced by laws to do what most well mannered people do anyway, that makes me angry. This has led to non-smokers thinking that all smokers and vapers are somehow, bad, selfish, criminal, and inconsiderate people, hell bent on harming others, (which is not true). The fact that this has come about due to the lies spouted by the pinch mouthed puritans, (the useful idiots of the pharma corps and government thieves), doesn’t change the outcome.

      • marieengling says:

        Before I was 24, I did not smoke, and all men in my family were smokers, later all my friends were smokers, and I loved them all. When I started to smoke, I was smoking among smokers and nonsmokers and at home with my son and together with friends and their children and in the car with non smokers and children. On my job as a teacher together with the pupils and the smoking and non smoking teachers.
        We even had one cinema, where smoking was allowed, otherwise the was a smoking breake. And so it was in theatre and anywhere else.

        • marieengling says:

          And now I smoke at home with non smoking guests. They have to accept it, and they do – just not my family. But of cause I don’t leave my own house to smoke – it would be stupid.

        • Yes, nobody cared 40 years ago, until smokers were gradually made to feel pariahs and had to modify their behaviour out of survival instincts! The drip, drip of propaganda ate away at common sense; the fake statistics scared the life out of people and parents would rush their young sprogs past the bad men smoking in the street, while we were raised strapping big men and women in smoke-filled houses (coal/wood fires and tobacco smoke).

    • prog says:

      They don’t say that all smokers do that. They actually claim that most don’t – because of the ‘proven’ evidence that SHS is harmful and that many smokers themselves totally accept it. Therefore, it is not unreasonable nor inconsiderate to ban smoking in these circumstances because few smokers will need to alter their behaviour. It’s a variant of the one of the justifications the ban in 2007.

      I had an online exchange at The Guardian (smoking in cars discussion) with an idiot who claimed to smoke yet believed all the propaganda. Given his pro-ban stance, I asked if he smoked inside pubs before the ban, to which he replied he didn’t because of the danger of SHS. You couldn’t make this stuff up – yet he probably had, almost certainly being an out and out anti pretending to be a considerate smoker.

      • Jude says:

        Ah, the SHS lies, and now we have the THS nonsense as well, I never believed this nonsense when I first heard it, and have never been taken in by the propaganda, but I know plenty of smokers, and vapers, that believe the lies.

        For me it was all about good manners, and consideration, not the propaganda.

        Now it seems if someone is considerate of others, it is seen as a weakness, you are somehow “giving in” to the ANTZ. What a sad world.

  23. beobrigitte says:

    19.01.14
    The government is calling for a fundamental overhaul of how the NHS tackles suicides.

    Deputy PM Nick Clegg says many suicides are preventable and wants hospitals to aim to end all such deaths.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30857546

    As much as I listened and as hard as I read – there is no mention of providing an ashtray in comfortable surroundings for the suicidal patient.

    Is Nick Clegg suggesting that parents/friends/partners of people who committed suicide have FAILED?
    “We have to break this hidden assumption that nothing can be done to stop people killing themselves.

    “Suicide is one of the biggest killers of men under the age of 50 and if this was a physical health problem, there would be a national outcry.”

    I want Nick Clegg explain this in great detail to the 3 sets of bereaved parents I know whose sons have committed suicide in 2014!

    Nick Clegg’s classically hapless surfacing in the media (it’s coming up to election time!!) leaves a bitter taste.

  24. Pingback: Mental health wards and smoking/vaping | The Last Furlong

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s