Wait Until The War Is Over

I think that, in years to come, there will be an entire literature devoted to the Global War on Smoking, and the smoking bans that came with it, much in the same way that there is an entire literature surrounding the Holocaust, or WW1, or Hiroshima. It will be a treasure trove for historians and sociologists and psychologists and physicians and political theorists and philosophers of science. There will be learned books written about it by learned men, drawing learned conclusions.

And that’s because, for me, this war has been the most defining event in my life. It succeeded, far more than the sixties ever did, in making me into a political animal. Because I never used to be ‘political’. In fact, I rather despised anyone who was. But then, I’d never really got badly burned by anything throughout the greater part of my life. It had all proceeded so very smoothly, up until 1 July 2007, which was the day that Britain entered the war.

Ever since that day, I’ve been a sort of soldier in a war that I didn’t want to fight, but into which I had been thrown, against my will. Does anyone ever want to fight wars? But I got called up. I had to present myself in person at the local Smoker Volunteer Brigade headquarters, and be kitted out in the standard Smoke Gray uniform, given some elementary training in hand-to-hand combat with Antis, and then shipped off to the Front.

And there I’ve been ever since, knee deep in mud. It’s been trench warfare for nearly 10 years. The Antis scored a quick, surprise victory at the outset. But since then, as I was describing a couple of days ago, they’ve rather lost momentum. They launch new offensives from time to time, but they seldom gain much ground.

And so here I am, in the front line. And every morning I get up, and put my rifle over the parapet, and fire off another shot at the distant enemy. I have no idea whether I ever hit any of them. For I never actually see any of them face to face.

Why am I fighting? It’s quite simple, really: The Antis want me to stop smoking, and I don’t want to stop smoking. So it’s a battle of wills. “You Will Stop Smoking,” the Antis shout. “No I Won’t,” I yell back. “Yes You Will.” “No I won’t.” “Will.” “Won’t.” “WILL!!” “WON’T!!” And so on.

But that’s what wars are, I suppose. Battles of will. Battles of one will against another.

Will the war ever end? It shows little sign of ever ending. And, very arguably, it’s a war that has been being fought not just for the past 10 years, but for the past 500 years. It’s a war that’s been being fought ever since Columbus brought back a few tobacco plants to Spain from the newly discovered New World of the Americas. So perhaps it really is a never-ending war.

The civilians in this war – the non-combatants – aren’t the Smokers or the Antis, but the non-smoking majority. They continue with their lives as they always have, back home in England. They have been almost completely untouched. In fact, I think they are not even aware, most of them, that there is any sort of global war being fought.  Ask any of them what happened on 1 July 2007, and they will look puzzled for a bit, and then say, “Wasn’t that the day that Gordon Brown became Prime Minister? It must be. I can’t think of anything else that happened round then.”

But why should they know that there’s a war going on? For, unlike WW1, there’s no reporting of this war in any of the newspapers. So it can’t be happening, can it?

No, the war will never end. And it will never be reported either. These two facts are bound up with one another. For when something has been going on forever, it ceases to be news. What is newsworthy is never going to be an eternal verity, like the fact that there are mountains in Switzerland, or water in Lake Geneva.

No. The war on smoking is an endless war. It’s been going on forever, with the front line gradually shifting from one place to another. Sometimes the smokers win big victories. And sometimes the Antis win. And right now is a time when the Antis are winning. For they certainly weren’t winning 70 years ago, when about the only places people couldn’t smoke were churches and schools. The early 20th century was a time of big victories for us smokers. It was the time when cigarettes became ubiquitous, and women started smoking. And, precisely because smokers were scoring such big victories, the Antis started fighting back. That’s when they launched their highly-effective Lung Cancer Scare. It was such an effective scare that most people still believe it. In fact, it’s about the only thing that most people believe. Ask them whether they believe in God, and some will say yes, and some will say no, and some will say they don’t know. But ask them whether they think that Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, and they’ll all say – more or less without exception – that it most certainly does, and they’ll even offer, as incontrovertible evidence, the fact that their own dad died of lung cancer caused by going into a smoky bar in Brittany one afternoon for a few minutes, simply to ask directions to Le Mans.  Even hardened veteran smokers here in the trenches believe it. “Oh yes,” they say, as they puff on their pipes, “Smoking is bad for you. No doubt about it. It’ll kill me one day, I’m quite sure.” And then step up onto the parapet, and fire another shot at their would-be saviours on the other side.

I’m just another soldier fighting in this endless war. It’s perhaps entirely accidental that I’m fighting on this side rather than the other. It could just as easily have been that I got called up by the Smoke-Free Outreach Initiative rather than by the Smoker Volunteer Brigade just round the corner from it, much like it’s an accident that I became a Catholic rather than a Protestant, and English rather than French. What if I’d wandered into that place, and read on its walls:

Quit with Stub Buddies for 28 days and you’ll get a £15 feel-good reward, such as a food hamper, a spa treatment, or an activity voucher?

Could I have resisted such an offer? Probably not. Can you imagine it? A whole food hamper, in a wicker basket from Fortnum and Masons, chock full of chocolate biscuits, iced cakes, gingerbread men, marmalade, jam, hot dogs, cheeseburgers, and miniature bottles of beer and whisky! Or else a spa treatment – no doubt to cure me of all the innumerable maladies caused by smoking, including even flat feet – spent floating in a warm tank of carbonated water, wearing goggles! Or, best of all, an activity voucher, that would permit me to Do Something, rather than do nothing! And all for the small outlay of stopping smoking, or pretending to stop smoking, for just 28 days! I could have stopped smoking in January for 28 days, and then stopped smoking in February for 28 days, and so on all the way through the year. And I’d have lived like a king off my Fortnum and Mason food hampers, floating in a bath of warm water, before climbing out and doing all those press-ups and knee-bends and cross-country runs enabled and enjoined by my numerous activity vouchers.

The war will never end. But I still dream of going home one day. I dream of the day when I take off the Smoke Gray uniform, and fold it up for the last time, and head down to the Dog and Duck, wave to old Fred by the fire, have a chat with submariner Ron, order a pint of the very best, sit down with it in my usual corner with a newspaper, and light a cigarette.

But before I can do that, I first have to win the war. And I never will win. So I’ll die one day out here on the Front. And become another forgotten soldier among millions of other forgotten soldiers, in a war that never ends.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

33 Responses to Wait Until The War Is Over

  1. Vlad says:

    Saw on the FB group #Smoking is normal# a Canadian cigarette pack…big photo with a guy, Leory Kehler, who got laryngeal cancer, blaming smoking for it and wishing he had never started. My observations: 1. at least Canadian health authorities took the trouble to find a smoker to use for their propaganda…on EU packs there’s the picture of a Spanish guy lying on a hospital bed and with tubes on his face who apparently is a non-smoker and had his picture taken unaware when in hospital for back surgery.
    2. The way cancer societies and ‘charities’ abuse (mentally) and take advantage of people like Leroy is horrific. He is now convinced he brought the disease on himself, as well as the 3 of his close relatives who died of ‘smoking related diseases’. Furthermore, he now volunteers for Canadian Cancer Society’s Manitoba branch, talking to high school kids, effectively brainwashing them.
    3. Laryngeal cancer has a low incidence of 5/100k in US and is listed as a “rare disease” by the Office of Rare Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It has remained static during the time when lung cancer was on the rise, paralleling the rise in cigarette consumption, a fact that Richard Doll admitted to be perhaps the strongest argument for the pro smoking camp. In other words, if smoking is supposed to cause lung cancer, and there are rising graphs both for incidence of lung cancer and consumption of cigarettes, why hasn’t the rate of mouth cancer and laryngeal cancer increased? After all, the smoke has to pass through them to reach the lungs.

    • Manfred says:

      Vlad, do you have a reference for: ‘…a fact that Richard Doll admitted to be perhaps the strongest argument for the pro smoking camp. ” ? Would be grateful to see it.
      Thank you.

      • Vlad says:

        I’m sorry, but I can’t remember where I read it. I didn’t think back then that it was so important that I have to save it because Doll was only stating the obvious.

      • Frank Davis says:

        I think that it may well come from the McTear case, in which Doll conceded that animal studies had failed to show a carcinogenic effect from tobacco smoke.

  2. Lecroix says:

    You will win. You will sit in your usual corner at the pub, you will smoke and you will celebrate.

  3. WordPress is playing up again, my comment should have read:
    You still see this as war , as trench warfare? Going over the top at Xmas to play football with the Hun? Charging machine gun nests armed only with a potato peeler and the sort of patriotism that got millions of Brits slaughtered for some Belgian real estate? And what did it achieve? The rise of Hitler a few years later.
    Sorry, I see us Smokers as the Maquis, the Werewolves, the Resistance, fighting a war of attrition with about as much hope of realising the goal of sitting in a pub with a pint and a smoke as the IRA had of achieving a United Ireland. More 1984 than 1948.
    Actually most of the time I see us smokers as more like the cast of “allo ‘allo” . than ‘Secret Army’. Pessimistic? Yes perhaps but the war has long since moved from ‘Offensive’ to ‘Self defensive’.
    Knee-capping is really too good for some people.
    and it really is very lonely on the Russian front.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I see it as Resistance. I see it as a swarm of bees. I see it in all sorts of ways. But today I was looking at it like it was WW1.

      • I see it as a swarm of bees
        I like that analogy, good natured, productive members of society as long as you leave them in peace to get on with things. To do things their way. God help any marauding wASHp though.

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        All I see is more and more people smoking even yesterday at the ER as normal the speakers yelling this is a smokefree campus yet the ER doc and 2 nurses are at the emergency door outside smoking and butts galore at the entrance. The parking lot no different butts everywhere!

        Going down the road at the red lites people smoking of all ages.

        Of course this is the south where independence and defiance to illogical control is fought against vehemently!

        We will win in the end as the ones behind lose political power which the populace movements should take care of eventually!

        We’ve won the internet war long ago very rarely can we even find a Nazi to joust with.

        All they seem to be able to do is PR news releases or PSA crap!

        But the real power is in the cash grants/bribes they use to bait cities to push the agenda along and it’s usually only 1 councilor that’s even with the smokefree crowd but big bucks buy votes and laws!

        Illicit lobbying you bet!

  4. nisakiman says:

    …when about the only places people couldn’t smoke were churches and schools.

    When I was at grammar (early to mid 60s), the staff room was always a fug of smoke, and it would billow out into the corridor when the teachers came and went. The headmaster was a chain smoker (Player’s Navy Cut) who would smoke throughout all interviews with him – and having had many such interviews (usually culminating in four or six of the best), I can attest to that. Our head of the French department (one Mr Fletcher, a formidable, nay, fearsome man who was rumoured to have been in the SOE during the war) used to march down the corridors scattering all in his path, black gown billowing behind him and pipe leaving a trail of aromatic smoke in his wake. He also smoked his pipe when he was taking lessons, apparently, although thankfully I never had the misfortune to be in his class.

    So my school was very smoker friendly (although not for me – pupils were excluded from the smoker tolerance).

    • Frank Davis says:

      pupils were excluded from the smoker tolerance

      That’s really what I meant. I had smoking teachers too, although I don’t remember any of them smoking during lessons.

      • Rose says:

        At our enlightened Grammar school we had smoking and non-smoking 6th form common rooms. Being a non-smoker I naturally went to the non-smoking common room, but after a couple of weeks I migrated surreptitiously to the smoking room because that’s where all the laughter was coming from and as usual, nobody minded that I didn’t smoke and that there was one less armchair available at lunch break, crowded as it was.

      • beobrigitte says:

        I had smoking teachers too, although I don’t remember any of them smoking during lessons.
        In my primary school there were ashtrays for the teachers who had to watch us on our breaks. They sure put me off smoking as I hated them. I’d have started smoking probably even earlier if it wasn’t for them.

    • ” pupils were excluded from the smoker tolerance”
      When I worked for a brief period in a Scottish approved school/Young Offenders (a boarding school, the youthful highspirited tearaways and little darlings were compelled by the Persecutor Feces to attend on pain of being dragged back off the mean streets of Edinburgh by the ‘Poll-leece’ in the 80S ) the boys were allowed to smoke anywhere except in the classrooms.
      I googled up the school recently and it is now the Holiday HQ for some Xian group who are no doubt convinced smoking allows demons into your soul.

      • Scot says:

        20 years ago when I was at College, someone on my course had the commission as a course project to do a school promo video, turns out it was my old alma mater, so obviously I volunteered to crew it up.

        Eye-opening stuff, never experienced any teacher smoking in class when I was a pupil or in the corridors, but low and behold! When I asked a member of staff if there was anywhere I could have a puff, I was directed to one of my former classrooms, which was now the teachers smoking room!

        The only downside I experienced on this reunion was when I was having a fag in the playground outside the brand-new gym they had built, and the janitor (not the same one I knew from my days) asked me not to smoke in the playground as it “was setting a bad example” – with no pupils in the playground as they were all in class at that moment!

        Should have seen it coming – thin edge of the wedge and all that…

      • “” pupils were excluded from the smoker tolerance””

        At the original Summerhill, AS Neill allowed his students to smoke. And, as an interesting side note, in the late 1960s our parish “Up With People” group would go to Camp Towamonga (or something close to that) every summer to do a concert for the “Wayward Girls” that the nuns at the camp looked after… basically a lot of middle-school and high-school gals who’d either gotten pregnant or perhaps lipped back once too often at the principal or somesuch. I remember that a lot of those girls smoked, but there was some strange attempt to control it by making them run up to a nun, and ask for a single cigarette at a time. I think ALL the nuns were carrying around a dozen or so packs of different brands.

        VERY strange.

        But I’ll bet Summerhill finally had to give in to The Man, just as the Philadelphia Anarchist’s Collective imposed its one rule: “No Smoking.” No idea what the Nuns did! LOL!

        – MJM

  5. Frank, O/T but you mentioned yesterday that you had admired the handrolled (I assume) cigarette of someone for it’s cylindrical shape? With some temerity I would like to suggest that there are two ‘keys’ to rolling a ‘perfect’ cigarette -if one is trying to roll a modern thin rollup and isn’t using a machine (which is of course the easiest way to get a round rollie). You have to bear in mind that the papers you are using were cut to roll normal sized cigarettes. I believe one can buy not-so-wide papers from specialist shops or one could spend an evening experimenting with a pair of scissors (better a paper guillotine perhaps?).
    The other ‘key’ to handrolling a perfect cylinder is …wait for it…NOT TO TRY! I kid you not. Instead of trying to roll a perfect tube, roll a slightly tapered cylinder. At first it will look suspicious, especially if you use 7 or 8mm ultra slim filters. But with a bit of practice you will find you can some roll just enough of a taper towards the filter or roach that to the casual observer it will appear as if you were smoking a perfectly cylindrical machine rolled. Some kind of optical illusion I assume. Infact back in the days when all cigarettes were hand rolled by Jewish girls with moleskin gloves, cigarettes came tapered, oval or nearly flat. Indeed one of the most famous German cigarette ads before and after WW2 was “with good reason our cigarette is ROUND”. („Aus gutem Grund ist Juno rund“ )

    *stops trying to teach Grandma to suck eggs at this point*

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’m not that bothered, to be honest. But I think it’s easy to roll thin cylindrical roll-ups because the paper wraps around twice, more or less. So rather than try not-so-wide papers, I’d imagine that wider papers are more likely to be the solution.

      • I would have thought that then there would be howls from the ‘condom paper’ users about the roll up tasting of paper more than tobacco.
        All I know is that I , with two left hands and fingers which work each according to their own software can hand roll smokes that appear to be almost perfect cylinders…and I really have no digital dexterity and an alcoholics tremor. But I roll about 3/4 of the size of ‘normal’ cigs, tapering down to a pre-rolled RAW cardboard tip not a filter. People comment or ask me if i use a machine ( I stopped using my beloved antique metal rollers machine when it broke and I haven’t gotten around to repairing it…it is on that 2DO list…)

        • nisakiman says:

          I would have thought that then there would be howls from the ‘condom paper’ users about the roll up tasting of paper more than tobacco.

          : P

          I just roll ’em. By hand. I’ve never used a machine. Never use a filter either unless I’m rolling a spliff.

          Joints require three papers and should be conical (but not too conical – tapered) with a loosely rolled cardboard filter for an easy draw.

          I roll cigs round, and they usually turn out pretty near perfect. I vary the thickness according to how thick I want them at that moment in time. Normally, they are thinner than a tailor-made, but fatter than a 6mm filter, To my mind, filters (unless they are rolled cardboard, as in joints) severely impact on the draw. They also dictate the size of the cigarette, which as I say, I like to vary according to my wants at the time. Using lightweight papers means that if I roll a thin cig (a racehorse, as they used to call rollies not much thicker than a matchstick) the extra ratio of paper to tobacco hardly changes the flavour or burning qualities of the cigarette,

  6. Rose says:

    Um..

    Calexit – Nigel Farage in plot to BREAK UP CALIFORNIA with new referendum campaign
    Mar 26, 2017

    NIGEL Farage has set himself a new referendum challenge to free citizens who want to be liberated from the liberal elite – and this time it’s California.
    The self-styled ‘bad boy of Brexit’ along with his political donor Arron Banks have joined the fight to split the American state in two to isolate the Hollywood elite.

    “Calexit” as it’s being dubbed, was first drummed up by liberals and the Hollywood elite in Los Angeles who became disgusted with US President Donald Trump and suggested they break away from the rest of America.

    However after the everyday man and woman in the state got wind of it, they got angry at the liberals, and now want the state to be divided to get away from them.
    In a bid to get the process rolling, organisers want to hold a state-wide referendum on the day of the US mid-term elections in 2018.

    Under Californian law, 365,880 people would need to sign a petition for the proposition to appear on the ballot in 2018.
    Eastern California, located far from the coastal cities, is the most likely place that would be won by Republicans if there was a referendum.

    It would give the party two new senators and extra votes in the electoral college in 2020, according to The Sunday Times.”
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/784019/Nigel-Farage-Calexit-plot-break-up-California-from-Donald-Trump-Arron-banks-Brexit-UK

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/the-bad-boys-of-brexit-joinfight-to-break-up-california-k86ptklw3

    • beobrigitte says:

      Calexit – Nigel Farage in plot to BREAK UP CALIFORNIA with new referendum campaign
      Mar 26, 2017

      All Californians are up in arms? *giggle*
      Thanks, Rose! Made my grin. Seriously, what SMOKER wants to visit California? To see the beauty surgeons’ created disasters, sun-tanned into frazzled bacon, jogging along smoke-free beaches without government warnings of eye sores anywhere in sight? I get that cheaper (with such a warning) on youtube!

  7. Smoking Lamp says:

    The resistance will prevail. Tobacco control is an oppressive fraud.

  8. Vlad says:

    I find this fascinating: Christoper Coggins in 2000, after reviewing chronic inhalation studies with mainstream cigarette smoke in mice, rats, hamsters, dogs and monkeys concludes: The results shown here and in the previous review are clearly at variance with the epidemiological evidence in smokers. It is difficult to reconcile this major difference between observational studies in humans and controlled laboratory studies .
    https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/docs/#id=hglc0074

    • Tony says:

      Useful summary of animal studies there. Including at least one where smoking animals lived longer than the sham exposed or non-exposed controls. 28% longer in fact.

  9. smokingscot says:

    They tried that and it was an abject failure. But let’s not dwell on that. They tried – in Dundee (one of the more “deprived” parts of Scotland.

    It wasn’t £15 to go buy a hamper, it was – in 2006 – £12.50 to go buy groceries in Asda. And what they meant was anything healthy, so no booze or fags. Though you could go buy pot noodles and jumbo pack sizes of Mars bars.

    http://www.dundeehealth.com/quitsmoking.htm

    One problem with their initiative is Asda has three stores in Dundee and they’re way out on the bypass, so the need for transport. And that – if one cares to think about it – presents a problem for less well off pregnant women. Bus or shanks – and not worth the fuss for £12.50.

    But it was for each month, providing they went to the clinic and passed the breath test.

    So okay you don’t know who you reach with your blog. That’s normal for all bloggers, unless they happen to use a computer that’s on a private network (so NHS, universities – even the BMJ networks have popped round to my place). In short, I can guarantee you’re read by those we seek to make redundant, after many hours of fun extracting the Mickey.

    And they’re rather pissed off at contrarian bloggers generally, but have an enormous beef with the scholarly ones. (I suppose there’s no point in trying to engage with the more sceptical or satirical or just plain objectionable bloggers because they don’t give a flying fart, they write for smokers full stop).

    Anyway just in case you missed it, here’s an amusing article on the topic.

    https://antithrlies.com/2017/03/24/editors-of-tobacco-control-attack-blogs-protecting-science-from-cranks-or-activism-from-science/

    • Frank Davis says:

      From your link:

      To the external eye, Tobacco Control looks like an ordinary scientific journal: it has an editorial board of professors; its contributors are PhD’s and other credentialed researchers working (mostly) in academic or government environments, receiving public and industry (pharmaceutical) grants; it undertakes a formal peer-reviewing process; it includes a rapid comments section; etc. This looks like any journal in other disciplines.

      However, this resemblance is a deceptive illusion based on common external markings and trappings. Tobacco Control is not a proper scientific research journal that serves a real academic community. It is a journal for a loose alliance of academics and regulators (mostly, physicians, lawyers and other non-scientists) whose main task is to advocate and promote a specific tobacco regulation policy with the aim of eradicating tobacco and nicotine usage.

      The advancement of the policy strategy is paramount for the journal and is not open to debate, with the “science” part and related technical aspects in the research it publishes being strictly confined to tactical issues subservient to their potential utility in this advocacy. This characterization requires no secret knowledge. A glance at the recommendations to prospective authors of articles to be published by the journal clearly and openly states its research orientation and strict priority:

      The principal concern of Tobacco Control is to provide a forum for research, analysis, commentary, and debate on policies, programmes, and strategies that are likely to further the objectives of a comprehensive tobacco control policy. In papers submitted for review the introduction should indicate why the research reported or issues discussed are important in terms of controlling tobacco use, and the discussion section should include an analysis of how the research reported contributes to tobacco control objectives.

      In fact, prospective authors are explicitly discouraged from submitting articles which may contain potentially valuable scientific material but have no direct effect on the advancement of the core policy strategy. From their list of papers they are not interested in:

      Papers that show the authors have never opened Tobacco Control and do not understand its primary focus on tobacco control rather than on tobacco and its use and health consequences. We are interested in such papers, but only if their authors address the implications of their findings for tobacco control.

      • beobrigitte says:

        To the external eye, Tobacco Control looks like an ordinary scientific journal: it has an editorial board of professors; its contributors are PhD’s and other credentialed researchers working (mostly) in academic or government environments, receiving public and industry (pharmaceutical) grants; it undertakes a formal peer-reviewing process; it includes a rapid comments section; etc. This looks like any journal in other disciplines.
        With respect to one of Tobacco Control funding industry:

        (Unfortunately this is the only reasonably well working copy I could find)

  10. waltc says:

    In college, students, including me, smoked in the classrooms. I don’t remember whether the profs did or not because smoking wasn’t noteworthy. In the library, which consisted of two huge rooms, one was smoking, the other, not. Smokers shared dorm rooms with nonsmokers who didn’t complain. In the main reading room of the NYC Public Library–the famous one with the lions in front–smokers and nonsmokers were separated only by an aisle between the dozens of rows of 15 foot tables, one side having ashtrays, the other, none. I don’t remember hearing so much as a cough.

    The (huge sprawling) campus of my alma mater is now entirely “smoke-free” and apparently also debate-free–inhabited by snowflakes who caused the cancellation of a speech by Hirsi Ali. It also now prides itself on sexual arbitration courts before which, I guess, the nonsmoking girls sharing rooms in the dorm with the nonsmoking boys can dispute whether or not they agreed to have their breast touched. As the old song goes, “I’m glad I’m not young any more.”

  11. beobrigitte says:

    The Antis scored a quick, surprise victory at the outset. But since then, as I was describing a couple of days ago, they’ve rather lost momentum. They launch new offensives from time to time, but they seldom gain much ground.
    In my experience we can expect yet another outlandish tobacco control action being worked on when it’s all quiet on the front.

    So I looked on the internet:
    http://www.smokefreeaction.org.uk/files/docs/SFACstrategy2016-20.pdf
    To reduce the rate of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths in England by 50%
    by 2030.

    So, stillbirth, neonatal and MATERNAL deaths are due to smoking? Tell that the baby-boomer generation!!!

    To transform the life chances of the poorest in our country
    Does this mean tobacco control etc. are providing them with a wage and a home? Or does this mean just free nicotine patches?

    To improve the physical health of those with mental health conditions
    ???? (Please don’t tell me they feed the mentally ill anti-depressants and then make them go jogging….)

    To meet the Independent Cancer Task Force targets in Achieving world-class cancer outcomes: a strategy for England 2015-2020 to reduce adult smoking prevalence to 13%, and to 21% for in routine and manual workers by 2020
    This probably is the most cancer patient’s insult: their cancer is their own fault! Also it indirectly stimulates people to donate for new cars to the CROOK beggars who every now and then publish something outlandish but is never followed up on.

    There is more utter nonsense in that “strategy 2016 – 2020”. Let it be the noose they hang themselves with!

  12. Pingback: Regulating The Regulators | Frank Davis

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