They Jus’ Keep On Keepin’ Smokin’

NOLA:

On April 22, when the clock struck midnight at Parkview Tavern, the bartender herded smokers outside, leaving only a few patrons inside as most of the crowd headed for the patio. It was a strange scene, the large crowd outside and the near-empty bar inside, but one that is becoming increasingly common in New Orleans.

Across New Orleans, bar owners and patrons say they’re seeing the same phenomenon — lively crowds outside and a near-barren barroom inside.

“Sometimes, I get here and there’s a huge crowd outside, and then I walk inside to find two people in here and then another crowd out on the back patio,” said T. Cole Newton, owner of Twelve Mile Limit in Mid-City, which went smoke-free in 2013.

The New Orleans City Council has passed a sweeping ban against smoking in most public places across the city, but exempts patios, courtyards, balconies and outdoor areas.

MD:

Shocking Percent of Physicians Still Smoking

Healthcare providers are supposed to be one of the top advocates for no smoking, right? Well the amount of physicians still lighting up cigarettes is prevalent.

Angelo T. Adraneda, MD, from the Chinese General Hospital in the Philippines, and colleagues aimed to find how many physicians going through specialty training are smoking. The data will be presented during a poster session at CHEST 2015 in Montréal, Canada.

The team looked at 557 physicians in specialty training in Manila, Philippines. They filled out questionnaires developed from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Global Health Professional Survey and The Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM-68).

On a high note, the majority of the physicians (57.45%) in the study reported never being smokers. However, too many revealed that they are current smokers (27.83%). Of those, physicians in specialty training for surgery proved to have the most smokers (39.62%). –

Before I forget:

Cheese contains a chemical found in addictive drugs, scientists have found.

And I put in the following video because I bet the BBC would never show it.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

30 Responses to They Jus’ Keep On Keepin’ Smokin’

  1. Smoking Lamp says:

    Of course the NOLA political machine (the front for the lifestyle controllers) is painting the smoking ban as an overwhelming success. According to their press releases 78% of voters support the ban. None of the news stories however provide links to this poll or describe its methodology. Also, few of the stories allow comments (and those that do censor them if they disagree). Bottom line the NOLA smoking ban is a dismal failure that the Antis tout as a template fro future bans. The tobacco control ban machine needs to be shut down.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      If they are feeding press stories then they have problems with the ban…………otherwise they wouldn’t need to say a word. The next story out of Nola will be gross non compliance and refusals to enforce.

    • prog says:

      We had similar claims in the UK, yet the only success for TC is high compliance. And the ONLY reason for that is the threat of a heavy fine on owners of pubs and bars. Make the employer/owner legally responsible for enforcement and it’s job done. The BS about protecting employees health was merely the means to justify it. The Healthy and Safety Executive wasn’t particularly happy (risk of loss of integrity in the face of underwhelming evidence) but it was quickly forced to toe the line.

  2. waltc says:

    Otoh, Phillipine doctors are ethnically very different and have likely been subject to less propaganda than yanks and brits who’d likely lose their licenses if they smokes or in any case their patients who’d fear the off-gassing of thirdhand smoke. No use trying to get stats on percentages of American or European smoking medics since they’d lie but at least a few yrs ago, when visiting a relative at a New Jersey (“this is a smokez-free”) hospital, I saw quite a few docs –especially surgeons, it seemed–and nurses smoking out by the loading dock.

    • waltc says:

      Sigh. Ignore the typos

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Walt I can attest to the fact that likely 15% of doctors at Vanderbilt university medical center smoke and likely 30% of the nurses do too. I say this because all of them come to the VA hospitals smoking area which is now very large and all you count is white coats with vanderbilt on them. Of course that one day last year I lit up at the usual front sidewalk and the lil VA cop comes up and starts to harass me over smoking there,I blew shit in his face as I was already pissed over being by passed by 38 others in the dental clinic and told maybe tomorrow Id get seen………Needless to say if the shit hadn’t backed down I was fixing to go for his throat and show him what a trained combat soldier can do o a shithead. Then I walked to the smoking area and 2 of the docs from Vanderbilt asked me he razzing you too……….I said he is the one who got razzed……….they all laughed nurses included.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          BTW at Vanderbilt if your at the va parking garage you can look across into Vanderbilt and see docs and nurses smoking on the roof top and down by the dumpsters at the back of the hospital………That’s the places I know they go too and Im sure they have some custodial closets they use too. I even heard of one at the VA staff were using on the third floor in inclement weather periods.

  3. chris says:

    The other day I saw something I’d never seen before: a TV ad for New Orleans tourism. I’d always assumed they didn’t need them, but I guess the smoking ban is having and effect.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    You might dislike smoking but it has surely spared the world many a disease spreading just because it can kill airborne pathogens

  5. beobrigitte says:

    Across New Orleans, bar owners and patrons say they’re seeing the same phenomenon — lively crowds outside and a near-barren barroom inside.
    Are they surprised? This is happening everywhere for a while. And then smokers just stay at home.

    Healthcare providers are supposed to be one of the top advocates for no smoking, right? Well the amount of physicians still lighting up cigarettes is prevalent.
    Healthcare is a demanding and stressful job. Advocacy for no smoking should not even be on their to-do list!
    The current drive to create a ’24/7 health care’ sees the medics with a reduced income and even more work. The question is, WHY do we need to see a GP on a Sunday for ‘a health MOT’?

    Cheese contains a chemical found in addictive drugs, scientists have found.
    Even though humanity survived long enough eating cheese the current health hysteria with it’s “experts” will go for a ban.
    Yawn…..

    And I put in the following video because I bet the BBC would never show it.
    Of course not!! The BBC is far too busy digging out weird “experts” and weird people…

  6. roobeedoo2 says:

    That’s just typical of a BBC news correspondent – they don’t ask pertinent questions or even report the news. They fucking preach and wail; they’re encouraged to do it all the time…

    I’ll bet they’re paid extremely well for their sermonising, Clicky, and it all got worse with the introduction of 24 hour ‘News’… they had to fill the airtime with something.

    I know! Putin runs rings around him…

    Yes, he’s a dickhead for embracing the Baby Eaters with regards to smoking. That compromise is awfully sordid. Oh well, let’s hope for he sees the light…

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Pluseek Lin Meeting 116:
    Coffee, Mate and Very Hot Beverages
    (24-31 May 2016)

    IARC Monographs – Upcoming Meetings

    Web Portal for International Cancer Research: Cancer Epidemiology and Genetic Databases, Research…

    http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Meetings/index.php

    Preliminary List of Agents
    IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans
    Volume 115: Some Industrial Chemicals
    Lyon, France
    2–9 February 2016
    PRELIMINARY LIST OF AGENTS TO BE REVIEWED:
    Hydrazine (CAS No. 302-01-2)
    2-Mercaptobenzothiazole (CAS No. 149-30-4)
    Dimethylformamide (CAS No. 68-12-2)
    3-Chloro-2-methylpropene (CAS No. 563-47-3)
    1-Bromopropane (CAS No. 106-94-5)
    Dimethyl-p-toluidine (CAS No. 99-97-8)
    Tetrabromobisphenol A (CAS No. 79-94-7

    Volume 116: Coffee and Some Other Hot Beverages
    Lyon, France
    24-31 May 2016

    CALL FOR EXPERTS
    Closing date: 25 September 2015

    IARC is seeking scientists who wish to be considered for membership in the Working Group that will develop Monographs on the agents that will be reviewed in this volume. Working Group Members will search the scientific literature in their area of expertise; prepare, review, and revise preliminary working papers that critically review the pertinent scientific literature; and participate in an 8-day meeting to discuss and combine the texts and to evaluate the weight of evidence of carcinogenicity.

    Eligible scientists generally have published significant research related to the carcinogenicity of the agents that will be reviewed, and IARC uses literature searches to identify most experts. Consequently, IARC is especially interested in finding (a) scientists whose relevant publications may not be found through standard literature searches and (b) scientists who work in countries that have been under-represented in past Working Groups.

    Self-nominations are encouraged. Each nomination should include:
    1.Curriculum vitae of the proposed candidate.

    2.Separate list of the candidate’s publications that are relevant to the carcinogenicity of the agents that will be reviewed. For each study or analysis published during the past 5 years, identify the sponsors of the work presented in the paper. For review articles and commentaries, identify the sponsors of the paper.

    3.WHO Declaration of Interests to disclose associations with parties that have an interest in any agent that will be reviewed.

    Please send your nominations before the closing date by e-mail (monograph116@iarc.fr) or fax (+33-472.73.83.19).

    Public nominations will be combined with those identified by IARC and other national and international health agencies. IARC will select an interdisciplinary Working Group based on (a) knowledge and experience and (b) absence of real or apparent conflicts of interests. Consideration will also be given to demographic diversity and balance of scientific findings and views.

    To assure public confidence that the Working Group is free from links to interested parties and that special interests cannot influence the meeting, experts with a real or apparent conflict of interests may participate only in a limited capacity. They will not serve as meeting chair or subgroup chair, draft text that pertains to the description or interpretation of cancer data, or participate in the evaluations. Such experts will be invited only when necessary (someone who has published significant relevant research and comparable knowledge cannot be found among those without conflicts), and the conflicting interests will be disclosed.

    Within 1 month of the closing date, IARC will send preliminary invitations to the experts selected. Their names and principal affiliations will be available on this website.

    Thank you for your interest in the IARC Monographs.

    Dana Loomis, Responsible Officer for Volume 116
    Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs programme

    Posted 12 June 2015

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Get this one the IARC isnot only window shopping like the surgeon generals reports are made up by searching pubmed, They want shit that’s not even been published and their researchers to use as lets say surprise elements…………..

    IARC is especially interested in finding (a) scientists whose relevant publications may not be found through standard literature searches

    To go and abuse people like this and the shoddy way they operate is beyond belief, Its like they are a hired dog to track down whatever product their masters tell them to go after and then invent evidence to bust them with. nothing less than what theyve done with tobacco for 60 years and longer. Now the above shows proof positive how they operate. Its not about protewcting anyone its about shaking down the victim for money or lawsuits in the end.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Scientists Hit Back At Claims Red Meat Causes Cancer

    Scientists have rounded on the World Health Organisation for claiming that red meat, sausages, bacon and ham could cause cancer.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/24/scientists-hit-back-w-h-o-claiming-red-meat-causes-cancer/

    • beobrigitte says:

      Harley, here is something for amusement:
      http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015/oct/26/meat-and-tobacco-the-difference-between-risk-and-strength-of-evidence
      These brilliant infographics from Cancer Research UK illustrate this perfectly. The risk of lung cancer from smoking is extremely high. Of all cases of lung cancer (44,488 new cases in the UK in 2012), evidence suggests that 86% of these are caused by tobacco. And lung cancer isn’t the only type of cancer caused by smoking. CRUK estimate that 19% of all cancers are caused by smoking. Another way of looking at this is that if smoking was completely eliminated, there would be 64,500 fewer cases of cancer in the UK per year.
      CRUK is bullshitting again. 64,500 fewer cases of cancer? WHERE on earth are they getting these figures from?
      I would rather much like to ask CRUK WHO finances this nonsense…. and, WHO pays for their CEOs wages!
      CRUK is on the go again wringing cash out of unsuspecting people…. FOR WHAT????

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        44 THOUSAND OUT OF 60 MILLION PEOPLE
        That’s 1 case per 136 thousand people a year,thats lower than the USA.

        Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table 3.15.1.1M) *†‡

        Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

        Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

        AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….

        http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/… Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          They don’t give the ages though of their so called LC numbers there ,do they.

          evidence suggests that 86% of these are caused by tobacco. How do they quantify that,its simple they cant.

        • beobrigitte says:

          They don’t give the ages though of their so called LC numbers there ,do they.
          They don’t. For a good reason: it is OLD people.
          Although, they have not bothered to enquire about any (!!!!) viral/bacterial infections the individuals suffered from throughout their life time. (I’d find it difficult to list all the e.g. flues I had as a kid…)
          Henrietta Lacks did pave the way for many women to survive cervical cancer. CRUK&tobacco control friends is doing the opposite – they blag cash from p[eople for anti-smokers’ nonsense. And, old people will die.
          Talking about this “living longer” myths: at best 18 month. Next question: WHO in their right mind WANTS to live 18 month longer in an old folks’ home and their minds gone?

          In the meantime, this Daily Mail article “Above the age of 40 no alcohol level is safe” is being attacked for what it is – scaremongering.
          Not surprised to see the first tender steps of common sense coming back. Don’t bank on the BBC for that! This “news” channel fails to explain why I am: A. still HEALTHILY alive and B: has not explained it’s connection to the anti-smoking community.

          Questions…. a lot of questions….

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Risk assessment studies aren’t worth the paper their written on as we all know so well.

        Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
        proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
        placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

        Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
        relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
        different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
        perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
        one risk factor, including social factors.

        Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

        THE PROBLEM IS THESE IDIOTS REJECT ALL CONFONDERS OR OTHER POSSIBILITIES IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE ONE THING GUILTY,when they all know cause and effect have hundreds and thousands of co contributers yet they deny their existence by claiming how they disassociated those confounders in the survey approaches.

        In other words the methodology was totally abandoned to include the effects of other causes to invent a specific single issue study. Basically its fishing for whatever the highest bidder of an agenda wants………..perpetual junk science. Why did epidemiology abandon its former close relationship with toxicologists to try and prove the claims of statistical studies….its simple it got political and agenda driven……………Besides they couldn’t prove one damn thing they claimed thru risk assessments. or even now as they claim LINKED TO STUDIES. Basically they just keep changing the goal posts or the name of the type stdy for more confusion just like global cooling,then global warming,then climate change and then and then………..its all bollocks

        • beobrigitte says:

          Isn’t it funny that the biochemical stress response (health scare scaremongering does cause stress!) doesn’t feature?

          Questions…. more questions….

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          That’s if people take it seriously and the rapid response of the worlds scientists about the WHOs claims came in faster than a mcd’s burger…………they tore the WHO a new asshole. But then part of why we fight is to destroy the scaremongering they toss out daily and bring back truth and justice for us all smoker and non alike. Everybodys a victim of the UN led NWO war on lifestyles.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Beo literally people have become immune to all the latest health moment scare stories,its gotton so bad on nashhville tv at nite when they report the latest health scare the reorter is like his face goes well you believe me don’t you as he tries and read off the headline………..Im serious its like why the hell did the newsroom chief put this out for us to even report on its that INSANE. Credibility of what people can be made to believe left the drawing room 3 decades ago.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Beo on the old age and cancers reported,the average age of deaths reported regardless of race,lifestyle or anything is now at 78.8 years. Its right in the middle of when cancers strike those in the elderly community would get it anyway. Yet they still cant explain the centarians that always smoked drank all they wanted ate what they wanted and still lived healthy active lives until one nite their heart just stopped in their sleep. No cardiac arrest no nothing just natural causes.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Then you have families of a history of dying young and then you have families where they all lived to ripe old ages………its in our genes not our lifestyles

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    The Sliming The history of PINK SLIME and it would seem the Nazis at the WHO want us all to eat SOYLENT GREEN instead.

    How processed beef trimmings got rebranded, again and again and again

    What do you call a mash of beef trimmings that have been chopped and then spun in a centrifuge to remove the fatty bits and gristle? According to the government and to the company that invented the process, you call it lean finely textured beef. But to the natural-food crusaders who would have the stuff removed from the nation’s hamburgers and tacos, the protein-rich product goes by another, more disturbing name: Pink slime

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/food/2012/10/history_of_pink_slime_how_partially_defatted_chopped_beef_got_rebranded.html

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    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”

  12. churchmouse says:

    So sad to read about a smoking ban in New Orleans, of all places.

    Spent a great week there in 1993 and smoked everywhere — unforgettably brilliant!

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