More Tobacco Control Terrorism

Chris Snowdon has a good example of antismoking “science”. Below is shown a graph of heart attack mortality rates in Sao Paulo, Brazil, before and after the introduction of a city smoking ban:


As is perfectly obvious, heart attack mortality rose shortly after the ban was introduced. But Tobacco Control reported it differently:


I’m beginning to think that the only thing that Tobacco Control is interested in is headlines. Clearly it doesn’t matter what the actual result of the smoking ban might have been. But if they can create headlines reporting that heart attacks reduced following the introduction of a smoking ban, they can create the perception that the smoking ban was a great success, and that therefore more such bans will have similar results elsewhere in the world. Screw the science: perception is everything.

If so, why even bother to do any “research”? If they only want to influence perceptions, why not just manufacture headlines? Perhaps they already do. But as they publish their falsehoods, they debase the publications that print them, in this case the British Medical Journal, and any other newspaper that carries the story. No wonder public trust in the mainstream media is in free fall.

Anyway, the conclusion that I draw from the above mortality graph is that, far from saving any lives, during 2010 Tobacco Control actually murdered about 200 people a month in Sao Paulo. That’s over two thousand people who may as well have been gunned down on its streets by antismoking DeAsh terrorists imported from Syria.

Elsewhere, Tobacco Control in NYC:

Smoking will be prohibited in public housing residences nationwide under a federal rule announced on Wednesday.

Officials with the Department of Housing and Urban Development said that the rule would take effect early next year, but that public housing agencies would have a year and a half to put smoke-free policies in place. The rule will affect more than 1.2 million households, the officials said, although some 200,000 homes already come under smoking bans adopted voluntarily by hundreds of public housing agencies around the country.

The nationwide ban will have its greatest impact in New York, where the New York City Housing Authority — whose 178,000 apartments and more than 400,000 residents make it the largest public housing agency in the United States, has lagged behind many of its counterparts in adopting smoke-free policies. While HUD proposed the sweeping prohibition a year ago, it had been prodding public housing authorities to adopt such policies since 2009.

Since this is a federal ban, incoming president Donald Trump may have something to say about it. Or conversely, he may not. Interesting early test.

I’m not sure how many residents in US public housing are smokers. I imagine quite a lot of them are. And since it’s the outgoing “progressive” Democratic US government that’s imposing this ban, I doubt if it will encourage them to vote Democrat at the next election. And since I’ve been arguing that smokers would generally have preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, perhaps they already last month didn’t vote Democrat? And the ban is a punishment imposed on them by a mean and spiteful outgoing administration? Who knows.

And who wants public housing anyway if a bullying Department of Housing can tell its residents they must stop smoking? Who wants a bullying National Health Service if it can be used to demand UK hospital patients quit smoking even in the open grounds surrounding the hospitals? What better argument can there be for private medicine, where the patients are valued customers?

About Frank Davis

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

20 Responses to More Tobacco Control Terrorism

  1. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Yes Tobacco Control are huge liars. Another factor never mentioned is that cigarettes are now much weaker than they used to be. Anyone remember the wonderful strong Boyard cigarettes from France or our own Sullivan Powell Turkish No1 Ovals or Capstan Full Strength when they were full strength ? Happy days eh !

    • nisakiman says:

      Yes, I do remember them. Although I have to admit that I would never have remembered Sullivan Powell had you not reminded me! Yes, I’ve enjoyed all those brands at one time or another. Boyards were particularly pungent, as French tobacco was wont to be. I was a Caporal Plain man for a year or so. I don’t even know if the original Caporal still exist. Another exotic which tickled my fancy when I was a teenager were Passing Clouds. Also oval, and in a pink pack, if I recall. And a premium price, too!

    • Igromyown says:

      Ah yes Capstan full strength, I once boarded a train for a 200 mile journey and the only cigarettes they had for sale were in the buffet car were Capstan full strength,I managed to smoke 2.

  2. Bandit 1 says:

    Deeply sad, but entirely predictable, news from the US. So the antismoking frontier moves inside the home for the first time. These people NEVER stop.

    I bet Arnott, Glantz et al are wanking themselves silly right now.

  3. Pingback: Wibble Wobble Warble… Word! – Library of Libraries

  4. waltc says:

    Unfortunately, even if the fed reg is voided, NYC or NY state can impose it anyway and according to local news teports are eager to. As for “who needs public housing?” the people forced to live in it do since market rates in this city are unreasonably high and these are poor people.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I didn’t mean who needs public housing in that sense. I meant “who needs it” if it entails being tyrannised. Nobody needs to be tyrannised.

      • waltc says:

        But that’s the problem, Frank. These people, with nowhere else to go, are being wickedly forced to accept tyranny as the price of shelter. No choice except the very homelessness these projects were supposed to prevent. Further, the “health n safety” argument for the ban is outright absurd, considering the dangerous disrepair of most of these places –non-working elevators, nonworking security cameras, faulty plumbing, mold, vermin– not to mention the resident gangs with guns.

        • nisakiman says:

          Yes, it’s just yet another example of the single-minded fanaticism of the anti-smokers. Nothing else matters to them. The HUD ban is doubtless something they will enjoy immensely, as the people concerned (the tenants) have nowhere to turn, no escape from their persecutors’ petty diktats.

  5. Pingback: Who Are They? | Frank Davis

  6. The move was planned and carefully set for exposition after the election. The supposedly important (but actually just ignored) “Public Comments” were gathered a year ago and sat collecting dust until about three months ago when HUD handed their plans/request for the ban to the Office of Management and Budget.

    No word of course on just WHEN the HUG folks got the go ahead, but whether it was before or after the election the timing would have been well-planned so as to avoid the backlash and “Revenge Of The Smokers” vote and to set up the new president for either glory (Clinton) or vilification (Trump) after the election was over.

    If Trump ignores or tries to overrule HUD, he’ll be portrayed as “A Tool of Big Tobacco Pushing A Racist Policy To Kill Poor Black Folks.” If he tries to enforce it he’ll be portrayed as “A Storm Trooper Throwing The Poor Black Folks Out On The Streets.” Basically a lose-lose situation.

    There MAY be a way to at least partially short-circuit this. James Moertel and I (mainly James actually!) put a fair amount of work into capturing and (this part was ALL James!) organizing the entries into a tabular form that could be worked with.

    If a couple of analytical souls out there were willing to go through the thousand or so “Public Comments” and analyse them in terms of positive/negative; substantive-argument/griping-extolling; and paid-professionals/voice-of-the-people… and maybe a couple of other ways objectively and fairly, maybe we could show some things. Perhaps how the comments were manipulated; perhaps how their content was ignored; I dunno just WHAT might come out of such an analysis, but it MIGHT be worthwhile. If a few folks who enjoy working with that sort of data would like to dive into it I can put you in touch with James and maybe we can form a “working group” of some sort to look at it all more closely.

    Anyone up for it? MIght be 20+ hours of real work though, so be warned!


  7. beobrigitte says:

    Who wants a bullying National Health Service if it can be used to demand UK hospital patients quit smoking even in the open grounds surrounding the hospitals? What better argument can there be for private medicine, where the patients are valued customers?
    Indeed! And it’s even cheaper if you start shopping around. It can get even cheaper (the NHS has to pay) when an emergency warrants emergency treatment abroad.

    For the non-travellers in Britain, if you can, do private health insurance. ESPECIALLY if your age is 50+. All you can expect from your GP is a remote diagnosis of CVD (cardiovascular disease) diagnosis on a form with which you are asked to have a blood test done. After all, there are statins + medication that combat the statin’s side effects to spread amongst the population!!! Everything else is unimportant.

  8. Pingback: Is There Conflict Between Standard and Preventive Medicine? | Frank Davis

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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