Stop Smoking Services

Simon Clark:

Stop smoking services under threat as funding comes under pressure

Around forty per cent of local authorities in England are cutting budgets to stop smoking services according to a new Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) report published today (Wednesday) by Cancer Research UK …

In the Spending Review 2015, the Government announced cuts to local council public health budgets of 3.9 per cent a year over the next five years. This is in addition to the £200 million extra in year cuts announced at the Budget 2015.

Stop Smoking Services are not mandatory services that councils must provide so there are fears they will be targeted and hit hard by cuts. This would then make it difficult for smokers to get the support they need to help them break their addiction.

and Simon Clark again:

“Since the advent of e-cigarettes and campaigns such as Stoptober, we have seen the number of users of smoking cessation services fall, while the population of smokers left is now more challenging to get to quit.

“This means councils are re-evaluating what they do on tobacco control and how to be more effective.

“Councils remain committed to helping smokers quit, however they face significant cuts to public health budgets this year, and spending large volumes of money on a service people are not using will fast undermine the cost-effectiveness of providing it.”

This reminded me that I’ve never seen the faintest trace of any “Stop Smoking Service” round where I live. Not that I’m complaining. I just wonder what, if anything, they actually do. Not much, if nobody is using the service.

I’ve never been accosted by anyone asking me if I’d like to stop smoking. Nor have I seen anyone else being thus accosted.

It’s not even as if there are Stop Smoking posters everywhere. I only ever encounter these in the waiting rooms of dentists, where they have an uncanny habit of having disappeared by the next time I show up (which has me thinking that there’s a well-organised resistance movement that is surreptitiously removing them).

I only ever seem to hear about these organisations online, where they’re forever complaining to government that they haven’t got enough money to fight the Awful Scourge of Tobacco, or else jetting off somewhere for some big antismoking conference.

But what do any of them actually do, apart from lobbying for more money, or jetting off to Moscow or Madrid or wherever?

I suspect that being a Stop Smoking Officer is probably the cushiest job there is in local government. You probably just sit in your office all day reading newspapers and books. And every few months you fly off to Moscow or somewhere to a big conference for lots of expensive restaurant dinners. And about once every six months you get a phone call from some idiot smoker, and you probably just tell them they’ve got the wrong number.

About the archivist

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

78 Responses to Stop Smoking Services

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    NRT Failure Rate Soars to 98.4%

    New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.

    PRLog (Press Release) – Apr 03, 2009 –
    New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.

    NRT is the Government’s recommended treatment for its smoking cessation programmes and is heavily funded by the tax-payer.

    Pro-choice group Freedom2choose are alarmed at these revelations and the obvious waste of tax-payers’ funds. Colin Grainger, vice chairman of the group states, “NRT products are obviously unfit for the purpose for which they are sold. This is fraud, wrong and immoral.”

    Freedom2choose have previously highlighted alternative ways to successfully quit smoking, including the Allen Carr method, with a documented success rate of 58% for those choosing to give up. The Allen Carr method even promises a money back guarantee to those that don’t successfully quit.

    “More worryingly,” continues Colin Grainger “is the shock that the scientists who put the study together even work for the manufacturers of NRT. This clearly shows how the Big Pharmaceutical companies influence the outcome of studies.”

    The revelations were originally made public by long-term anti-smoking campaigner Professor Michael Siegel who states “With a long-term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, one can hardly call NRT treatment an “effective” intervention. In fact, the logical conclusion from this paper is that NRT was a dismal intervention.”

    Friday, July 27, 2012
    Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed

    A study published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine indicates that pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix (varenicline) had 93% failure rates at two inner city academic health center clinics with predominantly Medicaid patients (abstract here).

    • Rose says:

      Harley, I’ve been wanting to know what the success rate for Chantix was, I’d read that it was similarly miserable to NRT but hadn’t got the numbers.

      A link would have been good though.

      Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed

      “The authors make two dubious statements. First, they imply that patient counseling can dramatically affect smoking cessation: “Providing a brief period of counseling (three minutes or less) has been shown in clinical trials to augment rates of abstinence by approximately 30%…” In fact, such “augmentation,” if fully effective, would have only increased their 7.0% success rate to 9.1% — a resounding failure still.

      Under “Learning Points,” the authors write: “Varenicline and nicotine replacements were equally effective for smoking cessation.” Use of the term “effective” for substances that fail in 93 out of 100 cases is inane.”

      Effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation at 2 urban academic health centers.


      Within one year, 247 (67%) had follow-up, and 26 (10.5%) maintained abstinence through week 52, 10.2% with varenicline and 10.8% with NRT (p=1.0).
      Loss to follow-up was 37% for varenicline, 31% for NRT (p=0.20). Including lost patients as smokers, the adjusted quit rates for varenicline and NRT were similar (6.5% vs. 7.6%, p=0.69).

      Only 69/371 (19%) received behavioral counseling. Counseled patients were more likely to maintain abstinence (13% vs. 7.8%, p=0.04).

      Side effects were more common with varenicline than NRT (6.5% vs. 2.5%, p=0.07).”

      I’ll bet.

      • Rose says:

        Thinking about it, it’s not surprising that Chantix and NRT have a similar failure rate, Chantix was based on Cytisine another pyridine alkaloid like nicotine, which comes from the Laburnum tree and was sold in Bulgaria as a stop smoking aid under the name of Tabex.

        • slugbop007 says:

          Hi Rose. For the past few days I have been clicking on this site and only get connection time out messages. I just clicked on it a minute ago to read their report on Tabex and got the same message:
 › NCBI › Literature › PubMed Central (PMC)

        • slugbop007 says:

          Tabex Side Effects:

          Undesired adverse effects: The clinical studies showed a good tolerance to the drug and grave adverse effects were not observed. The following adverse effects are rather often observed at the beginning of Tabex treatment: changes in both taste and appetite, dryness in the mouth, headache, irritability, nausea, constipation, tachycardia, light elevation of the arterial pressure. The majority of the adverse effects can abate in the course of the treatment.
          Not grave, perhaps, but not ideal either.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Rose I lost the links long ago……..

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Vaping is just a way around the bans til you can have the real thing.

    • castello2 says:

      I loved smoking and still do if I’m drinking and they are around. Vaping is much more enjoyable once you find the proper e-cig and flavors. Ask any vaper if they are EVER going back to smoking. Overwhelmingly they say no way. I’m not anti smoking by a long shot but most of us will not go back to smoking unless we have to. I know that you hear nasty stuff about smoking from many vapers but most of us understand the evil that is “tobacco control”. Older vapers try to educate the foolish ones but it takes time.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Castello I don’t know anyone who vapes only I mean nobody. Ive seen a few gays that vaped and smoked at the same time at bingo before. But that was it. Vaping isn’t very big in Kentucky or even Tennessee for that matter.

        I even bought one just to try it, all it did was give me ice cream headaches and in the trash it went. Of course the vape store didn’t say shit about sore throats and headaches from the chemical concoction in it. I even tried str8 vegetable glycol. Same thing.

        • castello2 says:

          It took me many months of smoking and vaping to find a decent one but that was 4 years ago now. Back then it was hard to find much info on them and many were terrible. I didn’t really mind doing both but when I found a good tank and small enough battery to put 2 in my top pocket I was pretty happy. The best part was when I realized I didn’t have to stop at the quicky mart daily for a couple packs or weekly for an over $50 carton. I still use the cheapo Chinese ego type batteries and tanks. Simple and tasty. Not preaching but it does take some, if not, lots of trial and error to find one you like. Did almost all my learning and buying online, still do. Most vape shops seem to suck imo

      • prog says:

        ‘Ask any vaper if they are EVER going back to smoking. Overwhelmingly they say no way.’

        If you prefer vaping, fine – your CHOICE. But please spare us the pro vaping and low level anti smoking mantra. We can figure things out for ourselves. I know six (seven, including me) who have tried and given up on vaping. I guess many others here may agree.

        • castello2 says:

          I know it is a sensitive subject here Prog. It is a multi billion dollar industry and growing. It works for many of us long time smokers and has exposed the ratz for what they are.

        • prog says:

          Sorry, I was a bit harsh. It’s just I’d rather quit than vape and get a bit needled when folk say it’s better than the real thing. For some, granted, but not for me.


  3. The Blocked Dwarf says:

    and you probably just tell them they’ve got the wrong number.

    or tell them to seek out their GP and ask for some of that super duper new fangled drug what helps you stop smoking which is perfectly safe unlike those nasty dangerous untested E-Cigs what will give you popcorn lungs, cancer and itchy scrot.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Don’t forget they will make you drunk too………..

      Vape Your Booze Instead Of Taking Shots: The Benefits And Dangers Of Vaping Alcohol

      Jan 15, 2015 05:53 PM By Lecia Bushak

      • castello2 says:

        I prefer my booze in my sizable belly in the form of whiskey, beer, wine or whatever :)

      • slugbop007 says:

        Hi. I just reread this article a minute ago. It’s from Tobacco Control, Quebec. I would like to have your take on how this fellow, Mario Bujold, plays magic tricks with his statistics and percentages. Here is one example of many:
        The report has some startling numbers. It says that in 2003, two per cent of people over the age of 35 reported having had cancer; today, it’s 3.3 per cent. That marks an increase of around 70,000 cases.

      • slugbop007 says:

        Here is a followup from the StatsCan:
        In the last paragraph they state that:
        For all cancers combined, average annual age-specific rates of increase in prevalence proportions were generally about 1% per year among people younger than 80 (Table 2). There was little or no change in prevalence proportions among those aged 80 or older.
        More Hocus Pocus?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

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

          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……….

… Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1

  4. Smoking Lamp says:

    Tobacco control is a scam. Funding should be removed and tobacco control fraud exposed. Unfortunately tobacco control seems to be on a roll these days. New Jersey is the latest state looking toward bans. There are two new polls on raising the NJ smoking age to 21:

    — Should New Jersey raise the smoking age to 21? (Poll)

    — Poll: Should the cigarette-buying age be raised to 21?

    And from Lincolnshire, a poll about a hospital ban:

    POLL: Should smoking be banned completely on hospital grounds in Lincolnshire?

    • smokingscot says:

      First one’s skewed. 70% say yes hike the age.

      Second one’s about 50/50.

      Third one’s about 50/50 (though the reason they give why smoking should not be banned is “because it’s not fair on smokers!” . How jolly thoughtful they are in Lincolnshire! NOT.).

  5. Lepercolonist says:

    93 percent failure with NRT for those who really want to quit. What does Stop Smoking Services do with the all these failures ? They probably say that you must have more willpower. As a last resort, try going cold turkey. Well thank you for your enlightened advice.

  6. waltc says:

    the population of smokers left is now more challenging to get to quit.” Get to= firce to? Clearly we’re resisting their ministrations. Somehow “get to” (by hook or crook) is closer to admitting their actual aims than the later protestations of “helping smokers.” Wanna “help” me, Simon? Then leave me the hell alone.

  7. Igrowmyown says:

    Good luck to anyone who prefers vaping to smoking,however whenever I have tried vaping it just reminded me that it wasn’t the genuine article with the myriad of subtle tastes and flavours that only smoking tobacco can deliver.

  8. The CRUK/ASH report has been timed to coincide with the release of the latest SSS figures:

    The Excel tables show that quit attempts rose steadily up to 2012 where they peaked at around 800k pa and have since fallen steadily to about 400k pa.The decline has been mainly because of ecigs though TC try to blame the transfer to local authorities as well.

    Despite evidence that the SSS are not effective(lifetime success ~5%)

    and falling numbers,TC’s response is just to demand more money.It is government policy that SSS+NRT is the most effective method of quitting (based on Art 14 of the FCTC) and so it will be pursued come hell or high water.

    As part of their campaign,there is also a deliberate attempt by TC to deny the relative effectiveness of ecigs but that’s another story.

    If you wonder what the SSS advisors do,there are some interesting numbers in this paper

    At the peak around 2012,the average advisor saw ~150 smokers pa.Without staffing reductions,this would be around 75 pa now i.e less than 2 pw.Given that 50% of smokers relapse within 4 weeks,they won’t be troubled by too many follow-up appointments either!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      FCTC GAG ORDERS TO KEEP THE PEOPLE QUIET and have no debate the same as banning commenters…………

      fctc gag order guidelines

      11. The broad array of strategies and tactics used
      by the tobacco industry to interfere with
      the setting and implementing of tobacco control mea
      sures, such as those that Parties to the
      Convention are required to implement, is documented
      by a vast body of evidence. The
      measures recommended in these guidelines aim at pro
      tecting against interference not only by
      the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by o
      rganizations and individuals that work to
      further the interests of the tobacco industry.
      12. While the measures recommended in these guideli
      nes should be applied by Parties as
      broadly as necessary, in order best to achieve the
      objectives of Article 5.3 of the Convention,
      Parties are strongly urged to implement measures be
      yond those recommended in these
      guidelines when adapting them to their specific cir

  9. Clicky says:

  10. RdM says:

    “But what do any of them actually do, apart from lobbying for more money, or jetting off to Moscow or Madrid or wherever?

    I suspect that being a Stop Smoking Officer is probably the cushiest job there is in local government.”

    Heh! ;=})

    I just saw a current advertisement for one, Frank:

    Stop Smoking Team Leader

    Join New Zealand’s leading heart health charity
    Lead the Stop Smoking team and champion evidence based practice for the health sector
    MOH funding secured until mid 2018
    Ellerslie based, permanent part-time (24 hours per week)

    The Heart Foundation is New Zealand’s heart health charity, dedicated to improving the heart health of all New Zealanders. Support, research, education, prevention and quality care underpin the work we do.

    An outstanding role for a hands-on stop smoking trainer/facilitator, looking to take on a day-to-day team leadership role offering opportunities to inspire and coach a team of 3, while continuing to apply your expert adult learning and training delivery skills. This role allows you to support the broader health sector, to deliver high quality stop smoking services. This will be through online and face-to-face channels that will facilitate positive results towards the achievement of a smokefree New Zealand by 2025.

    Your strong professional and operational leadership skills will play a key role in the planning and delivery of the service while liaising with the Ministry of Health and other relevant health agencies (nationwide). You will lead and project manage the ongoing development of the evidence based cessation training and resources to support primary and community care providers in their overall care for individuals that smoke. You will also collaborate with specialist internal stakeholders tasked with the delivery of Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and Management services.

    We would love to hear from candidates that possess the following skills and attributes:

    A nursing or relevant tertiary qualification with additional training in smoking cessation
    A qualification or certificate in adult learning
    3 years health sector experience (preferably in smoking cessation, training and/or service improvement/change)
    Exceptional communication and presentation skills (includes report writing)
    Strong leadership and project management skills
    Proven ability in setting clear objectives, assigning responsibilities, measuring performance, to achieve timely and quality results
    Networks and contacts, particularly in the areas of primary care and/or smoking cessation
    A valid, clean full driver’s licence
    A smokefree individual, who is committed to a healthy lifestyle

    To apply for this Ellerslie based, 24 hours per week role, please send your CV along with a cover letter to the Heart Foundation

    Please visit our website for a detailed copy of the position description. Applicants should have NZ Residency or a valid Work Visa.

    • Frank Davis says:

      “A smokefree individual”

      ??? There’s always something a bit weird about the language they use.

      lead and project manage the ongoing development of the evidence based cessation training

      I think these buzzwords could be re-assembled into nonsensical texts. They are pretty nonsensical already.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      evidence based practice


      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

        ”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

        Read under the title :
        Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created


  11. Rickie says:

    Frank says: “I’ve never been accosted by anyone asking me if I’d like to stop smoking. Nor have I seen anyone else being thus accosted.”

    Spot on Frank, no-one gets acosted, harassed, bullied by prodnosed puritans to stop smoking, a routine tick box on forms is about the nearest anyone gets to anyone give a shit about wether you smoke…….when you remove the hysteria this blog and other bloggers create about “puritans” the truth is all very tame.

    Simon Clark does indeed help smokers to quit smoking by agreeing with ASH about the dangers of smoking and that its right to help people stop smoking.

    The spokesman for smokers lobbyist Simon Clark just wants it done another way , or that polices by ASH will not be successful, he might as well be holding Debs Arnots hand whispering sweet nothings in her ear , as they walk into the studio to have a debate on the BBC


    • magnetic01 says:

      You tell those that are banned from employment because they smoke that it’s all very “tame”. Or tell those that are banned from smoking in their own apartments, having to go out on the street in any weather if they want a smoke, that it’s all very “tame”. Or tell those that are having to walk off the entire university campus every time they want a cigarette that it’s all very “tame”. Or try having a smoke in a restaurant or even in the outside dining area and see if it’s all just very “tame”. Or tell those that are having to fork out $20 or more (in one country they’re trying to hike the cost of a pack of cigarettes to $40) for a pack of cigarettes that it’s all very “tame”. Or tell those for whom the only place left to legally smoke is by the dumpster in the alleyway that it’s all very “tame”. Or tell an involuntary mental patient who is forced to quit smoking while in “care” that it’s all very “tame”.

      • prog says:

        Rickie won’t have experienced such things. Anyway, he’s probably the same Rickie who tried it on with Pat and Longrider, etc.

        Best not to feed him imo.

      • Rickie says:

        Non smokers will get protection in all those places, its not last century anymore. My own view of employment is smokers are far less productive with their ” vanishing act” from the pit face almost on an hourly basis…i see it, every day.

        Apartments…landlords have rights too, so do diners., but Frank is right nobody asks him to quit smoking.

        @Prog….best to ignore me than trying to thwart free speech,

        Fucking gestapo Libertarians


        • nisakiman says:

          No Dickie, nobody asks Frank to quit smoking, they just use the blunt instrument of legislation, and punitive tax and stigmatisation to try to coerce him against his will to stop smoking.

          The Nazis were never very good at asking. The jackboot applied heavily was always their favoured method of persuasion.

          And the only reason, as you well know, that people take smoke breaks is because you and your fanatical smokaphobic chums have forced them to. They were probably considerably more productive than you could ever hope to be before you and your ilk started having tantrums.

          Sorry Prog, I know I shouldn’t feed it, but it’s a bit like an irritating pustule that’s difficult not to scratch.

        • 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.This one you can google.

      • prog says:

        See what I mean?

        Seems to think I’m all for stopping free speech. I advised not engaging with him, he spits out his dummy and now I’m deemed a Gestapo Libertarian!. How the fuck does that work?

        Careful Rickie, any more nonsense and it’s the comfy chair for you.

  12. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Awful shame isn’t it that money grabbing leeches like ASH stand to lose their funding.

  13. slugbop007 says:

    Rutabagas Rule! Thought you might like this, Mr. Davis.

    DATELINE FEBRUARY 28, 2013: Astrophysicists at NASA, intrigued by the experiments in Pisa, will place an oversize, genetically-engineered rutabaga on an upcoming flight of the Space Shuttle. The giant rutabaga will be placed in geostationary orbit at 24,000 miles to permit the Hubble Space Telescope to determine whether light from the distant star Aldebaran is bent by the rutabaga’s gravitational field. This effect was predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity and subsequently proven, but never with an object so small as a rutabaga.

    DATELINE FEBRUARY 26, 2013: A federal lawsuit has been filed in Houston to prevent NASA’s proposed experiment to demonstrate the astonishing gravitational force of the rutabaga (see above). The plaintiffs, representing a coalition of citizens’ groups and millennarians, fear that the giant rutabaga (weighing 1,348 pounds/612 kg.) will cause catastrophic damage when it re-enters the earth’s atmosphere and collides with the surface. Attorney Brenda Kraven claims that “our team of physicists calculated that this hideous object will generate as much kinetic energy as an ordinary meteorite four times its size.”

    Meanwhile, an investigative report in this month’s Bulletin of ARSI Scientists reveals that Kraven and her client organization, “Defend Our Fragile Earth,” are intimately linked to various turnipite front groups.

    DATELINE FEBRUARY 28, 2013: ARSI paleobotanists actively pursue their research on the exciting hypothesis that the rutabaga is the missing link between the mineral and vegetable worlds. Indeed, in 2003 they discovered that the latticed molecular structure of Brassica napus bears a striking resemblance to certain feldspars mined from the beneath the plains of northern Saxony in Germany. Carbon-14 dating has now revealed that the oldest feldspars are, in fact, fossilized rutabagas from the Precambrian era.

  14. the poster franks wants to block Ricky says:

    What you so scared of Frank.

    Challenges to your views?


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Like I said rickie you will be left looking the fool like every other Nazi that e run into all over the net,your last statement will be well it stinks and gets in my hair……..that’s how all your type are no substance pure bullshit for junk science and left holding a bag of shit for whats left of your so called professional careers. Trust me anti-tobacco is just about over with as even the governments are finally tired of it.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Well a little history lesson is now needed I can see:

      Look who first invented the Passive smoking Fraud

      Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

      One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

      That’s fine company are so called public health depts. keep with ehh!

      History can shed so much lite on todays own movement it just amazes the mind………..

      Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”

  15. Timothy Goodacre says:


    • Rose says:

      Who knows? But you have to admit that it’s a wonderful distraction technique and it’s working brilliantly.
      Perhaps the topic of smoking cessation was just a little too hot.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Could be the fact that NRT is a total waste of time is what got him going…………Im glad my payday isn’t pharma connected. In fact I wish we all got paid by BT for what weve done these last 8 years or more. But alas we do it for free just for freedoms sake.

    • nisakiman says:

      Dickie Doubleday, or whatever it was. No not a vaper, just another fanatical zealot who likes to troll.

    • smokingscot says:

      He was exiled from Dioclese blog a couple of days back.

      Should you wish to know a little about Rickie, he explains it all in this post. Lots of numbers as the log-in, all neatly signed at the foot of each post.

      And all he wants to do is:

      “Clark/Puddlecote/Davis….yes absolutely I do belittle them”

      And he’ll be back until Frank’s forced to put up the Log-in again.

    • beobrigitte says:


      I doubt the guy is a vaper. Sure, some of them blurt out tobacco control nonsense, but I dare say the majority of vapers have taken note of tobacco control action affecting them.
      I vape to stretch my tobacco supply and must say that it takes a while to find the best individually suited e-cig + liquid.

      I assume this Rick guy is just another Rachow.

  16. 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!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Basically stated even OSHA’s PELs are probably 10-40 times less than the actual harm level.
      We should deal in actual HARM LEVEL not levels so miniscule that even a candle would be banned along with human breathing

      Thats where the passive smoke insanity level is at.

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    It doesn’t get any wilder than these claims for smoking cessation

    Daniel Miller, founder of the Brooklyn Psychedelic Society, just scored big – publication of an opinion piece in Newsweek magazine about LSD helping him stay off tobacco cigarettes. There’s a way to advance the public discourse

    In Opinion: How taking acid helped me stop smoking

    Whereas before I saw life as a competition between me and the world, I now feel I’m part of a larger whole.

    By Daniel Miller

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    Rand Paul on Daily Show: Gov’t Shouldn’t Tell You What To “Smoke, Drink, and Eat”

    The “libertarianish” senator lays out vision of limited government while sipping bourbon with Trevor Noah.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The truth about moderate drinking has been muddied by anti-alcohol militants – Spectator Health

      Last Friday, Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, described the belief that moderate alcohol consumption was good for the heart…

      Just like last time in America during the 1st progressive movement,they went after tobacco first and legislated bans in 43 states yet within 15 years all those were pretty well ABOLISHED. Then they went after alcohol full bore. Not that they hadn’t been after alcohol since at least the civilwar but this time they were out to totally outlaw its production and use everywhere……….It appears they are this time trying to do it with another FCTC style treaty. Let us remember Woodrow Wilsons league of nations would have been doing the same world treaty shit as todays UN is doing and forcing down everyones throats. Using the power of the purse or in this case the IMF and WORLD BANK. The deal is if you don’t sign the devils soul stealing treaty you don’t get any so called loans or grants for your country or government……….that’s how they got the FCTC thru.

      A framework convention for alcohol?
      Created on Thursday, 18 April 2013 23:13
      by Robin Room

      Among all the psychoactive substances which humans consume, alcohol ranks very high In terms of the harms it causes. In the comparative risk analysis which was part of the recent estimates of the Global Burden of Disease for 2010, alcohol ranked second only to tobacco in harm to health. And the GBD primarily measures harm to the health of the user. But much of the harm from alcohol is not to the drinker, but to others – whether family, friends or strangers – and includes social as well as health harms. The extent of this harm to others is at the same order of magnitude as the harm to the drinker – much greater than the harm to others from tobacco. When the potential harm to others is taken into account, alcohol was recently ranked by psychopharmacologists first among psychoactive substances in its intrinsic harmfulness.

      But for Europeans and Europe-derived societies, alcohol is “our drug”, intermingled for most in daily life and economically and politically in agriculture and commerce. So Europeans have had a hard time facing up to the problems alcohol causes in a holistic way, and considering it in the same policy framing as opiates or tobacco. The result has been that, alone among the globally used psychoactive substances, there is no international agreement and control structure for alcohol.

      There are three main reasons why alcohol should be covered by an international treaty. First, it is needed to take alcohol out of the category of being just another commodity in world trade agreements and disputes. A recent example of this is the European Union, among the parties in World Trade Organization negotiations on “technical barriers to trade”, objecting to Thailand requiring graphic warning labels on alcoholic beverages in its domestic market. Second, it is needed to establish the principle of comity with respect to national alcohol control policies – that states will not act to undercut another nation’s domestic policies, or encourage such actions. Third, treaties like the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control or the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs set up a system of regular international consultation and debate, building consensus and stimulating international action, as well as a continuing secretariat charged with forwarding international action. The tobacco convention is served by an international staff in the dozens and the drug treaties by staffs in the hundreds. In comparison, the international situation for alcohol is a disgrace: there are the equivalent of maybe half a dozen fulltime positions at the World Health Organization devoted to alcohol issues.

      There are two main options for putting alcohol under coverage of an international treaty. One is to begin on the process of adopting a Framework Convention on Alcohol. While the tobacco convention would be a good model to start from, an alcohol convention would need to have some different provisions and language, reflecting the ways in which patterns of use of alcohol and the range of harms from its use differ from those for tobacco. As the tobacco experience shows, adopting a Framework Convention will take time to accomplish. And, as the treaty’s name implies, this is not the end of the process: there will be a continuing process thereafter of discussing and adopting protocols to implement and strengthen it.

      The other option is to schedule alcohol as a controlled substance under the 1961 or 1971 drug conventions. This process starts with a systematic review by the WHO’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. The report of the Committee’s meeting last June notes that at that meeting the issue of “whether ethanol (ethyl alcohol) should be considered for pre-review” by the Expert Committee was raised, and that “the Expert Committee referred this matter for consideration at a future Expert Committee meeting”.

      Major issues will arise in going down this track. The most dramatic would be a need to amend the Convention under which alcohol was listed to allow the legalisation in controlled domestic markets of sale and use other than for “medical or scientific purposes”. Sarah MacKay and I have recently completed work on what changes in the treaties would be needed to accomplish this. However, the work was not undertaken with alcohol specifically in mind: the drug control system is presently facing circumstances, for instance regarding cannabis, which are pushing it anyway in this direction. Presuming these issues can be solved, the provisions in the drug treaties controlling international trade and commerce in controlled drugs are a workable and serviceable system for managing international trade in hazardous commodities so that comity is maintained with respect to national alcohol control and supply systems.

      Pursuing each of these options will require a long-term commitment from those interested in an international public health approach to alcohol issues. Since it is not immediately apparent which option is more likely to succeed, I think it would make sense for the moment to pursue both.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Among all the psychoactive substances which humans consume, alcohol ranks very high In terms of the harms it causes. In the comparative risk analysis which was part of the recent estimates of the Global Burden of Disease for 2010, alcohol ranked second only to tobacco in harm to health.


        7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
        November 2004.

        “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

        In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

        The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.


    • Joe L. says:

      Thanks, Harley! Finally, a candidate has addressed the 500-lb. nanny in the room! More reasons to like Rand Paul! I’d still like him better if he ran as an Independent (Libertarian or otherwise), but he knows he would have no chance in this fucked-up system (his own father is a perfect example). I hope he makes this a major part of his platform, and that this doesn’t fall by the wayside. **Fingers crossed**

  19. beobrigitte says:

    Stop smoking services under threat as funding comes under pressure
    Thank god there is a god after all…..

    Perhaps there are some politicians with half a brain who understand that we, the human race, face REAL problems….

    O/T; this reminds me of a question I have. An Inuit elder lamented that the point of the sun rising and setting has ‘somehow moved’ and the winds have have changed. Both are important in their way of hunting for food… We all know that our planet wobbles around it’s axis and that these wobbles cause significant climate change. Why have we wasted taxpayers’ monies for a conference about climate change as a result of human activities? Surely >7billion people on this planet don’t cause it to wobble? Why aren’t we adapting to our planet’s natural behaviour and are a little more sensible about using it’s resources?

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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