Well of course, according to the most bigoted tribe ever, cancer simply HAD to be attributed to smoking & second hand smoke-after all, ASH said so! But who are ASH in reality? They are simply a state funded organisation made up of those that abhor the smell of smoke, and who want to impress their anti smoking views on everyone else. They couldn't even find it in their pitch black hearts to accept that choice, in a democratic country, should prevail. Oh no, they had to bludgeon their evil way to a total ban and even used whatever scientific junk they thought necessary to do so. Un-amazingly they still employ whatever junk science is available to suit their miserable purpose!
Konrad Jamrozik Junk ScienceThere have been many studies completed over the years showing that SHS has little or no harm factor, indeed, in an outdoor area it has absolutely none but that hasn't stopped the likes of ASH indoctrinating idiots such as Cllr Taylor in Blackpool who now decrees that smoking in various parks is banned! What can he, or the council, do about this legally is totally beyond me but they obviously feel that they can keep smokers out of the nominated parks. Pat Nurse is quite correct when she raises the 'active smoking' idea of a 'sit/smoke in' as smokers should NOT be treated this way.
We also have the lunatic from down under popping up to back the idea in Tasmania of making it illegal to sell cigarettes to anyone born after the year 2,000. So, in his eyes (Simon Chapman if you hadn't already guessed) it is perfectly OK do deny kids, the next generation, their democratic right to choice! What an absolute dreg of dingo society the man really is.
One study that has been constantly ignored over the years is the fantastic work done by Dr Kitty Little who correlated the rise of cancer rates alongside the rise in industrialisation & the usage of diesel. She was ignored, but with the growing concerns about air pollution worldwide, some politicians are actually waking up to the fact that our transport systems is causing medical mayhem. Having written to ASH some 5 years ago about this matter, and still not had a response, I can only conclude that they don't want to answer the questions posed-perhaps I didn't (or Dr Little didn't) include enough junk science for them to be able to answer in their roundabout junk response way!
Two articles to suddenly appear in most reputable tabloid (The Daily Telegraph) will have thrown ASH into a frenzy of denial and the acolytes to find even 'more compelling "evidence" ' for the articles totally denounce smoking as the leading cause of cancer and place the disease firmly at the door of AGE. Now there's a thing folks!
According to the report, this concerns people between the ages of 35 & 65:
"Aged between 35 and 65? You may want to sit down. According to statistics from a new study, 4.1 million over-65s will be living with cancer in 2040, compared with 1.3 million in 2010. And nearly one in four older people will receive a cancer diagnosis in 2040, almost double the proportion in 2010," say researchers at King’s College London.Kings College, London eh? So we are not talking about some backwater organisation in the health service looking for their five minutes of fame; in fact we are talking about research done by a front line organisation who seek only to find truth (I doubt that ASH would qualify as members of this mob then!) and are not afraid to publish such. We have this gem from a leading oncologist:
Professor Karol Sikora agrees: “We have an ageing population – and the biggest single risk for cancer is age, not smoking or lifestyle. Improved treatments are having an impact on survival. The next generation, the 35-65 year old's, will be more determined to get the best treatment, and will be more likely to survive as a result.”A survey, reported yesterday, shows that the average person wants to live until 83 and that a quarter of us wouldn’t mind hanging on until we notch up a century. In my mind, especially in this country now, that is the most morbid thought I could possibly entertain! What on earth will these anti democracy purists be like in another 39 years? Severely dead I hope! If they are so anti smoking, should they not be automatically banned from being cremated? Should they not be dissolved in vats of acid, Haigh style so that no trace of their evil being is left?
So, isn't it about time that the nanny state backed off and that these super expensive quangos went AWOL-permanently?
Have you all noticed how much poorer the country has become since the smoking ban became law? Has anyone taken any notice of just how many once viable businesses have now closed for ever? 12,500 and still rising - if you are at all interested. Have you noticed how 'CamerCleggs' bang on about promoting small businesses when in actual fact they are hell bent on continual destruction? Has anyone noticed how cancer rates are still rising, even though a smoking ban was certain to slow the situation down? In the first year of the ban alone cancer cases rose by 4% (M) & 3.75% (F) - that worked then Mr B Liar! Have you noticed just how corrupt our legal system has now become as smokers and business owners are more highly punished that thieves & burglars. This is simply because smokers are now the new cash cows, propping up the impoverished judicial system.
Have you also noticed how so many smokers look a damned sight better than those ugly, repulsive reptiles in power trying to banish a legal pastime?
Do you need any further proof? OK then!
I'll take 'CD' anyday over the "3 witches of Eastwick" pictured. They smile (It think) for the camera but inside they are mere dungbeatles, killjoys, only interested in earning as much money as possible whilst destroying the pleasures of millions of people. They don't care about job losses, loss of government income, loss of personal securities such as homes, finance & emotional turmoil so long as government keeps paying their wages, listening to their crap and stopping someone from smoking!
Do you know something, I really do think that Haigh had it right-just the wrong people!