William Blake:

Urizen in chains

Urizen in chains

The idea of slavery was fundamental to William Blake’s art and writing. He was fervently opposed to it, and during his own lifetime (1757 – 1827) spanned successful campaigns against the Atlantic slave trade, leading towards the abolition of slavery itself within the British domains in 1807.

But for Blake slavery was also a mental state. Limited perceptions and following conventional religion or science was akin to enslavement, to being held with ‘mind forg’d manacles’ of one’s own making. Blake represents these notions through the contorted body; mentally restricted figures are enclosed within themselves, while those free of mental shackles fly upwards like birds. The image of enslavement is associated above all with the suppression of sexual desire and the desire for unity, represented in Blake’s imagery by chained figures. Many of the most dramatic and complex images show a confrontation between the forces of repression and those seeking freedom.

This morning I thought that the restrictions of smoking bans are very like being constrained by (invisible) chains and manacles, and that smoking bans are a form of slavery.

I think that’s why I hate being inside pubs or cafés these days: I can feel the invisible chains stopping my hands reaching for the tobacco in my pocket.

It’s something I feel as strongly now as I did when the English smoking ban came into force on 1 July 2007, and the pubs became unwelcoming prisons from which I had to escape.

But most other smokers don’t seem to be as bothered about it as I am. And I often wonder why that is. I know that they don’t like the ban, but they seldom talk about it, even if it’s the only reason why they’re sitting smoking outside a pub rather than inside as they used to do.

I suspect that one reason for it might be that they were used to smoking bans in ways that I wasn’t. For until 1 July 2007 I’d hardly ever been banned from smoking anywhere. I smoked at home, and I smoked at work, and I smoked in pubs, and I smoked on holidays, and I smoked round at friends’ houses, and so 1 July 2007 was a terrific shock for me. But for other people, it was something they’d already got used to, and so the 1 July 2007 ban was just an extra ban.

And really, the smoking bans had been slowly creeping in for decades. First bans on smoking in some carriages on trains, and then on all carriages. First at the front of aircraft, and then everywhere.

And it’s not just that the bans came creeping in very slowly, almost unnoticeably, but also that a lot of people were more than happy to voluntarily put chains on themselves, in an act of ‘self-control’, like wearing a cilice. Such people usually believed – the product of decades of conditioning – that smoking was ‘bad for them’. But it was always a shock when you arrived at some dinner party to be told that smoking has been banned henceforth by your welcoming host or hostess, as she ushered you to your place at the table. It is your own friends and family who put the manacles around your wrists, with an indulgent smile, as if they are doing you a favour. And they are the hardest to resist, particularly if they’re your very best friends.

The chains are fitted little by little, and at first only for a little while. Those who are to be enslaved must first wear manacles for the 20 minutes or half hour that they’re on a train or bus. And they’re not bothered about it because they know they can have a smoke when the journey ends. The loss of freedom is temporary. They can take the chains off.

But as the gradual process of enslavement continues, the chains are kept on for longer and longer. They are kept in chains while at work. And in chains in cinemas and restaurants and pubs. What started out as part-time enslavement becomes almost full-time enslavement, with a few minutes in each day when it’s possible to have a quick smoke outdoors.

And the bans are now extending outdoors too. There are smoking bans outside hospitals. And for ever-increasing distances outside places where smoking is banned. And in the UK local more and more local councils seem to be thinking about introducing outdoor bans. And they’re also extending into people’s homes. And they’re extending to e-cigarettes – because vaping ‘looks like’ smoking.

What happens when there’s nowhere you can smoke? Not indoors, not outdoors, not in your car, and not in your own home. What will the smokers I know do then? To date, their response to all the various bans has been to find a way round them in one way or other. But what if there’s no way round?

The success of the gradual introduction of smoking bans is now leading to calls for restrictions on other products. It won’t be long now before alcohol is also gradually restricted. And sugar. And any number of other things, as new sets of chains are added to the existing set.

Perhaps all that will happen will be that people will patiently wear their chains all day every day, completely enslaved, and they won’t mind at all. And over a period of 40 or 50 years formerly free men and women will have all been very gradually reduced to slavery, with everyone doing exactly (and believing exactly) what they’re told, and very often doing it willingly, even enthusiastically.

Or maybe the slaves will finally revolt when the last vestiges of their freedom are being snuffed out, as what had once been a tolerable nuisance had finally become intolerable.


About Frank Davis

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

52 Responses to Chains

  1. hejno says:

    Just read some wise words: A slave soul asks:” Is this legal?” A free soul asks: “Is this fair?” Regrettable, it seems that the slave souls have inherited the earth… .

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Take a man who owns slaves and ask,why would he own them.
      To create and build with, that’s why, the same as anyone who owns property would do themselves even without slave property. For the slaves to inherit the earth one must acknowledge they really have no desire to build anything,they seem only wanting to destroy what has been built including the culture,the cities,the sciences all of it and then revert back to tribal attitudes of the stoneage.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The true slaves are the tobacco controlers forcing their culture destroying laws off on everyone and not just smoking but everything they are destroying.

  2. magnetic01 says:

    Prohibition by “salami slices”. Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.

    The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
    Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.

    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.
    While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.

    On top of all of this, there are now instances where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.

    At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).

    With all of the antismoking insanity of the last few decades, including employment bans, housing bans, etc, remember that it all began with “All we want is a smoking ban on short-haul flights. What’s so unreasonable about that?” The medically-aligned zealots (neo-eugenics or “healthism”) kept insisting that there was no “slippery slope” concerning Tobacco Control. It’s a lie told many times over. The only intent from the outset of the current antismoking crusade was to socially-engineer smoking out of “normal” society, typically through inflammatory propaganda. And the zealots also insisted that there was no slippery slope to other products. Tobacco was a “unique” product, they claimed. That’s another lie. Now there are a bunch of groups queuing up to have their target product “controlled”, e.g., alcohol, salt, sugar, coffee, sitting. And they’re all using the “success” of antismoking as their “template”.

    • magnetic01 says:

      Remember when indoor smoking bans were introduced. “What’s the problem?”, the prohibitionists squealed. “All you have to do is step outside for a cigarette”. Will there be outdoor bans down the track? “Don’t be ridiculous”, was the standard answer. “That’s just tobacco industry fear-mongering”. Well, we can now see where it’s gotten to. The lies at every step of the “slippery slope” need to be pointed out over and over again.

      Remember the smoking ban on short-haul flights? In typical condescension, the prohibitionists would play the game, “Surely you’re not that addicted that you can’t go without a cigarette for 2 hours?” Well, now those who smoke are expected to go without smoking for up to 15+ hour flights. And then there are a few hours where smoking is banned for pre-flight and post-flight checks. Having gotten through all the flight checks, the airport indoor thoroughfares are also “smokefree”. Finally, making it out of the airport building, stepping onto the pavement outside, idling cabs (smokefree) belching a steady stream of fumes, the would-be smoker, having “abstained” – forcibly – for nearly a day, is greeted by another bank of “no smoking” signs – no smoking on the pavement directly outside the airport building. Our “forced abstainer” then takes an hour cab ride – smokefree – to the hotel which also bans smoking on the entire premises. Yet the antismoking nut cases still use the “surely you can go for an hour without a cigarette” line.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

        1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

        1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

        1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

        1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

        1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

        1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    Frank, Excellent essay! I agree the move toward total prohibition of tobacco and domination by lifestyle control fanatics is indeed a form of slavery. It is economic slavery. Like all slavery the slaves must first be forced into and then accept their bondage. Otherwise the ‘slaves’ would rebel and the yoke of oppression thrown off. You describe that process well.

    Getting people to surrender their will requires overwhelming force or voluntary acceptance. The smoking bans are accepted because smokers have incrementally accepted the belief that smoking was bad (that is harmful to first their health and the health of others).

    Readers here have long identified the incremental progress of the antismoker and anti-choice ideology that seeks submission in the name of health. Readers here have also recognized that this is a recurring theme and that smoking is only one of many targets.

    A very good article at Fortune magazine count this process in the ‘new’ healthist battle against sugar. The author of that article argues that assertion s that sugar is ‘toxic’ have a long history (similar to the long histories of the Temperance and Tobacco Control movements). The author states that activists, like Robert Lustig from the University of California San Francisco (where have we heard of that place before) consider sugar ‘evil’, ‘toxic’, and ‘poisonous’ and assert that it is analogous with tobacco and narcotics. Lustig even goes as far as calling soda a ‘fructose delivery vehicle, similar to cigarettes’ leading to calls from journalists, activists, and policymakers to regulate sugar like tobacco and alcohol. Calls for restricting sugar gained stem in the 1970s but have roots as far back as the 18th century and were tied to the Temperance movement in the 19th Century.

    The sugar control, alcohol control, and tobacco control movements are not only similar. they are linked at the hip in their desire to enforce conformity with an extremist ideology of denial in the name of health.

    See ‘No, sugar is not the new heroin’ by Alan Levinovitz at Fortune;

  4. Yes, the smoke from my cigarette paid with money from my job bothers many people, which do not see the real smoke: “Smoking Gun Proof Of Atmospheric Spraying”, by Dane Wigington – youtube

  5. smokervoter says:

    Some of the rootstocks of the modern scourge of Healthism and what Professor Ruth Engs describes as Clean Living Movement III (1970-Present) are to be found in a strange (to my knowledge base anyway) social movement known as Lebensreform from Germany and Switzerland.

    This all started with a link from David Thompson’s blog (which is included in Puddlecote’s splendid blogroll which I work my way through on a regular basis – mucho kudos DP !

    The posting was entitled “Your Masculinity Must Be Abolished” and it was about the trials, tribulations and philosophy of a typical northern California manly gurl named Lierre Keith (she looks like a cross between Debs Arnott and Adolph Hitler (especially in the eyes). Armed with a mug of coffee and plenty of cigarettes I settled in to laugh and moan and somehow manage to watch about half of one of her crazed YouTube lectures. She’s part of the Deep Green Revolutionary movement.

    About 25 minutes into her spiel she mentions Lebensreform and puts up a written graphic. I had to freeze the screen and jot it down because it was such an alien word to my knuckle-dragging consciousness.

    Dear god, it explains so much of what is going on these days and what went on in the background (unbeknownst to my teen brain) around me in the late 60s and early 70s in California and what I called the Nouveau Puritan revolution it’s not even funny.

    I would encourage everyone to go link-clicking crazy on this Lebensreform wikipedia entry and especially on all of the weird biographies contained in this segment:

    “Some practitioners of Lebensreform such as Bill Pester, Benedict Lust, and Arnold Ehret emigrated to California in the late 19th (Lust) or first half of the 20th century and directly influenced the later hippie movement.[1][2] One group, called the “Nature Boys”, settled in the California desert. Eden Ahbez, a member of this group, wrote a hit song called Nature Boy (recorded in 1947 by Nat King Cole), popularizing the homegrown back-to-nature movement to mainstream America. Eventually, a few of these Nature Boys, including Gypsy Boots, made their way to Northern California in 1967, just in time for the Summer of Love in San Francisco.[1]”

    It veered to the right (Artaman League), it veered to the left, it touched base with Hitler Youth, it’s effing nuts. And it’s experiencing a raging revival.

    It is vehemently antismoking, antimeat, antidrink, antiGMO and it’s all certified 100% or-GAN-ic !!!!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The actual LIFESTYLES WAR began back in the 1950s when doctors on board comittees were over ruled by the top bosses on the new agenda being pushed…………….so began todays bans on everything.

      But the doctors who objected in the 1950s are being proven right today……..

      Mummies’ clogged arteries take smoking, fatty foods, lethargy out of the mix

      By Tom Valeo, Times Correspondent

      Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:30am

      You do everything right: You exercise every day, include lots of fruits and vegetables in your diet, never smoke, minimize the stress in your life and take medication to keep your cholesterol and blood pressure under control. You’re preventing modern life from ruining your heart, right? • Well, maybe modern life isn’t as much of a problem as merely living. CT scans of 137 ancient mummies from three continents show that our ancestors had plaque in their arteries, too, even though they never smoked, never tasted ice cream or pork rinds, and had no choice but to exercise vigorously every day of their lives.

      According to the study, which appeared recently in the Lancet, at least one-third of the mummies, who lived as long as 5,000 years ago, had arteries that had narrowed as a result of atherosclerosis — the buildup of fatty deposits in the arterial wall. Apparently the cardiovascular system has a tendency to clog up over time.

      “Our research shows that we are all at risk for atherosclerosis, the disease that causes heart attacks and strokes,” said Gregory Thomas, medical director of the MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and one of the authors of the study. “The data we gathered about individuals from the prehistoric cultures of ancient Peru and the Native Americans living along the Colorado River and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands is forcing us to look for other factors that may cause heart disease.”

      The diet of the mummies varied widely, but contained ample protein and vegetables (and presumably no cupcakes or pork rinds). Aside from the few Egyptian mummies who lived their lives as pampered royalty, these ancient people used their muscles constantly.

      Yet, the atherosclerosis was found in mummies who died in what we today would consider middle age (almost none made it to 60). And just as today, their arteries became more narrow as they got older. CT scans of modern people have demonstrated that after the age of 60 for men and 70 for women, some degree of atherosclerosis is all but universal. One large study found that teens ages 15 to 19 showed early signs of atherosclerosis, and 50 percent already had conspicuous accumulations of plaque.

      “All of us age in every tissue of our body,” says Dr. Donald LaVan, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. “It’s just a question of how rapidly it happens. There’s nothing you can do to stop aging. All you’re trying to do is prevent it from advancing faster than it should.”

      The authors of the paper agree. “Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern humans raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease,” they concluded.

      So what can we do to thwart that predisposition?

      Above all, don’t smoke, says LaVan, and engage in regular physical activity.

      “After that, we’re in the realm of treating disease,” he says. “If your lipids are up or you have hypertension, take care of it. If you have problems with rhythm disturbances, that must be treated, too, because it impairs the ability of heart to pump efficiently. We’re looking at common sense here, but getting patients to do these things is tough.”

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

        Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Need a public health epidemic,simple invent one or many………..

    The Medicalizing of America

    Part I: The Numbers Game

    Medicalize: “To identify or categorize (a condition or behavior) as being a disorder requiring medical treatment or intervention,” American Heritage Dictionary.

    Responses to virtually all questions, medical and otherwise fall into two categories: 1. Those having a finite number of answers, including yes, no, or in-between, for example “are you hungry?” or “are you sick?” and 2. Questions having a range of answers or values. Biologic and other scientific measurements fall into this latter category and include such things as weight, age, height, blood pressure, blood chemical values, such as glucose, cholesterol, PSA, etc. Where we get into trouble is in deciding, particularly in medicine, what is indeed normal and what is not. No matter where we place the dividing line or cutoff point, we are faced with an irresolvable medical dilemma.

    If we make the cutoff between normal and abnormal too low, we include too many normal in the abnormal group (called false positives, a Type I error); if the cutoff is too high, we include an excess of abnormal in the normal group (false negatives, Type II error). In the first instance we call too many well people sick, and in the latter, too many sick people well. (We are assuming the spectrum of low to high corresponds to the range of normal to abnormal; sometimes this range is reversed.)

    Over the years, various cutoff points for normal values have been based on generally accepted statistical and common sense clinical grounds. For example we have “normal” values for fasting and non-fasting blood sugars, upon which the diagnosis of diabetes is based; the “normal” level for blood pressure, defining the condition, hypertension; cutoff points for weight, defining obesity; and “normal” levels of blood lipids (HDL,LDL and total cholesterol) which for some even define the presence of heart disease (sic!). In what appears as a fatally misguided hope of extending treatment benefits to as many citizens as possible, various professional societies as well as Government Agencies have indeed changed our definitions of disease with unforeseen consequences. Specifically, in the present climate of change driven by a perceived need to keep us healthy and long-lived, these cutoff points have been lowered progressively and so drastically as virtually to create a nation of patients.

    In a revealing article in Effective Clinical Practice (March/April 1999) Lisa M. Schwartz and Steven Woloshin conclude that the number of people with at least one of four major medical conditions (actually risk factors) has increased dramatically in the past decade because of changes in the definition of abnormality. Using data abstracted from over 20,700 patients included in this Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, the authors calculated the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, and being overweight under the old and the new definitions and calculated the net change (i.e., number of new cases). Here are the results reported in the above article.


    Old Definition: Blood sugar > 140 mg/dl
    People under old definition: 11.7 million
    New Definition: Blood sugar > 126 mg/dl
    People added under new definition: 1.7 million
    Percent increase: 15%

    The definition was changed in 1997 by the American Diabetes Association and WHO Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus.


    High blood pressure is reported as two numbers, systolic or peak pressure and diastolic pressure when heart is at rest) in mm Hg.

    Old Definition: cutoff Blood Pressure > 160/100
    People under old definition: 38.7 million
    New Definition: Blood Pressure > 140/90
    People added under new definition: 13.5 million
    Percent Increase: 35%

    The definition was changed in 1997 by U.S. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

    Prehypertension, a new category created in 2003: blood pressure from 120/80 to 138/89 includes 45 million additional people! If one includes this category, we have a grand total of 97.2 million total numbers of hypertensives and prehypertensives (whatever that is).

    High (Total) Cholesterol:

    Old Definition: Cholesterol > 240 mg/dl total cholesterol
    People under old definition: 49.5 million
    New Definition: Cholesterol > 200 mg/dl total cholesterol
    People added under new definition: 42.6 million
    Percent increase: 86%

    The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.


    Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as the ratio of weight (in kg) to height (in meters) squared and is an inexact measure of body fat, though it supposedly establishes cutoff points of normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

    Old definition: BMI > 28 (men), BMI > 27 (women)
    People under old definition: 70.6 million
    New definition: BMI > 25
    People added under new definition: 30.5 million
    Percent Increase: 43%

    The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

    “The new definitions ultimately label 75 percent of the adult U.S. population as diseased,” conclude the two researchers. They add cautiously that “…the extent to which new ‘patients’ would ultimately benefit from early detection and treatment of these conditions is unknown. Whether they would experience important physical or psychological harm is an open question.”

    We seem to live in an equal opportunity consumer culture tyrannized by the fear of growing “epidemics” going by the leading risk brand names, High Blood Pressure, Obesity, Diabetes, and High Cholesterol. Just read the papers, peruse the Internet, or turn on your TV to learn what the Government watchdogs, the consensus insurgency, and the other image makers have to say about our disastrous state of health.

    Several related questions arise when we consider the implications of these new definitions of disease (actually disease risk-markers). First how did these official and semi-official watchdogs achieve their status of “guideline-makers,”who appoints them and why, and how powerful an influence do they wield in terms of medical practice? Finally, one has to wonder what is the rationale for adding over 86 million new “patients” (not counting 45 million “prehypertensives”) to our already staggering over-the-top healthcare cost.

    Coming soon, these and other issues will be examined in our next newsletter.

    Martin F. Sturman, MD, FACP

    Copyright 2005, Mathemedics, Inc.

    • Joe L. says:

      Thanks for this, Harley. Speak of the devil: Heart Attack Preventive? Statin Use Encouraged for Two-Thirds of Adults

      When two-thirds of the adult population is encouraged to take a drug for preventive reasons, it can only mean one of two things: 1.) Human beings are extremely defective creatures, or 2.) Someone in Big Pharma stands to make a shitload of money off this junk science.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The ‘smoker’s paradox’ after in-hospital cardiac arrest
        20 May 2014

        “A retrospective, observational analysis of data from a large US hospital database has shown that smokers have higher rates of survival and lower rates of poor neurological status after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) than do nonsmokers. This ‘smoker’s paradox’ of improved outcomes has been recognized in patients with acute myocardial infarction for 25 years,”

        Smoker’s Paradox’ Seen in Cardiac Arrest Data

        “Among patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia after a cardiac arrest, smokers had better outcomes than nonsmokers, a single-center study showed.”

        Half of smokers survived to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome compared with only 28% of nonsmokers (P=0.003), according to Jeremy Pollock, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.”

        “Smoker’s Paradox” in Patients Treated for Severe Injuries: Lower Risk of Mortality After Trauma Observed in Current Smokers

        “Background: Studies evaluating the effect of smoking status on mortality outcomes in trauma patients have been limited, despite the fact that survival benefits of smoking have been reported in other critical care settings. The phenomenon “smoker’s paradox” refers to the observation that following acute cardiovascular events, such as acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, smokers often experience decreased mortality in the hospital setting. The objective of our study was to determine whether smoking imparts a survival benefit in patients with traumatic injuries.”

        Conclusions: Patients who smoke appear to have a much lower risk of in-hospital mortality than nonsmokers. Further investigation into biological mechanisms responsible for this effect should be carried out in order to potentially develop therapeutic applications.”
        http: //

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”


    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  8. annabellc says:

    Frank, I agree with you totally, which is why I’ve now moved to Spain. The Spanish have a more laissez-faire attitude towards smoking, and government interference. When my husband and I went for our life insurance cover, via the bank insurance, for our Spanish mortgage. My premium was lower than my husbands. I am four years older than him and I smoke. He has never smoked. When I queried the payments with the bank advisor she informed me my premium was lower because women live longer than men, and the insurance company doesn’t take smoking into account. Amazing. The Spanish are so sensible. Move to Spain Frank.

    Bye the way, when I fly back to the UK, approx every six weeks, to visit my mother, I use Birmingham airport, it has a great smoking area after check-in.

    Ohh, and cigarettes are only Euro 4,80 a pack here, unlike almost £10 a pack in the UK. I can afford my 40 a day habit. Move to Spain. The UK’s so up its own arse.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I almost moved to Spain. I used to visit Spain once or twice a year from 2001 to 2010 to visit mi amiga in Barcelona.

      But in January 2011, Spain introduced a smoking ban, and I never went back. I hated the idea of not being able to smoke in the little cafes I’d come to know and love.

      Also mi amiga was not bothered by the prospect of a smoking ban. And she wasn’t bothered for the reason I gave above: she had already been subjected to various smoking bans, and was used to them. She lived with her antismoking mother, and she was banned from smoking in her own home, and used to walk round the block to smoke a cigarette.

      From what I’ve heard, the Spanish ban is enforced just as ferociously as the UK ban. I’ve read all sorts of stories from Barcelona of desperate attempts by cafe proprietors to get round it.

      Yes, the Spanish as a people have an easy-going attitude to life. In the case of mi amiga I thought it was a little too easy-going.

      And I really don’t care about insurance, or even the price of tobacco. The only thing I really care about is freedom – the freedom we are losing.

      • nisakiman says:

        I can’t upload images to comments here, Frank, but I’ll email you a couple of pics I took last winter in a restaurant in central Patras, the 3rd largest city in Greece. It was a semi-basement with no outside seating. You will note the ashtray on the table next to me. All bars and restaurants I’ve been to there were the same – ashtray provided. Very civilised.

  9. waltc says:

    Day late/buck short comments:

    I predict that the life of that prisoner whose lawsuit is causing the entire Parc prison to go cold turkey will be, in the famous phrase, “nasty, brutal and short.”

    Frank, for some reason my computer refuses to “copy” j ariel’s lead post of 4:54 pm 2 days ago. I’d really like to be able to send it to cousin’s husband at HUD. Can you e it to me? Tx

    • Rose says:

      Walt, I have watching the progress of the prison ban with some interest, it was only a matter of time before someone spotted the opportunity to make themselves some cash. ASH encouraged it with hospitality workers.

      “The hospitality trade faces a rising threat of legal action from employees whose health is damaged by secondhand smoke, after a new tie-up between health campaigning charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) and the UK’s largest personal injury and trade union law firm Thompsons was announced today.”

      “ASH and Thompsons are also planning further steps to encourage employees who believe their health has been harmed by smoking in the workplace to seek legal advice on making a claim for compensation. These will be announced shortly.”
      http: //

      It may be that the previous Labour government didn’t realise that while ASH were busy stitching up the hospitality industry with unprovable threats they were stitching up the government as well.

      “The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish.

      In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act”

      • Rose says:

        Smoking to be banned in prisons
        20 Sep 2013

        “He warned it “could cause disturbances” but said without a ban, the Prison Service could face action from non smoking inmates if they were put in a cell with someone who smokes.”

        And sure enough

        Ex-prisoner wants £2500 compensation for sharing cell with smoker
        17 June 2015

        “If his action proves successful, Craig Guild could set a precedent for similar claims from former and serving prisoners across Scotland.

        It follows a report released by David Strang, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland, who raised concerns about overcrowding in B Hall at Perth Prison.

        Craig, 35, from Dundee, believes he will be the first person to have served time in Perth Prison to file such a claim against the Scottish Prison Service (SPS).”

        “He hopes to be awarded the money after being placed in a “cramped” single cell with a smoker, despite prison staff knowing he does not smoke.

        He is now planning to take civil action against the SPS after speaking to a fellow former inmate who claims he was given compensation for human rights breaches while in prison.”

        The government had thought they could weasel out of it with the exemption on Crown premises.

        “Earlier this year, a judge in England ruled that prison guards and inmates could not smoke in communal areas.

        The UK government had argued that as Crown premises, state prisons were exempt from smoke-free legislation.

        However, Mr Justice Singh ruled that communal areas in prisons are subject to the laws, which should be enforced.”

        Someone should have thought more carefully about the possible consequences before gleefully signing us up to this –

        Secondhand Smoke: The FCTC Commitments

        ‘Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability’.
        http: //

        ASH had set them up nicely

        “In a legal opinion obtained by ASH, J. Melville Williams QC suggests that not only has the date of guilty knowledge passed for employers, but also for the Health & Safety Executive and Commission.”
        http: //

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          guilty knowledge …………….that’s an insane term. First one must prove harm then time must pass after proof is provided to have a date of so called guilty knowledge. Simply screaming from rooftops is not proof. It simply means you have money for town cryers everywhere spreading lies.

  10. Rose says:

    But not all prisons are Crown premises and therefore exempt, some are run privately.

    Smoking ban plan sparks fears of prison unrest across the UK after judge forces one jail to go smoke-free because inmate objected to sharing cell with addict
    19 July 2015

    “The government is looking to ban smoking in some prisons after an inmate moaned he was made to share a cell with a smoker.

    The Ministry of Justice will attempt to bring a ban into only a handful of jails at first, because they fear introducing it across all prisons could cause unrest among nicotine-addicted inmates.

    Figures suggest say four out of five prisoners smoke, and in March a judge said that jails were not above the ban on indoor smoking – even saying prison staff could be prosecuted if they didn’t stop inmates from lighting up.”

    • magnetic01 says:

      The antismoking nut cases never miss an opportunity to toss in derogatory terms such as “addicts”, “nicotine-addicted”.

      • Frank Davis says:

        They tell us we are addicts. They also tell us that we are slaves to our tobacco addiction. Henry Ford even wrote a book about tobacco called the Little White Slaver.

        But really it is they who wish to enslave us.

      • Rose says:

        By clinging to words like “addict” and “nicotine-addicted” they may find a comforting explanation for why we withstand their constant bullying, while they themselves would have withered under such an onslaught long ago and quite probably did.

        I comfort myself by thinking that they are deranged.

  11. magnetic01 says:

    It had to come. We’re now right down in the sewer. And the Chinese are in the sights.

    Secondhand smoke exposure “causes” mental disorder. Arrived at through terrible, agenda-driven over-interpretation of a simple-minded design. Bottom line:
    “These findings further support the health hazards of SHS exposure. Findings underscore the importance of controlling SHS exposure, and can be used to inform future SHS control policies and reinforce the need for public education in China”

    The “research”, if we could call it that, appears in the [new?] journal Tobacco Induced Diseases

    Missing from this primary-school level blather-fest is that antismoking can be considered a mental disorder. With a few decades of inflammatory antismoking propaganda there is now a significant segment of the population suffering anxiety disorder (e.g., phobia), hypochondria, and somatization where tobacco smoke is concerned. Sustained State-sponsored/funded propaganda has produced the “environmental somatization syndrome” on a mass scale. Where prohibitionists receive enthusiastic State support, one thing is guaranteed – the thinking of many on the subject matter will be utterly addled.

    The assault on metal health has consequences for social health. It promotes irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and bigotry. It has consequences for economic health with the demand for more and more baseless smoking bans, particularly in the hospitality sector.

    But the antismokers that produced this tripe have no such grasp. They see no problem whatsoever with antismoking; it doesn’t enter consideration at all. That’s the nature of the disorder. In the hands of antismokers we’ve also seen the bastardization of science such as the current “study” in question.

    • magnetic01 says:

      We can be sure…. certain ….. guaranteed …. that this “study”, together with the long list of other entirely questionable, agenda-driven antismoking “research” over the last few decades, will never, ever, attract any critical scrutiny in the professional literature. It will simply become part of “mounting evidence”.

    • magnetic01 says:

      The antismoking nitwit who “conceived the study design” can be seen here:
      He’s spent some time in good ol’ California and, judging by the photo, is a WHO admirer/aspirant.

      Here’s another photo of the shifty “doctor”:

    • magnetic01 says:

      Here’s Tingzhong Yang with some of his buddies from Tobacco Control (bottom/centre):

      These are the “superior”, “very important people” that are going to fix up the world [giggle]

      Man, the Chinese medical establishment has essentially been westernized. They even have a Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. I don’t think they’ve had this center – by this name – too long. The title has been lifted from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Merely a cover name for covert operations just like in America. Because CDC sure doesn’t do its original mission of disease vector control ie bacterial and viral diseases.

        • harleyrider1978 says:


          2 Investigates: CDC gives millions of tax dollars to shady nonprofit

          The CDC is refusing to answer Channel 2 Action News’ questions about a high-ranking employee who served on the board of a now-defunct nonprofit that’s been the subject of a series of scandals.

          The Save A Life Foundation (SALF) also happened to receive more than $3 million in CDC funding, much of it while that same employee was serving as the nonprofit’s treasurer.

          “Save A Life was a fraud, it can’t be described as anything but a total fraud,” said attorney Jennifer Bonjean, who represents a whistleblower who used to work there.

          The nonprofit was based in a Chicago suburb, and in its heyday, claimed to have helped teach more than a million school children various first aid techniques.

          But beginning in 2006, a series of investigations by the ABC station in Chicago debunked the nonprofit’s founder as a fraud.

          Carol Spizzirri had claimed to be a registered nurse in her bio on the SALF website and on various grant applications; but she wasn’t. She’s also accused of lying about the circumstances of her daughter’s tragic accident that was the motivating force behind the creation of SALF.

          “She was struck by a hit-and-run,” Spizzirri recounted during a 2006 interview, “She bled to death before EMS arrived.”

          But police and hospital reports show Spizzirri’s daughter was drunk and flipped her own car, and did not die at the accident scene.

          When confronted, Spizzirri removed her microphone and walked out of the interview saying, “I’m done.”

          Within a few years, her nonprofit was also done, and gone was the more than $3 million in federal grants it had gotten from the CDC here in Atlanta.

          “We as tax payers have every right to know what happened to that money,” said Bonjean.

          The CDC Connection

          Doug Browne has worked for the CDC for more than 32 years, in various roles, including deputy director of the National Center for Injury Prevention, the same division of the CDC that administered the grant money to SALF.

          “Obviously I would assume the CDC doesn’t know he was getting paid for his involvement on the executive board as the treasurer,” said Bonjean, “That seemingly has no natural ties to the CDC or Doug Browne or Atlanta. It’s very curious.”

          Investigative reporter Jodie Fleischer was curious, too, and filed several Freedom of Information Act requests in March, for Browne’s personnel file and audits of how the $3.3 million was spent. The CDC still has not responded to those requests.

          “That’s what Save A Life was about, getting money from state and federal agencies and pretending to use them for public school, training children,” said Annabel Melongo, Bonjean’s client.

          Melongo worked at SALF for about six months.

          Fleischer asked her about Browne’s role on the executive board.

          “The only thing I know is that Doug Browne was the treasurer, that’s it. I cannot even see Doug Browne now and tell you this is Doug Browne,” Melongo replied, “It was just a name and a title.”

          But records show, despite what Browne told the CDC, it was also a salary.

          In 2007, even after the Chicago ABC investigation, SALF board members, including Browne, voted to give themselves $40,000 per year, plus benefits.

          Fleischer asked Melongo, “What was [Browne] doing to get that $40,000 a year salary?”

          “Nothing,” replied Melongo, chuckling, “Nothing that I know of.

          The CDC ‘Investigation’

          The CDC says it investigated Browne’s role at SALF and eventually provided Channel 2 Action News a two-page report, heavily redacted, which says Browne “has never reported receiving any income from the [Save A Life] Foundation.”

          He only reported receiving reimbursement for travel expenses from the annual SALF conferences.

          Browne told the CDC his SALF work was as a member of its advisory board, which is different from the executive board on which he actually served for five years.

          The CDC also wrote that an allegation of improper grants administration ‘cannot be substantiated’, even though the nonprofit’s annual report lists Browne as deputy director of the same CDC division that provided those millions.

          “I think it’s always suspicious when a governmental agency refuses to be transparent about its own investigation,” said Bonjean, “I mean you’d have to be a real idiot not to see the connections there.”

          The group of whistleblowers who contacted Channel 2 Action News with these allegations first reported the same information to the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, five years ago.

          The HHS office of inspector general ordered the CDC to do the internal investigation, but had no record of the resulting report in its files, meaning it was never sent back up for review.

          After several years of trying, those whistleblowers and even a Georgia congressman assisting them, could not obtain a copy of the CDC’s investigation.

          The CDC declined Fleischer’s repeated requests for interviews with the official who did that investigation and Browne himself. An email and knocks on the door of his home went unanswered.

          In an email, the CDC spokesman wrote “I don’t have anything else unless you can provide proof of the payments.

          Records show the state of Illinois also granted roughly $6 million to SALF.

          The Illinois attorney general’s office confirmed it has an open investigation into the Save A Life Foundation, particularly what happened to hundreds of thousands of dollars in listed assets when the nonprofit dissolved.

          Doug Browne’s signature is on the last financial filing, along with Spizzirri’s. They listed zeroes in every category. Correspondence indicates the attorney general’s staffers did not find that accounting sufficient.

          Records show the attorney general’s investigation began at least as early as 2010. The state of Illinois will not release investigative records as long as the case as listed as ‘open.’

          “They say it’s an ongoing investigation for the sole purpose of keeping it secret and to avoid transparency,” said Bonjean, “You’re being scammed as a taxpayer and nobody seems to care.”

          Blowing the Whistle

          Annabel Melongo never intended to become a whistleblower.

          She had found the information-technology job at SALF through a temp agency. She says her relationship with Spizzirri quickly deteriorated after she questioned requests to alter SALF financial records. Spizzirri fired Melongo and then later claimed she crashed the nonprofit’s computer servers in an effort to destroy financial records.

          This occurred around the same time as the series of Chicago ABC investigations.

          Melongo was arrested, charged with computer tampering and wiretapping, and spent two years in jail while awaiting trial. She was later exonerated on all of the charges.

          She now has a pending federal lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest and imprisonment, and retaliation.

          Melongo told Channel 2 Action News when she received SALF’s financial records via subpoena for her cases, checks to Doug Browne were contained in that set of documents. A judge has since required her to return those checks to the court, so she no longer has the copies.

          She says the CDC or Illinois attorney general should certainly be able to obtain SALF records, if anyone really wants to investigate.

          “It’s all there. It doesn’t take you five years to find that information,” said Melongo. “All they need is to subpoena the documents.”

  12. Rose says:

    I do love the internet, somewhere, someone has always got the answer.

    On the anti-sugar campaigns a lesson from my garden.

    Over a week ago a small group of blackflies had the temerity to land on the flower bud of one of my mesembryanthemums, I let them be because the ants had already found them and were behaving in a most curious way.
    The ants weren’t attacking them, they were stroking them.

    Ants subdue their aphid prey with drugs
    10 Oct 2007

    “Scientists have discovered that ants use a drug on herds of aphids to make them move more slowly so they do not scatter and can be more easily “milked”

    Chemicals on ants’ feet tranquilize and subdue colonies of aphids, keeping them close-by as a ready source of food, says a new study throws new light on the complex relationship between ants and the colonies of aphids whose sugary secretions the ants eat.

    The reason ants do this is that the chemicals increase the number of aphids locally available, providing a renewable energy source for the ant colony, the sugar-rich sticky honeydew excreted by aphids, concludes a paper published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences.

    The development of these chemicals could ultimately lead to methods to prevent the spread of disease-causing blackfly and whitefly pests.

    The ants manipulate, and even protect, the aphids to get most out of them, according to Tom Oliver of Imperial College London, and Alla Mashanova of Royal Holloway, University of London and colleagues at the University of Reading.”

    “Ants often harm aphids to exploit them, for example by biting off their wings or using chemicals to sabotage wing development. Making aphids walk up to one third more slowly with a kind of tranquilliser could be one more example of the control exerted by the ants.”

    Professor Vincent Jansen of Royal Holloway’s School of Biological Sciences, concludes “Although both parties benefit from the interaction, this research shows is that all is not well in the world of aphids and ants.

    The aphids are manipulated to their disadvantage: for aphids the ants are a dangerous liaison.”

    The ants have now moved some of the aphids progeny to surrounding flower buds and have continued the stroking and attending.

    Perhaps the anti-sugar campaigners would like to come and lecture my ants on the error of their ways.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Rose here in Kentucky we got these nasty lil flying bugs nick named blister bugs. They got lil biters on there front and leave one hell of a nasty red welp bite area about an inch wide and 3/8ths inches tall and hurt like hell. Every summer the lil bastards show up and get in everything. Usually it takes 2-3 days before you even notice you were bitten and it takes about 10 days for the damn bite to disappear. Last year they got me and lastnite one flew and landed on my damn computer and I got him. You see I got bit in bed 2 weeks ago and the damn bite sore has just about gone away now with the swelling. THATS 2 YEARS the got me……… theres a ton other bugs here that can leave the same bite marks.

      • Rose says:

        This one, Harley?
        It sounds awful.

        It’s usually fairly safe round here, but years ago I had the misfortune to be bitten on the lip by a Great Diving Beetle.
        Nasty things, they’ll clamp onto a fish and eat a hole in it right down to the bone.

        They fly at night and it must have noticed the movement as I was walking down the road chatting with my husband. Between us we managed to prise the blighter off before it did too much damage.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          That’s the one rose blister beetle in the wiki pic but ours don’t have the spots……….ours are solid black. Nasty SOBs.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Tear this Nazi a new one if you can get in

    Smoking is a toxic behavior affecting those around you
    By Martha S. Tingen,Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N.

  14. lleweton says:

    For years I’ve had an image in my mind of a cornfield being mown in an ever-decreasing circle. Small animals flee as their refuge is reduced and as they flee they are pounced on by waiting dogs. Ultimately there is no place for the remaining creatures to hide. They break for cover and are wiped out. The gradualist approach (salami slicing) of the anti-smoking fanatics mirrors that very well. The home and the car are the last refuge of those of us who cling to the comfort – indeed health – of tobacco. When those are removed there will be nowhere to flee. What governs the waiting cornfield dogs is a hunger to capture and destroy. For its own sake. Not much difference between that and the inner motivations of these public health fanatics

  15. Smoking Lamp says:

    The healthist crusade is built on a foundation of lies. That reality needs to become common knowledge before the achieve the domination they seek. There are thankfully signs that their kids are being recognized. The following commentary at the Boston Globe questions the anti tobacco stance on outdoor smoking bans: “A smoking ban that’s close to the edge of silly,”

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

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

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


    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

No need to log in

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

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

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