Sunday, 8 July 2012

More consulting please-until we're happy!

Well, well, well. Things not going to plan for Herr Lansley and Oberleutnant Milton seem to have hit the buffers with this one-the plain packaging idea-as, suddenly the deadline for 'consultation responses' has now been extended to Friday, 10th of August! Somewhat incredible really, for as Lansley had already made his mind up that 'PP' was of the utmost importance and therefore the consultation was merely a formality. The man is turning into an English version of 'Pol Pot' whereby democracy dictatorship is OK just so long as it's my style of democracy dictatorship!
Pol Pot - ruthless  

                                             Pot ty Lansley - a wannabe ruthless 

Having seen the consultation online, I got a very good friend of mine to complete the online consultation and watched with interest as he battled with his conscience over some of the questions! Interestingly, especially as he is involved with a cancer charity (no, not that lot that boasted income of £433,000,000 last year but still can't cure cancer), he came down on the side of NO plain packaging for he could not see how a few pretty colours forced children to smoke. Believe me when I say that I sat silently for more than half an hour as he ploughed through it all. 
Needless to say, from what I saw, many of the questions were framed to exact the answers required by Herr Lansley & Co so they really did take some reading and considering.
But, at the end of the day, now that the consultation deadline has been extended we know one thing for certain:
"Convert this into plain English and it means that the majority of respondents have dismissed the idea as idiotic. Buying them extra time means that they can galvanise all their little acolytes to fill in the online consultation in the manner needed to justify their demands for plain packaging!"
At long last it is beginning to look as if the British people are sticking the two fingered salute up to the so called Health Lobby, who in reality are simply fronting the anti tobacco lobby's demands.
Perhaps, after 5 years of misery for smokers, the people of this land are finally realising that this ban has absolutely nothing to do with health, and the longevity of people that we can't afford anyway, but  in public money and funding from pharmaceutical companies (producing nicotine "replacement" products). Products by the way that have a track record of failure - 98.4% failure rate actually, yet government continues to waste £millions on this pharmaceutical crap. This 'PC' (pharmaceutical crap) includes Chantix, Champix, Varencline (whatever you want to call it) has the marvellous ability of totally quitting smoking-it kills you! The French have withdrawn the drug but we, as only we could, continue to prescribe this drug regardless of the dire side effects. Even my own doctors surgery are still prescribing the drug despite my warnings & evidence!
I actually asked my doctor what difference plain packaging would make and she couldn't answer me-surprise, surprise!
How is this "Plain Packaging" ?
 The teeth of  a 'Delrosa addict' and a wonderful picture of rotting flesh (not from smoking however!) [faked] do not equal a plain packet! So, it is clear that it's OK for Lansleys mob to adorn a fag packet with their form of advertising but not so for the manufacturers! Now is THAT legal I ask?
So, even if the "Health Gestapo" do get their way, packs will still  be adorned with silly health warning pictures. Just think, in years to come a full set of these carefully preserved 'cards' might be worth a nice few quid. No matter what the outcome of this so called consultation, it is obvious that there is now a groundswell of opinion NOT concurring with the health loonies! That has got to be good news for democracy at all levels!
Newsflash: Unite (yes, the Union) have at long last woken up and want all members to voice their concerns about the damage this idiotic plain packaging will cause: Download here


  1. I always wonder why PETA and such groups haven't taken advantage of this "plain packs" thing to go into supermarkets and slap huge stickers of bloated corpses or 500 pound bathing beauties with bedsores or closeups of clogged up arteries etc on all the various meat products in supermarkets?

    After all, they'd basically be doing pretty much exactly the same thing the government is doing with cigarettes -- simply "educating" people -- so how could they be held to be in the wrong?

    - MJM

  2. Hi there

    What can I say except everyone is going round in ever decreasing circles from polititions to the average bloke on the street.
    The Simple answer surely is…. If you breath in and your lungs say STOP then whatever you are breathing in must be bad for you. Be it fumes on the road from exhaust pipes to the perfume on a counter in a well known chemist.
    I don’t care what someone else does to their lungs but I do care what happens to mine and my children’s lungs.

    My parents all three of them, yes three, died from carcinoma of the bronchus and lungs filled with tar. Only there from cigarette smoking.
    Sorry if this goes against your policy but if I could get rid of cigarettes altogether I would.
    However I would also get rid of smelly cars, lorries, vans and any other vehicle that belches out fumes that clog up my lungs.
    Also silly people, smothered in perfume and aftershave that pass me in the shop and stop me breathing, for moments of my time.

    You know there are so many other things that really are more important than where or when people smoke those wretched fags in this life.
    Get on board bringing our troops home before any more are killed in ‘wars’ that are none of our business.
    Yes we can get involved but in ‘talking to those in power’ not killing.

    I could go on about more and more things, that are more and far more important.
    Lives that should be saved by medication, but a person is not living in the right area.
    Euthanasia, in the form of allowing a person to decide for themselves when and where they are allowed to die or assisted suicide.
    Don’t give me rubbish about all pain can be controlled IT CAN NOT BE CONTROLLED.
    Also those people trapped in a body that cannot do anything. Just you tie your hand to your side for one day and see how frustrating that is and then imagine how it must feel to be in a body that cannot move anything, your brain is alive and active but you cannot do one thing for yourself apart from blink.
    Now I am not saying there are not people that can cope with this or do not live a happy life. BUT I AM TALKING ABOUT THOSE WHO CANNOT.
    We put animals to sleep on humane grounds yet keep humans alive because, SOMEONE HAS DECREED IT ILLEGAL TO HELP OR ALLOW THEM TO DIE. .IS THAT HUMANE. NO IT BLOODY WELL IS NOT. Sorry personal experience again.

    YES there are far more IMPORTANT matters to be discussed and sorted out than the ban on smoking in pubs.
    It is NOT the smoking ban that has caused the decrease in people in pubs, it is the access to alcohol from shops and the laziness of people who now prefer to drink themselves legless at home and not to have the bother of getting to the pub and home again afterwards, not to mention the cost difference between shop bought and a measure in the pub.

    In the end, where or when people smoke is simply up to them BUT please do not expect me to breath in your smelly fumes, especially the ones that have come to me via your lungs. Go smoke as many cigarettes as you like out in the open where your fumes are dispersed into the atmosphere not in confined spaces where I have to endure them.

    Sorry I seem to have gone on a rant


  3. Seems to me that you are the perfect advocate of CHOICE then 'JJ'. If there were smoking pubs & non smoking pubs there would not be any problems for only non smokers who enjoyed the smell of tobacco would venture into smoking pubs.
    Licensees would start earning money again, pubs would be full of happy banter once more, jobs would be saved and better still, created and the internal economy might well start picking up again!
    All round WIN/WIN then JJ-thank you.

  4. To JJ who is obviously biased and ignorant of the facts;

    , the general belief is the tar from cigarettes deposits in the lungs and causes cancer. This simply is not the case. If, indeed, cigarettes caused tar to be deposited in the lungs of smokers then each and every one would die of asphyxiation long before they ever got the chance to get cancer. Tar is a very thick substance, and can kill people very easily. In the days when Christianity was illegal, one of the ways the martyrs were killed was dipping their body in tar – the tar blocked up their pores and stopped their skin being able to breathe, thus killing them. Clearly, there is no way someone could live with tar in their lungs. Furthermore, if there was tar in cigarettes it would not only be in the lungs – it would be in the mouth of the smoker, in ashtrays, on fingers, and smokers’ would cough up chunks of black tar. This has never happened. Let’s take a look at the facts:

    In the United Kingdom, full strength cigarettes contain 10mg of ‘tar’, and in America they contain 20mg of ‘tar’. For arguments’ sake, we will use the American levels as this would accumulate faster. The lung capacity of an average adult human is about six litres, which is 6,000 cubic centimetres.[3]At room temperature, one cubic centimetre (one ml) of water weighs about one gram. Tar however, being an oily substance, floats on water, so one ml weighs less than a gram. The exact density of tar depends on its composition. Tar is usually a mixture of many different oily chemicals. At its densest though, one gram of tar occupies about 1.25 ml of volume. At 20 mg (0.025 ml) of "tar" per cigarette, it would take at least 50 cigarettes to yield one gram of "tar". That's two and a half packs of cigarettes. This means that, if you smoke one pack of full flavour cigarettes, you would have about 0.5 ml of "tar" in your lungs. Because your lungs hold about 6,000 ml of air, you would have to smoke about 12,000 packs of cigarettes to completely fill them with "tar". Smoking one pack per day, that would take about 33 years. This means that anyone who started smoking at age 15 would have nothing but a thick slurry of tar oozing out of their nose and mouth by age 48. There would be no air left in his or her lungs at all, just "tar". This however, is not the end of the story. Obviously, if your lungs were completely filled with tar, then you would suffocate and die. Your lungs do not have to be completely filled to result in suffocation; about a cup (500 ml) will do. That's only about 1,000 packs of full flavoured cigarettes. You could do that in just under three years at a pack a day. If the popular myths about cigarette "tar" were true, then every pack-a-day smoker would be dead, from suffocation, before the end of three years ( This obviously is not the case, as everyone either knows or has seen an elderly smoker, or knows people who have been smoking for over three years. Even before a smoker reaches the stage of 500ml of tar being in their lungs to kill them, they would certainly have very minimal lung capacity and would be constantly out of breath – to the point where any exercise, including walking, would be dangerous as their lungs could not provide the body with the oxygen it needs. I have had one person attempt to counter this by saying that the body rids itself of toxins and waste. Anyone with any knowledge of tar would realise that the body cannot simply eject it – tar in the body stays there. If it really were so easy to get rid of, it would not have killed so many martyrs whom had it smeared on their skin to cause death by suffocation.