The Playthings of the Gods

Hat tip to Rose for this:

Air pollution is being blamed for soaring numbers of non-smokers who are developing lung cancer.

Doctors at leading cancer centres in London warned that high levels of pollution are causing a spike in cases of lung cancer.

They said, if the trend continues, the number of lung cancer deaths among non-smokers will overtake those who smoke within a decade

…doctors at the Royal Brompton Hospital and Harefield NHS Trust have reported a spike in the number of operations they are performing on non-smokers.

Eric Lim, a consultant thoracic surgeon, said the number of patients treated at the centre between 2008 and 2014 remained constant at about 310 a year.

But, of those patients, the number of those who never smoked had risen from fewer than 50 to nearly 100 a year.

He said that the reasons for this change remained unclear but air pollution was a likely cause.

So some doctors are beginning to look around for other causes of lung cancer than smoking, while others are not.

Some experts have argued that the study was too small to be reliable and suggested that the reason for the increase is improvements in machines that can detect smaller tumours.

Stephen Spiro, a former head of respiratory medicine at University College Hospital said: “There is no good evidence that lung cancer is becoming commoner in never-smokers.

“Lung cancer will become more frequent in never-smokers as a proportion, as smoking cancers begin to decline.”

What’s causing lung cancers among never-smokers? They don’t know. It could be air pollution. But why not radioactive fallout from all the nuclear power stations round the world that have blown up or melted down? And why not global warming?

I don’t think these people understand cancer. I think that if they understood it they’d have produced some sort of cure or vaccine by now, in the same way they’ve done with diseases like typhoid and malaria, which they understand pretty well. And I think that if they understood it they’d have better treatments than brutal surgery and radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

They understand some things pretty well, and they don’t understand other things. Just like climate scientists understand some things about climate, and don’t understand other things. It’s the same in every science: there are the things that are known, and the things that are unknown.

And perhaps that’s why there’s panic about smoking and climate change. The panic grows out of not understanding what’s happening. People who know what they’re doing don’t panic.

Yesterday I was watching a documentary about earthquakes and earthquake science. One of the scientists said that when she’d got into the field in the early 1970s, it was in the confident belief that in a few years they’d be able to predict when and where earthquakes would happen, But now, 40 or 50 years on, that belief had ebbed away. One of them said that the surface of the Earth was too complex and chaotic to ever understand. Pretty much every earthquake that happened took them by surprise, and they said as much. I was left with the impression that they’d all pretty much given up.

And maybe that’ll happen with climate science and epidemiology and asteroid impact prediction too? Maybe scientists will simply start giving up, and saying it’s too complex and chaotic for us ever to be able to understand it.

It would certainly be a welcome change if a lot more scientists stopped pretending that they were Masters Of The Universe, and instead admitted that we don’t really understand very much about anything, and so remain the Playthings of the Gods.

About Frank Davis

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

31 Responses to The Playthings of the Gods

  1. A few more people need to understand that sometimes, stuff just happens. We are not in charge of our own Destiny, we are at the mercy of fate and luck. Cannot legislate for it, it just is.
    Another great post, thank you.

  2. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Diesel fumes as i keep saying, not smoking are mainly responsible for lung cancers.
    Having worked in road transport for 40 years and seen the fumes emitted, believe me i know what i am saying.

    • smokingscot says:

      I’m no expert TG; just a motorcyclist – and I agree with you.

      I also believe there’s a horrid correlation between the increase in smoking cigarettes (as opposed to clay pipes) and the increased use of diesel vehicles, so from WW1 onwards.

      And because governments have encouraged the use of diesel, given them free access to the centre of London, then in spite of their low consumption and so called “greenness”, the effect will be most pronounced in London.

      I shall never forget being in Andorra when a French public holiday happened. The towns and villages there are almost all built in valleys. Most of the cars were diesel, it was a still autumn day and I simply could not breathe.

      I say it’s a horrid correlation because they’ve been hounding the wrong culprit and God knows how many have died needlessly because of their mis-alocation of resources.

    • Rose says:

      A brief extract from The Cigarette – Enemy or Red Herring?
      By Dr. Geoffrey Myddelton
      1971

      “The other theory is that the increase in lung cancer has been due to motor exhaust fumes; which are known to contain carcinogens, especially those of the diesel engine. I estimate roughly that the petrol engine is only about 6 % as dangerous as the diesel, and that if one adds.6 % of the petrol used to the diesel fuel consumed on the road’s in each year, one gets a graph of the huge rise in carcinogenic pollution of the atmosphere in Britain in the last 50 years .

      If the curve of the rise in male lung cancer mortality is plotted beside it, one can see that there is a close relationship between them.
      I believe that this correlation is more than mere coincidence.
      The diesel’ theory needs to be thoroughly investigated’ by a crash programme of research, and the cigarette theory needs to be checked and the figures on which it is based audited by independent statisticians.

      The cigarette theory has been used as a red herring to distract attention from the horrible pollution of the atmosphere by the diesel engine. all we’ve had up till now has been a flood of propaganda and the virtual suppression of all criticism and discussion.

      I appeal to the Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians to have the courage to support a fresh and unbiased investigation.
      Somebody dies of lung cancer in England and Wales every 18 minutes. I believe that a complete mis-diagnosis of the cause of the increase in lung cancer has unfortunately been made, and that suffering humanity has the right to a second opinion.”
      https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=mgff0115

      “He was trying to read an unscheduled paper on “‘The Cigarette — Enemy or Red Herring?” and it became obvious that he felt cigarettes were being used as a scapegoat for alleged dangers of diesel engine fumes.” – at the 2nd World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1971 and got booed and clapped down for his trouble.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Diesel and Gasoline Engine Exhausts and Some Nitroarenes
      An IARC Monographs Working Group reviewed epidemiological evidence, animal bioassays, and mechanistic and other relevant data to reach conclusions as to the carcinogenic hazard to humans of environmental or occupational exposure to diesel and gasoline engine exhausts (including those associated with the mining, railroad, construction, and transportation industries) and to 10 selected nitroarenes.
      IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, No. 105
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK294269/

  3. Algernon Struthers says:

    Agreed, Rose’s observation about lung cancer’s increase in non-smokers super informative. Thanks for digging around for it, Rose!

    I think the solution is that non-smokers stop breathing, although yeah, that’s a bit severe, maybe they should just stop talking, particularly about smoking. See, I’m no extremist, I believe in compromise.
    The quote from Frank’s great article above by a doctor was truly mind-numbing: “Lung cancer will become more frequent in never-smokers as a proportion, as smoking cancers begin to decline.” OMG, the doctor quoted offers neither reason nor answer, but his was a flippant misuse of words was a guess!
    And, as our own doctor once said to my wife: “blood goes up and blood goes down.” I congratulate the years of training required that allowed the doc to arrive at that conclusion.
    We expect sense and clarity from ‘experts,’ the latter proudly touting that they’re Phd; BA Dip Ed etc., blah, blah, just as anyone introducing the same, proudly touts.
    Is prayer the solution? Well that’s been tried, but religions’ experts also became, considered questionable, which is why we have the sciences. But let me give a plug for Jewish Rabbis who I’ve found make much sense of what I’d previously considered insensible. I’d become a Jew but I value the appendages of my intimate anatomy. Be-that-as-it-may, God in his infinite wisdom will probably need to collect His dignity at the outstanding farce, into which the human race is evolving, before He makes any epic statements.
    Manufactured cigarettes were a brilliant invention, but now because of tax, I’m forced to roll my own. Roll on another ice-age, no pun intended, at least ice won’t be taxed, well, probably not, but I’m guessing I’m wrong on that one already.

  4. Igrowmyown says:

    Dr Royal Raymond Rife proposed an alternative theory for cancer,unfortunately whether he was right or wrong we will never know since his funding and work were shut down by the American Cancer Society. And this is the problem with cancer research since no alternative theory can be proposed and funded without the approval of powerful vested interests who wish to maintain the status quo even though it’s been an abject failure.

    • Smokin Lamp says:

      The suppression of dissent is a common activist tactic. Indeed the partisan attack on Enstrom and Kabat’s paper has been widely researched. See for example: Sheldon Ungar and Dennis Bray. Silencing science: partisanship and the career of a publication disputing the dangers of secondhand smoke. Public Understanding of Science, Volume: 14 issue: 1, page(s): 5-23, January 1, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662505048515 abstract follows:

      “Abstract: This paper examines the silencing of science, that is, efforts to prevent the making of specific scientific claims in any or all of the arenas in which these claims are typically reported or circulated. Those trying to mute the reporting or circulation of scientific claims are termed “partisans.” The paper examines silencing through a systematic examination of the “rapid responses” to a smoking study published in the British Medical Journal claiming that secondhand smoke is not as dangerous as conventionally believed. Media coverage of the smoking study is also examined, as is the question of whether there is self-silencing by the media regarding doubts about the negative effects of passive smoke. The results suggest that the public consensus about the negative effects of passive smoke is so strong that it has become part of a regime of truth that cannot be intelligibly questioned.”

  5. Smoking Lamp says:

    Lorraine Pelosof, Chul Ahn, Ang Gao, Leora Horn, Alejandra Madrigales, Joan Cox, Dauphne McGavic, John D. Minna, Adi F. Gazdar, Joan Schiller; Proportion of Never-Smoker Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients at Three Diverse Institutions, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 109, Issue 7, 1 July 2017, djw295, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279285/

    Abstract

    Background: Approximately 10% to 15% of lung cancer cases in the United States occur in never smokers, but there has been much debate about whether this rate is increasing. To determine whether the proportion of never smokers among lung cancer cases is increasing, we conducted a retrospective study using registries from The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Parkland Hospital, and Vanderbilt University.

    Methods: Registries were queried for demographic information from 1990 to 2013 including sex, age, stage, and self-reported smoking history. Ten thousand five hundred ninety-three non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) case patients and 1510 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) case patients were captured, and logistic regression analysis was performed. All statistical tests were two-sided.

    Results: The proportion of never-smoker NSCLC patients increased from 8.0% in the years 1990 to 1995 to 14.9% in 2011 to 2013 (P < .001). This increase was also observed using multivariable logistic regression after controlling for sex, stage at diagnosis, and race/ethnicity. The percentage of never smokers among SCLC case patients (1.5% in 1990–1995 to 2.5% in 2011–2013, P = .36) or squamous cell NSCLC case patients did not statistically significantly change during this period.

    Conclusions: This study demonstrates an increasing proportion of NSCLC patients who have never smoked in a large, diverse patient population between 1990 and 2013. Given that this increase appears independent of sex, stage, and race/ethnicity and also occurred in our county hospital, this trend is unlikely due to changes in referral patterns and suggests that the actual incidence of lung cancer in never smokers is increasing.

  6. waltc says:

    The theory that the recent increase in LC among nonsmokers is caused by traffic fumes would then have to presume a sudden increase in traffic fumes. There’s no evidence of that.

    • Charles Burns says:

      Right. If fact motor vehicles used to emit far more pollution back before there were any restrictions on smoking. “Scientists” are just guessing again. But wait and see, driving will become restricted as a result

  7. Charles Burns says:

    “Scientists Say Earthquakes Caused By Second Hand Tobacco Smoke”

  8. mandy vincent says:

    Great post as always Frank. Kitty little talked about diesel years ago. http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html#.XUZAjPZFzIU I will never give to cancer charities when they are so blind when it comes to smoking. NOT one disease do smokers only get.

  9. jaxthefirst says:

    Surely, though, what’s most pertinent about this sudden rise in lung cancer in non-smokers since 2008 isn’t the rise itself, but why it should have suddenly risen since 2008 (a 100% rise, even using quite small numbers like this is, by anyone’s standards very significant indeed)? Diesel has, after all, been around for many decades. If that is the cause of the disease in never-smokers, then why didn’t the rise happen in direct correlation with the increasing use of diesel for road vehicles? I’m guessing from memory that diesel first started being “encouraged” (wasn’t it exempt from duty or charged a lower rate for many years to encourage people to use it?) around the mid-1980s or thereabouts, although others on here might recall more precise dates. But if I’m right, then surely we would have seen a rise from about the same time, or at least the beginning of one, even taking into account the much-quoted “delay factor?” We certainly wouldn’t have seen 30-odd years of no apparent health problems at all and then – wham! – a sudden doubling in number in the space of just the last few years?

    Perhaps they’ve been so busy blaming fictional Passive Smoking for lung cancer in non-smokers, that it’s only now that it’s virtually impossible for a non-smoker to “passively smoke” unless they go to a great deal of effort, which few are inclined to do, all those “everybody knows”-quoting Experts have suddenly realised that – oops – it must have been something else all along.

    Or – who knows – and here is the dangerous bit (dangerous as far as the anti-smoking zealots are concerned, that is) about this rather worrying rise, being as it follows so hotly on the heels of the loathsome Smoking Ban, I wonder if there’s a brave enough scientist out there to suggest the un-suggestible, i.e. that all that “deadly” passive smoke that all those saintly non-smokers were “forced” to breathe up until 2007 was actually – err – protecting them from all those nasty diesel emissions, but now that they are no longer exposed to any tobacco smoke, neither are they protected by it. Awkwaaaard!!

    Oh, and why aren’t ex-smokers mentioned anywhere here? Obviously, the number of smokers has declined hugely over the last few decades, but that automatically means that the number of ex-smokers has increased. Is this doctor seeing a similar rise in lung cancer cases amongst ex-smokers? Or does he think that because they are ex-smokers any cancer they get can only be due to the cigarettes that they used to smoke? And if so, why? After all, we are all told that once a person gives up smoking their lung cancer risk gradually declines in the ensuing years, so why aren’t long-term ex-smokers’ rates going up just like never-smokers’ ones are, if their lung cancer risks are deemed by The Experts to be very close to each other after a few years? Or, if they are going up just as rapidly and suddenly as never-smokers’ ones are, why doesn’t he mention that? Perhaps because it doesn’t fit the “quit or die” narrative? “Quit and die anyway” just doesn’t have the same authoritarian ring to it, does it?

    It also raises the somewhat uncomfortable question (predictably sidestepped in this article) as to how many cases of lung cancer over the last few decades – hitherto automatically blamed on smoking – might actually have been caused by diesel emissions or air pollution and not smoking at all. After all, they’ve never actually been able to establish the precise mechanism whereby smoking causes lung cancer – maybe, just maybe, because it doesn’t? And if diesel emissions (or other air pollution) can cause cancer in never smokers, then presumably it can also cause it in smokers, too. Unless, as I say, there’s something in cigarette smoke which stops diesel-causing particles from damaging the lungs. Now there’s irony for you – far from Smoking Causes Cancer, a more truthful mantra might well turn out to have been Smoking Prevents Cancer all along!

    • smokingscot says:

      Jax,

      Good points the lot.

      From my experience it’s been the increase in the number of cars, vans and hellish big 4 x 4 things.

      I recall the Bedford snub nose vans and the Austin’s and such delivery vans all had petrol in the 60’s as well as all the air cooled VW jobs. And the same applied to those 3 ton trucks.

      I don’t believe Morris or Daimler and so on ever made a diesel car.

      When they started putting them into things like the little Peugeot 106 that’s when things got way bad. Not when they were new, but when they were a few years old. It’s the same with any vehicle that’s third or later hand, the owners cut corners on servicing and parts – and knackered jets plus cheap exhausts led to that familiar black plume out the tail pipe.

      Even today, despite the new MOT rules, I still see Transit vans belching the muck. And watching Tractor Pulling or Truck Racing and it’s spectacular.

    • Rose says:

      Now there’s irony for you – far from Smoking Causes Cancer, a more truthful mantra might well turn out to have been Smoking Prevents Cancer all along

      That has crossed my mind many times, Jax.

      Another clue is that these non-smokers seem to be getting lung cancer at a much earlier age now that they have all been protected from secondhand smoke by the bans.

      Here it is again in a small study of a one hit exposure to something really nasty.

      Mustard gas exposure and carcinogenesis of lung.
      2009

      “The present study characterizes lung cancers formed in mustard gas victims from the Iran-Iraq War.”
      METHODS AND MATERIALS:
      “Demographic information and tumor specimens were collected from 20 Iranian male lung cancer patients with single high-dose SM exposures during the Iran-Iraq War.”

      RESULTS:
      “A relatively early age of lung cancer onset (ranging from 28 to 73 with a mean of 48) in mustard gas victims, particularly those in the non-smoking population (mean age of 40.7), may be an indication of a unique etiology for these cancers.”
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19559099

      It’s not what they were looking for but thats what leapt out at me.

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        Beneficial effects of nicotine and cigarette smoking: the real, the possible and the spurious.

        Abstract
        Cigarette smoking is an established risk factor for cancer and cardiovascular disease, and is the leading cause of avoidable disease in most industrialized countries. Less well-known are possible beneficial effects, which are briefly considered in this survey. Preliminary data suggest that there may be inverse associations of smoking with uterine fibroids and endometriosis, and protective effects on hypertensive disorders and vomiting of pregnancy are likely. Smoking has consistently been found to be inversely related to the risk of endometrial cancer, but cancers of the breast and colon seem unrelated to smoking. Inverse associations with venous thrombosis and fatality after myocardial infarction are probably not causal, but indications of benefits with regard to recurrent aphthous ulcers, ulcerative colitis, and control of body weight may well reflect a genuine benefit. Evidence is growing that cigarette smoking and nicotine may prevent or ameliorate Parkinson’s disease, and could do so in Alzheimer’s dementia. A variety of mechanisms for potentially beneficial effects of smoking have been proposed, but three predominate: the ‘anti-estrogenic effect’ of smoking; alterations in prostaglandin production; and stimulation of nicotinic cholinergic receptors in the central nervous system. Even established inverse associations cannot be used as a rationale for cigarette smoking. These data can be used, however, to clarify mechanisms of disease, and point to productive treatment or preventive options with more narrowly-acting interventions.

        Baron JA. Beneficial effects of nicotine and cigarette smoking: the real, the possible and the spurious. Br Med Bull. 1996 Jan;52(1):58-73. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8746297

    • Rose says:

      Ex smokers

      Many Lung Cancer Patients Stopped Smoking Years Before Diagnosis
      2010

      “July 14, 2010 (Los Angeles, California) — Much of what people think they know about smoking and lung cancer might be wrong, according to findings presented here at the 11th International Lung Cancer Conference.”

      “In a retrospective study of 626 people with lung cancer treated at a tertiary-care facility in Southern California, 482 (77%) had a history of smoking.
      Of those, only 71 patients (14.7%) were still smoking at the time of their diagnosis. Of the remaining 411 patients, 245 (60%) had not smoked for a mean of 18 years, 8 of whom had quit 51 to 60 years earlier.
      The other 166 (40%) had stopped smoking within 10 years of their diagnosis.

      “Sixty percent of our cohort developed lung cancer despite doing the right thing by stopping smoking over 1 decade ago,” according to the researchers.”

      “In 1995, California passed one of the first antismoking laws in the nation when it banned smoking in enclosed workspaces. This might have encouraged more people to quit smoking than in other parts of the country and might help account for the preponderance of patients in the earlier stages of cancer.”
      https://web.archive.org/web/20130118020726/http://www.medscape.com:80/viewarticle/725138

      Behind the Headlines: Is diabetes linked to quitting smoking?
      2010

      “Quitters face an almost doubled risk of developing diabetes in their first three smoke-free years.
      Researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, studied 10,892 adult smokers, none of whom had diabetes at the start of the study.

      “The participants were studied for nine years during which time, 1,254 developed type-2 diabetes.
      In the first three years after giving up, new quitters were 91 per cent more likely to develop diabetes. This decreased over time and after 12 years quitters had no excess risk.”

      What is behind the raised risk?
      “Extra weight put on by new quitters explains around a third of the increased risk, the researchers said. A further third of the excess risk is accounted for by systemic inflammation, as assessed by increased leukocyte counts.

      However, after adjusting for this weight gain and inflammation, new quitters were still at higher risk compared with participants who continued smoking.”
      http: //www.gponline.com/News/article/976970/Behind-Headlines-diabetes-linked-quitting-smoking/
      Now requires log in

      “This study found that smokers and recent quitters had a greater risk of diabetes compared to those who had never smoked, but that three years after quitting this risk had reduced. The suggestion that this is because quitters are more likely to gain weight is logical, but it cannot be proven by this cohort study.

      The results of this study do not mean that smoking is protective to health.”
      http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/01January/Pages/Quitting-smoking-and-diabetes-risk.aspx

    • EG says:

      Second hand smoke was good for some people. Not everyone. I always loved the smell.. Now I have to find a person to light up and walk behind him or her. Or I can just be lucky to show up in the underground passage where some strange musician is smoking.
      I smoke myself but it’s different. It feels lonely somewhat and not right.

  10. Rose says:

    What has at been at the back of my mind throughout my research is the curious phenomenon that the worse the air pollution the more they smoke.

  11. Clicky says:

  12. Elisa Torres says:

    Amazing post, I follow your site daily and I got to tell you, thank you for talking about this things that apparently no one cares.
    My dad was a smoker all his life and he died of cancer, but not lung cancer. Funny no?!
    Personally I think all things since food products to chemicals and radiation is increasing the chance of humankind getting cancer. And probably if we lived in a self-sufficient environment maybe cancer would not exist at all…

    Keep on going,
    Cheers
    Elisa

    • Rose says:

      I have read that lung cancer was very rare until the 1920’s and then there were many different suggestions as to which of the new scientific innovations at the time from town gas to tarred roads and war gasses, was causing the rise. In the end, the most expedient expanation was blaming the victims and all further dissent silenced after that.

  13. PJH says:

    If 100 out of 310 are non-smokers getting lung cancer from X, how many of the remaining 220 smokers are also getting lung cancer from X, rather than smoking?

  14. Joe L. says:

    The city of Dayton, Ohio has announced it will no longer hire anyone who uses tobacco or vapes. [Coincidentally, there was a mass shooting outside a bar in Dayton last night. I doubt it was related to this, but it makes you wonder.] Also, how are they going to prove/enforce this nonsense? Will they test blood cotinine levels? What if someone is taking NRT products to quit smoking? They will also register higher cotinine levels. So will they also reject ex-smokers who have “done the right thing” and quit smoking by giving their money to pharmaceutical companies for their (as MJM has dubbed them) NicoGummyPatchyProducts? I believe this is unenforceable, and if it comes crashing down, it could be the catalyst we need to start repealing other draconian Antismoking laws.

    Ohio city’s ban on hiring smokers, vapers could be ‘slippery slope,’ some fear

    More bad news for smokers and vapers: The city of Dayton, Ohio, says it will no longer hire anyone who uses nicotine or tobacco.

    The rationale: City officials say they want to encourage a healthier workplace and environment – and also save money.

    “Studies indicate that employees that smoke cost approximately an additional $6,000 per year in direct medical costs and lost productivity,” Kenneth Couch, the city’s director of human resources, told the Dayton Daily News.

    But leaders of labor unions say they fear the new city policy could be a “slippery slope” that could lead to employees facing more scrutiny of their personal habits and private lives that have little or nothing to do with their job performance.

    “We are not thrilled about it,” Rick Oakley, president of the Dayton Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 44, told the newspaper. “But we also understand where the city is coming from because the biggest part of their health care costs are from nicotine-related illnesses.”

    “Nicotine-related illnesses”? WTF? People are still so brainwashed and confused from being pummeled with all sorts of Antismoking propaganda that there are those who still incorrectly think that nicotine is believed to be the cause of all these “smoking-related illnesses. This is depressing. One first has to properly understand the lies they’re being subjected to before they can ever attempt to think critically about them. These people don’t even understand why they are told to believe smoking is bad yet they “know” it is. It is these people who are the biggest hurdle on our road back to free choice.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      There is no such thing as ‘nicotine-related illness’. If so, we should all stop eating tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, eggplant (aubergine), cauliflower, and some teas. Joe, you are correct, this nonsense is the result of relentless propaganda and suppression of scientific results that conflict with tobacco control dogma.

    • Timothy Goodacre says:

      What about Cannabis users ?

  15. Charles Burns says:

    Not hiring smokers is nothing new in the US. It is a widespread practice. To challenge it will be difficult. Class action lawsuit, high lawyer’s fees and the courts move very slowly. And such a suit could fail in today’s antismoking climate. Employees will have to provide urine samples.

    • Rose says:

      Blue Print For Success – Countdown 2000 – Ten Years to a Tobacco Free America
      (Sept. 11, 1990)

      P 28 of 32; Any comprehensive Clean Indoor Air statute must not contain provisions that provide civil rights protection for smokers against employment discrimination.

      “Hundreds of smoking-control laws across the country stipulate that in cases of dispute between a smoker and nonsmoker, the nonsmokers’s wishes prevail.
      Anti-discrimination laws would serve to negate such stipulations. In addition, an anti-discrimination law would give a smoker the power to bring suit against both the employer and the nonsmoker with whom there is a grievance.”
      https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/#id=sxyp0081

      Nasty stuff.

  16. Pingback: Slowly Mounting Civil War | 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 )

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.