Not just the "end game" but poverty!

Bear with me on this, as this is Margaret Chan's speech to the selected few in India regarding tobacco control-and the end of tobacco as a legal plant growing in a field.

Smoking Bans KILL businesses- FACT !

WHO Director-General considers the tobacco endgame

Dr Margaret Chan
Director-General of the World Health Organization

 

Please note: Chan's speech in ordinary black type
                   : My notes & remarks coloured.

Keynote address at the International Conference on Public Health Priorities in the 21st Century: the Endgame for Tobacco
New Delhi, India
11 September 2013

Excellencies, honourable ministers, distinguished scientists, representatives of civil society, ladies and gentlemen,
I thank the government of India for hosting this International Conference on Public Health Priorities in the 21st Century, with its intriguing sub-title: the endgame for tobacco. WHO is proud to be the technical co-sponsor of this event.
Public health has very few opportunities to end threats to health in a definitive way. Most of our work is never-ending. Every new wave of babies needs to be immunized. Bednets wear out. Mainstay medicines develop resistance. One generation learns the importance of safe sex. The next generation forgets.
Disease eradication is one clear opportunity for a definitive end to a health threat. A tobacco endgame is another. Both have tremendous appeal. They promise to improve the world in a permanent way, offering every future generation the perpetual gift of freedom from major diseases. (Wrong-if 'major diseases', ie, malaria, TB, smallpox etc [other than tobacco addiction] are not eradicated then they will continue and will always be  health threats!) [nb: Tobacco is NOT a disease-it is a naturally growing plant that an awful lt of people take a great deal of pleasure in smoking in one form or another!]
Speculation about a possible endgame for tobacco has been going on for at least a decade, often expressed as wishful what-if scenarios. For example, what if the tobacco industry simply did not exist?
Tobacco use claimed an estimated 100 million lives during the previous century. (Yet again, mere estimations-junk science at its worst. No proper refs/citations such as this 100 million deaths from tobacco in the last century. Now- who did that study? [Mdme Calment, a smoker,  lived to the age of 122, it must have been her that compiled these wondrous figures!] When? what were the variables? Measurement tests? Controls etc?? We all know (does she, Chan?) that deaths that might be related to tobacco in some way were not measured or even thought about before the second half of the century). On current trends, tobacco use is projected to cause a billion deaths during the 21st century. Think of all the lives saved, the suffering avoided, and the costs averted if the tobacco industry simply ceased to exist.(PROJECTED! Think of a number and keep enlarging until it suits the purpose, that's all this is. The WHO computer has had a serious overdose of noughts! Chan is now going from the sublime to the ridiculous as governments, especially ours, are extremely concerned with the escalating welfare costs as our generations have the audacity to live longer with 12,640 centenarians recorded 2 years ago! Chan also fails to elaborate on the fact that tobacco related treatments cost the NHS £2.7bn per annum yet revenue from tobacco is 4 x's that amount. Chan also fails to introduce the fact that people that die earlier (pre 65 years of age) save governments fantastical amounts on money in pensions & a host of other care costs. Chan produces more & more of her fatuous statements as we go along.
Another argument goes like this. If all the harms caused by tobacco were known earlier on, tobacco products would never have been approved as safe for human consumption, could never have been marketed and sold like any other consumer product."If all the harms were known...." - what Chan means is that if all the illnesses (most of which had never been heard of back then) could have been attributed to tobacco, then tobacco could have been banned immediately Sir Walter Raliegh brought the plant into favour here! So, by that reckoning, if it had been known that the motor car would easily accomplish 20-40-70-100mph and kill people it would never have been allowed to go faster than the man walking in front of it waving  red flag!
Is it really too late to correct this grave historical error? Could tobacco use somehow be eliminated through a brave new plan that responds, retrospectively, to a great mistake? Meaning, can an ideology overcome something that is now enjoyed by countless billions of people worldwide?
This wishful thinking first took the form of a concrete proposal three years ago, when the journal Tobacco Control published a paper about "Imagining things otherwise: new endgame ideas for tobacco control".
Concrete proposals expanded last year, when Tobacco Control issued a supplement devoted entirely to an exploration of tobacco endgames. Some striking proposals were put forward, as were some warnings and words of caution.
Ladies and gentlemen, Let me also offer some advice First, be very precise in your definition of what is meant by a tobacco endgame. We learned the importance of doing so when global goals were set for disease eradication or elimination. Progress towards any ambitious goal needs to be measured convincingly. Precise definitions help. ie, NOT the much favoured junk science which can enshrine any fanciful idea as a proven fact and should therefore be easily replicanble!
Second, anchor endgame strategies in impeccable science. About time methinks. Arguments for taking action need this water-tight support. Experience tells us that industry will challenge the science, distort the findings, or fund its own studies with a predictable bias. An impeccable scientific foundation is the best defence.Chan completely fails to mention that opposing forces have merely pointed out the truth of many of the skewed results, point out that many 'studies' are set up to produce the required results to suit their evil purposes. With it now proven that 80% of lung cancer are NOT attributable to smoking/smokers, Chan knows that their ersatz scientific scrabblings are falling well short of the mark!
Third, back up goals and strategies with solid feasibility studies. This is another lesson from the eradication experience. Totally honest scientific basis? this will probably be a first! Governments need to know what commitment to an ambitious goal really means in practical terms and what the likely pay-backs will be, for economies as well as societies. No, no, no Chan, you dare not go into the realms of costs & economies for the simple reason that the costs are astronomical-and this is where one of your great strategies comes completely unstuck because YOU have absolutely no idea what the cost is to each country and furthermore, you simp[ly don't care! Good feasibility studies build confidence, and confidence inspires commitment.You simply cannot produce a reasonable economic nor socially based study for they go hand in hand. Destroy the social aspect of any community and you automatically start to destroy the economic aspect as well.
Fourth, recognize the diversity of factors that drive the tobacco epidemic in different economic and cultural contexts. These contexts also create their own unique barriers to success. A diversity of endgame strategies, as opposed to a single global strategy, might be needed to accommodate these different contexts. Provision of a menu of strategic and policy options might be another wise way forward. It doesn't matter how you dress it up Chan, the more you try to eradicate tobacco the further into financial depression you will force each individual country. People are quite capable of growing and curing their own tobacco if they can be bothered-are you going to eradicate every single seed on the planet? "A diversity of endgame strategies... " in other words, you want to devise a plan/strategy that you think you will get away with in each country-yes? And how are you going to compensate the 4 million people that depend on tobacco growth/sales in Zimbabwe, never mind every other tobacco producing nation?
Fifth, be realistic. Your scientific programmes will consider how the drive for sustainable development and concern about NCDs can bolster support for tobacco endgames. Doing so is promising, yet also faces some challenges.
Concern about NCDs creates a receptive environment for tobacco endgames. Time and time again, ministers of health from the developing world have told me that prevention of NCDs must be the cornerstone of their response. The costs and demands of chronic and acute care are beyond their reach. Prevention is the best option.More fatuous statements as we have already blown the costs department out of the water above!
My reply: full implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control would deal the greatest single preventive blow to all of these diseases. Smoking is not a disease woman, cancer is a disease, diabetes is a disease, the common cold is a disease but none necessarily created through smoking!
A different situation exists in many wealthy countries, where effective control measures and changing social norms have seen smoking prevalence drop by 50% or more. In these countries, tobacco use is increasingly concentrated in sectors of society with lower levels of education, income, and engagement in the political process.
In other words, the very success of tobacco control has reduced the visibility of smoking as a problem demanding urgent attention. In some cases, obesity is now the most visible epidemic that needs to be stopped. So why do you not concentrate on all the fat people-like Eire health Minister James Reilly who seems to be engrossed in tobacco control-probably in order that his own fat predicament doesn't come under the spotlight! 

  Eire's 'healthy' Bunteresque-James Reilly

Success is always good, but must not be allowed to conceal the fact that the job of tobacco control is far from done. Making tobacco endgames part of overarching development strategies has great policy appeal. In rapidly growing parts of Asia, evidence suggests that the huge costs of NCDs can cancel out the benefits of economic gain. A tobacco endgame makes very good sense as a boost to both health and economic development.So when, if Chan is correct and no tobacco intake = longevity, what answer has she for countries that can no longer afford to maintain rapidly increasing numbers of centenarians? And can the families of all those that die at (say) less than 80 yrs of age then sue Chan/WHO for that relative not having lived as long as here predicted?
But what are the realistic chances of success? None! people that enjoy smoking will continue to enjoy smoking-end of!
I see two main barriers to success. First, most of the proposed endgame strategies depend on a strong capacity for regulatory control and enforcement. Throughout much of the developing world, this capacity simply does not exist at present.And why should it? People do not want to give up smoking just the same as they don't want to give up drinking or having sex or gardening - or all four at one! People are individuals, not robotic creations to be ruled by the likes of fanatics like you. Hitler was a fanatic and look what he did in his bunker-what are you going to do in yours?
Second, tobacco control requires cooperation from multiple sectors of government, from trade, finance, agriculture, education, law enforcement, and the judicial system. Unfortunately, many countries give more importance to tobacco as an issue for trade and commerce than as a severe threat to health. And this is exactly where your ideology falls flat because tobacco revenue is so great that countries cannot afford to terminate it on your say so. How can Zimbabwe put 4million people out of work because you say tobacco should be banned-does Paprika have the same selling power/financial impact as tobacco? I don't think so. Are Venezuela likely to wipe out some 40% of their export income just because you want to rid the world of tobacco? I don't think so. Do you seriously think that this country (a once great Britain) can afford to dismiss the £10-£11bn per year in revenue from tobacco? I don't think so. You continuously bang on about the supposed health issues of tobacco but you never mention the health issues of poverty, chronic depression, social exclusions, loneliness, comfort eating, lack of social cohesion, isolation, inadequte housing, lack of employment opportunities or the other hundreds of things far more important than whether someone enjoys a cigarette/pipe or whatever. Great men such as Churchill smoked, Bertrand Russell smoked-both far cleverer people than you will ever be-except, probably, in the art of duplicity!
The tobacco industry ruthlessly exploits this appeal to commercial interests, everywhere. The most recent example concerns efforts on the part of Philip Morris to sabotage the vote on a strong European Directive on tobacco.And you ruthlessly exploit people's fears! You never cease to employ the words "premature death", but what is a premature death? there is no such thing in actuality as no one is born with a date stamp on their person. It is a figment, a term used by the medical world by which they can instil fear into people. A child that dies at (say) 7hours old is said to have died prematurely but how do you knowif that particular child was only meant to live for 7 hours? You don't. You exploit the 'possible' dangers of tobacco yet never mention dire air pollution, much cused by the sheer volume of road traffic as you cannot be responsible for commerce to slow down or even cease. Strange also that you fail to mention that cancers have increased with industrialisation yet smoking rates have dramatically decreased since the late 1950's! Now just why is that Chan?
     
Industrialisation increases - cancers rapidly increase, yet smoking rates decreasing!
 
A massive army of lobbyists has been deployed to delay or block passage of the law until the European Council presidency moves to Greece, where the company has opened a huge hub for the production and distribution of cigarettes throughout Europe. Here, industry is counting on the historical pattern, where economic and commercial interests trump public health concerns time and time again. Such tactics give tobacco endgames further appeal as a strategy for putting industry out of business. They deserve it. Why do they deserve to be put out of business then? If people want to smoke they will smoke, simple as that-at least they are a bona fide` business whereas you most certainly are NOT! You are simply a collection of very fortunate people who are funded by every nation (to varying degrees depending on national wealth) to oversee health problems - not to sit in judgement over others who may choose to smoke, or have anal sex, or drink ten pints of beer per day, or cover themselves in tattoo's, or, only wash on Sundays. These are all personal preferences and you are seriously interfering with people's human rights; you are discriminating-which, apparently, is completely against EU law. And you have even managed to infiltrate legal systems to enforce your strategies, you can't get much more evil than that!
My last advice is this. Be careful. As I said, nearly all endgame proposals require a very high level of legislative and regulatory support. In most cases, this support goes beyond the capacities needed to implement the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Make sure that these proposals do not play straight into the hands of some long-standing and effective industry arguments, actually firing up the level of alarm. I am referring, in particular, to arguments that strong tobacco control measures represent interference of the Nanny State with personal liberties and freedom of choice.Which is exactly what they do! "Freedom of Choice" (?) That is a laugh because according to the 'Law of Chan', smokers should have no freedom of choice!
I am referring, too, to arguments that tobacco control interferes with trade and economic policies.
Expect well-orchestrated, well-funded, and aggressive resistance every step along the way. The WHO tobacco treaty has certainly experienced this resistance throughout its history, beginning with its inception. And for a very good reason. It threatens industry profits. It is not all about the tobacco giants profits you silly, silly woman, it is more about the millions of jobs that rely on this humble plant. It's about the world poverty she will create in her insistence on the eradication of tobacco, it's about the complete disregard for people's basic forms of enjoyment [their human rights], it's about nations financial abilities to exist-such is the might, the power of the humble tobacco plant. Can the World Health Organisation compensate every country for its financial losses once this plant is eradicated and can the World Health Organisation guarantee that cancer will be eradicated too?
Endgame strategies threaten the very existence of the tobacco industry. Anticipate a strong back-lash, including through the use of litigation.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have a final comment.Thank God for that!
 Some tobacco control advocates argue that the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control has likely done all it can. Dramatic drops in tobacco use have begun to level off, pointing to the need for some radically different approaches. In other words, and here we go again, "we need more investment"
I cannot entirely agree with this view. The treaty has been in force for less than a decade. Abundant evidence has demonstrated the impact of its provisions. The evidence is particularly strong for demand-reduction measures, and the evidence holds true for countries at all levels of development. To help countries implement the treaty, WHO has developed a practical, cost-effective way to scale up implementation of its provisions on the ground. These are the six highly effective measures for demand reduction set out in MPOWER.
A study published in the July issue of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization examined the impact on smoking-related deaths in 41 countries that adopted at least one highest-level MPOWER measure. In these countries, the estimated (yet again we rely on guesstimations!) number of smokers dropped by 14.8 million, averting a total of 7.4 million smoking-attributable deaths. (So are we to assume that 50% of the people who could have died, might or might not have been smokers-but it doesn't seem to matter whether they actually were or not just so long as the word 'attributable' can be attached somewhere/somehow?) This demonstrates the tremendous preventive impact of cost-effective measures for demand reduction. Actually, I think you'll find that this "demonstrates the tremendous amount of playing about with figures we can perform to suit our cause!"
Many endgame proposals attack the supply side of the tobacco epidemic, aiming for its roots. Governments now have an expanded range of options to consider, some with a proven track record, others with visionary policy appeal. Keep in mind that tobacco endgames will face the same two barriers to implementation that the tobacco treaty has faced. Namely, interference by the tobacco industry and its lobbies, and lack of legislative and regulatory capacity.And don't forget the ordinary people, you know the one's, they are the ones that are sick of your interferences with their pleasures!
Ladies and gentlemen the death clock keeps ticking, and the numbers keep growing faster every minute. Clever wordage, but that doesn't just apply to those who enjoy tobacco. Everyone is born to die, as you will one fine day and as I will on probably a rainy day. The human body is not built to last for all eternity but you make it sound as if it is. Perhaps you can explain why this lad suddenly dropped dead-fit as fiddle, non smoker,  all the attributes of a budding centarian. Or this child  who was born with cancer! Or perhaps you can explain the nine (9) members of one family who all died from various forms of cancer yet none of them ever smoked nor drank. Perhaps you can explain why all these non smoking human beings were 'blessed' with what you obviously determine as "the smokers disease"?
I understand, and share, the great sense of urgency, the impatience with the pace of progress, and the desire to seize the brave new promise of a tobacco endgame. The prospects for doing so are now being given the serious scientific scrutiny set out in the programme for this conference. I wish you every success.
Thank you.
Well at least it's a blessing that the 'scientific scrutiny' is now going to be serious because what has been presented so far might as well have been written on toilet paper! 

So there you have it folks, the opening speech from Margaret Chan who doesn't really give a toss about your wealth, your employment prospects, your social life, your forms of enjoyment or much of anything else actually-just so long as you don't smoke. And if you do happen to enjoy the odd drag or two then she simply wants to hound you into oblivion-by fair means or foul! Remember one thing in all that is spouted by Chan/WHO-tobacco is a naturally growing plant..... IT IS NOT A DISEASE as she would have you believe.

 

                                 Meet Mrs Hitler

Takes your breath away!

Smoking Bans KILL businesses-FACT!

     So, we have this wonderful piece by our friendly & truthful statistician Chris Snowdon where it is shown (at long last) that the 'stupendous success' (sic) of this ridiculous smoking ban has equated to 14,600 people per annum quitting - at an average cost of almost £5,753 per head. The BBC, as is there usual anal licking way, herald this as a great triumph - but then they would, as they are supreme at wasting public monies here, there & everywhere (is Linekar unable to drive himself anywhere anymore?) Unbelievably, this wasteful exercise is glowingly described as "THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN". I would have thought it more to be the biggest, bluntest 'needle' in the governments CROWN OF THORNS!

SMOKING BAN

 

The biggest 'needle' in governments 'CROWN OF THORNS'

The first decade of NHS stop-smoking services in England has been hailed a success by researchers.
The team said the service was the "jewel in the NHS crown" after it helped nearly 146,000 people to quit between 2001 and 2011.

     So, in the first decade of "stop smoking services" in England, they claim success for stopping 14,600 people per annum from smoking. The S*P*I*N just cannot get much worse, for the quit figures are only based on a 4 week period! 

 "The unofficial target for the service is to get half of the people who turn to it for help to quit in the short-term - that is to say to give up for at least four weeks."

They take no account of those who take up smoking again after the 'programme' and those people are highly unlikely to go back and admit failure with a "please can you help me again" plea.
     I have the utmost respect for Chris with all his excellent statistical expertise but I think we can 'up the ante' here if we look only from July 1st, 2007 and the true cost of this spiteful, divisive & socially destructive ban.
     We already know from previous blogs & comprehensive 'workings out' that this idiotic piece of ideology is costing this country in the region of £1/2bn per month (£500,000,000 if you please through Unemployment Benefits paid, Jobseekers Allowance of £1.53m per 10,000 per week, C/Tax rebates, Housing Benefits and the myriad of other benefits claimed by people-and then don't forget to add on to this lot, the amount of revenue lost to local councils & ultimately government in revenues from business rates, employment revenues gained through NI stamps/contributions, personal tax, business tax; it's endless..... and a massive £amount each month! ) and we now know (from the horses mouth so to speak) that 14,600 people per annum quit smoking, which comes out at 1,216.66 people per month (We'll use a 1,217 fugure for simplification). Now if we divide our already certified £1/2bn (it could even be more!) by our monthly quit figure we find out that it is actually costing this country £410,846.34p per person to quit - based on a 4 week period of course. [You have to remember that gov't figures certify that Jobseekers Allowance payments lone are £1.53m per WEEK per 10,000 people. The hospitality sector has seen 200,000 job losses, therefore £1.53m x 10 = £15.3m x 2 = £30.6 m per week x 4 = £122.4m per month. Do you see how easy it really is to reach the £1/2bn per month figure when we have only scratched the surface (1 item) of costs involved in maintaing this ridiculous total ban?]

 
Please-can we have £1/2bn per month to play with???

     Wowee, that is some serious wastage of money when our most treasured possession, the NHS is floundering left, right & centre due to 'cuts that have to be made'. We know, without doubt, that the NHS is our most treasured possession for the simple reason that every foriegn national who thinks he/she can use it, arrives here and takes full advantage of it!

 

We pay £145 per annum for these bigoted people to waste!

     I suspect tht the exceedingly bigoted BBC haven't even thought of the true costs, which of course include the lowliest "maggot council  worker" who finishes his street warden patrol and then changes into 'civvies' to go 'covert' and invite some shisha bar staff to provide him with smoking material INDOORS-just so that he can report to his masters and receive a pat on the head..... for putting yet another business out of business! It is no wonder that 92% of shisha businessmen DO NOT trust government. If the BBC have actually worked it all out I am pretty sure that they would be too embarrassed to print/release the true figures-wouldn't you be?

The agony continues as two more once great pubs have closed in the Wigston/Oadby (Leicester) area. The Royal Oak has been sold   

Once an absolute hive of activity

d.o.d August 2013 

off to Sainsbury's to be developed into one of those 'quick stop' outlets. At least Ted Tuppen will have clawed a little bit more back to assuage the thirst of his very worried bankers as his company is still a couple of £bn in debt thanks to him being one of the idiots that agreed to 'clean air pubs'-clean air ???..... the smoking ban is certainly cleaning HIM out! Pre ban this place was a hive of activity as people from all walk of life used it, but again, being approximately 80% smoker orientated the ban was certain to kill it off sooner or later.

The second place to close is "The Library" in Oadby (Leicester) which, up  until recently was 'the place to be' in Oadby. Always    (picture borrowed from Pub Utopia)

                       "The Library"-once, the place to go
                                        d.o.d July 2013
plenty of people using the place, especially the younger generation, "The Library" was a hive of activity-then the ban came and it slowly died the death of thousands. I asked the manager what he was going to do when the place closed and he just shrugged and said "I'm going on the dole, why shouldn't I?" Good man, that is exactly what every person deprived of an income by this disgracefully implemented ban should do. Every single person deprived of a job by this awful law should clearly state, on the dole forms where it asks 'reason for unemployment',  - THE GOVERNMENT. There is absolutely sod all they can do about it as it is the absolute truth-had the smoking ban been implemented fairly then I doubt 10% of the 12,745 closures so far would have occurred. ( I do actually know someone who did exactly that-and caused an almighty row in the dole office!) Incidentally, between the two pubs another 12 people have lost their jobs. Further to that, our local brewery (Everards) now have a plethora of 'opportunities to run your own pub' folks-fancy giving it a go? Having drank in most of them I can tell you that there is no way that you could ever contemplate the rents/rates & other financial commitments that Everards are asking-they just haven't got the customer base anymore. The Barley Mow, where we held our very first 'smokers meeting', is up for grabs, but sadly Everards won't advertise prices online anymore (probably for fear of embarrassment at the massive decrease). It should be noted that Soulsby (unfortunately our 

"elected" mayor)  used to drink and eat in the Barley Mow but he no longer supports the non smoking pub he so ernestly desired! Note that  Sir Richard Everard wrote to the government imploring them to become "smoke-free"! Bit of a Gerald Ratner there then.
     There's  couple of things that make you wonder just how corrupt our society (and our government) have become because we see from this that the "Cancer Industry" (and believe you me, being in the middle of it-it is an industry) is just one giant fraud. I agree totally:

Findings published in the journal Nature show that 88% of major studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years can not be reproduced to show their accuracy. This means that the research findings published are not based on accurate results.

     Now that is, as our American cousins say, "some serious sh*t!"  Indeed it is because if 88% cannot be replicated then there are some serious frauds going on-and who are benefitting from these frauds? Answer, those at the head of the chain; ie, those highly overpaid personnel at the like sof CRUK etc. When a "charity" rakes in £433,000,000 and then pays out £108,000,000 in wages alone, then that "charity" has become a business, an industry and a highly beneficial source of income to the blessed few!

The Bitch from Shoreditch

     
     And from another quarter comes another slap in the face for the corrupted anti-tobacco league "Tobacco increases work capacity". Oh dear me, I doubt that Arnott & Co will want that little gem bandied about too much!

 - According to public health officials, tobacco has no benefits at all: "A harmful and unnecessary product," says the WHO (World Health Organization), which has lobbied national governments to combat tobacco use since 1975

     We could put the WHO in the same category quite easily as they are ignoring dying Africans and concentrating on happy smokers-which certainly makes them "harmful" and an "unnecessary" being!

     With the WHO on a mission to eradicate smoking/smokers what else can they say. The problem is that because they are the World Health Organisation we tend to believe every word they say, but over the past decade they have proven that they can hold their own with the worlds best liars, the worlds best con merchants & the worlds best fraudsters-it simply takes your breath away!

 *****

 and just for your entertainment folks

The complete list of things that give you cancer (according to epidemiologists)

With thanks to John Brignell of numberwatch.co.uk.


Acetaldehyde, acrylamide, acrylonitril, abortion, agent orange, alar, alcohol, air pollution, aldrin, alfatoxin, arsenic, arsine, asbestos, asphalt fumes, atrazine, AZT, baby food, barbequed meat, benzene, benzidine, benzopyrene, beryllium, beta-carotene, betel nuts, birth control pills, bottled water, bracken, bread, breasts, brooms, bus stations, calcium channel blockers, cadmium, candles, captan, carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, careers for women, casual sex, car fumes, celery, charred foods, cooked foods, chewing gum, Chinese food, Chinese herbal supplements, chips, chloramphenicol, chlordane, chlorinated camphene, chlorinated water, chlorodiphenyl, chloroform, cholesterol, low cholesterol, chromium, coal tar, coffee, coke ovens, crackers, creosote, cyclamates, dairy products, deodorants, depleted uranium, depression, dichloryacetylene, DDT, dieldrin, diesel exhaust, diet soda, dimethyl sulphate, dinitrotouluene, dioxin, dioxane, epichlorhydrin, ethyle acrilate, ethylene, ethilene dibromide, ethnic beliefs,ethylene dichloride, Ex-Lax, fat, fluoridation, flying, formaldehyde, free radicals, french fries, fruit, gasoline, genes, gingerbread, global warming, gluteraldehyde, granite, grilled meat, Gulf war, hair dyes, hamburgers, heliobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, hexachlorbutadiene, hexachlorethane, high bone mass, hot tea, HPMA, HRT, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, incense, infertility, jewellery, Kepone, kissing, lack of exercise, laxatives, lead, left handedness, Lindane, Listerine, low fibre diet, magnetic fields, malonaldehyde, mammograms, manganese, marijuana, methyl bromide, methylene chloride, menopause, microwave ovens, milk hormones, mixed spices, mobile phones, MTBE, nickel, night lighting, night shifts, nitrates, not breast feeding, not having a twin, nuclear power plants, Nutrasweet, obesity, oestrogen, olestra, olive oil, orange juice, oxygenated gasoline, oyster sauce, ozone, ozone depletion, passive smoking, PCBs, peanuts, pesticides, pet birds, plastic IV bags, polio vaccine, potato crisps (chips), power lines, proteins, Prozac, PVC, radio masts, radon, railway sleepers, red meat, Roundup, saccharin, salt, sausage, selenium, semiconductor plants, shellfish, sick buildings, soy sauce, stress, strontium, styrene, sulphuric acid, sun beds, sunlight, sunscreen, talc, tetrachloroethylene, testosterone, tight bras, toast, toasters, tobacco, tooth fillings, toothpaste (with fluoride or bleach), train stations, trichloroethylene, under-arm shaving, unvented stoves, uranium, UV radiation, Vatican radio masts, vegetables, vinyl bromide, vinyl chloride, vinyl fluoride, vinyl toys, vitamins, vitreous fibres, wallpaper, weedkiller (2-4 D), welding fumes, well water, weight gain, winter, wood dust, work, x-rays.



Notification of any major omissions are welcome (with references) to cancer@numberwatch.co.uk .

It always comes to those who wait

Smoking Bans KILL Businesses - FACT!

      You have to hand it to those Yanks, they've done it again yet this time they have created all the proof we ever needed (if we ever needed it) that STRESS is the biggest killer of all time. The smoker hating BHF babble on about cancer causing heart attacks, strokes, illnesses, deaths, terminal illnesses etc yet STRESS has always been the biggest cause of strokes & heart attacks and people's general lack of well being. And who could argue with that as governments worldwide continue their war on smokers/smoking as if the humble cigarette is the 'be all & end all' of mortalities.

     We now find, from those very good people in Ohio (the Ohio State University actually), that stress help all those naughty little cancer genes to gallop around the body mutating at a much greater rate than they normally would-if they would at all ! Strange then that smoking is recognised as one of the greatest 'de-stressors' of all time! Professor Tsonwin Hai said:  

"If your body does not help cancer cells, they cannot spread as far. So really, the rest of the cells in the body help cancer cells to move, to set up shop at distant sites. And one of the unifying themes here is stress."

     Her researchers first linked the expression of ATF3 in immune-system cells to worse outcomes among a sample of almost 300 breast cancer patients. Experiments on mice then found those lacking the gene had less extensive spread of breast tumour cells to their lungs than ones that could activate it. So there you have it folks, governments purposely kill their electorate by simply implementing ridiculous, dictatorial laws that allow no freedom of choice! And the people 'who' should really be in the dock on a charge of causing mass murder are the likes of Margaret Chan all the way down to Arnott for persecuting smokers (who won't necessarily hold court to cancer) and enhancing their demise. So, where are plod to arrest these inciters of death, where are the European Courts of human rights to allow smokers to live, unmolested, in mentally stable societies that won't cause this abominable trigger system that enhances cancer cells to rampage and kill?
I have been having a most enjoyable exchange of words with one of my local MEPs, Mr Bill Newton Dunn (an ilLib-unDem for his sins) who cannot understand how I can possibly be 'for' those who choose to smoke when 'we know that smoking kills so many people each year'. I asked for proof of lives saved and received this  highly informed answer "How do you measure lives saved ?" Exactly! It cannot be done, therefore to state that all these anti tobacco measures WILL save lives is totally fallacious-but then that is all that TC do-mislead people, simply look at my 'lead portrait' on every blog! So far I have rebutted every argument that he has put forward but one thing he said has stuck in my claws -

"Politics is about elected representatives using their judgment to improve society. "

 Now what part of that statement proves that people like 'BND' are fair minded (LibDem don't forget) and are out to improve society when they happily vote for any tobacco restrictions knowing that it is going to cause more resentment and more hatred from the 25% who enjoy tobacco? Of course 'BND' uses the fact that members of his family have died from cancer-tell me a family that HASN'T lost a relative to cancer and I'll show you a liar! With the latest forecast that almost one-in-two of us will contract some form of cancer or other by 2020 it is an impossiblity for any family NOT to be 'crossed' by the disease-even Prof Jill Pell couldn't avoid that assumption - no matter how much she twisted her figures  ! Ask her here if she could manage to do so? (the answer might be interesting).
On the opposite side of the coin is another study that conclusively proves that smoking improves work situations/performances. Now there's a thing!

After 40 years of scientific research on the effects of nicotine, researchers now say that they have sound scientific proof that smoking and nicotine have a significant positive effect on human brain performance.

     As I said, now there's a thing! All the years of negativity about tobacco yet there is conclusive proof that the brain works better with nicotine. Oh dear me, I'll bet that little intrusion into the TC world has not been welcomed at all. Another statement that Chan and all/any of her cohorts cannot rebutt is the fact that as smoking rates decreased over the past 50 years, cancer rates rapidly increased-WHY? What possible reason can there have been for such an anomaly? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that tobacco is NOT the major cause of cancers and funnily enough CRUK's head honcho has now elevated Air Pollution to the top of the tree! This makes total sense as Camoron is still trying to sidestep £300,000,000's worth of fines from those thieves over in the EU imposed because our Air Pollution has failed all purity tests miserably! Yet the Dept of Health still speaw out the lies despite the truth being so obviously 'out there' - 3rd response from Sam Darnell has just confirmed the truth..... the the D o H are blatant liars!
     What is little mentioned by the media is the fact that the cost of implementing this ludicrous smoking ban is spiralling out of control as it amounts to roughly£1/2bn per month. 

     Now we have seen an upsurge in prosecutions of shisha bars over the past 6 months as local councils and their avaricious troops (otherwise known as EHOs) are making as much money out of prosecuting these businesses as they possibly can. Nasbouk was recently contacted by "The Economist" for an interview regarding the facts about shisha bars/cafes/lounges and a full, in depth explanation was given regarding the financial imput by the owners of such businesses, the horrendous impact of the smoking ban & the affects the ban is having on the Asian communities. NOT ONE WORD of this was mentioned! It was if "The Economist" (supposedly the name would infer financial matters of the economy) couldn't dare to mention the costs of this ridiculous law. The costs, it seems, is taboo. The cost, it seems, is irrelevant as the WHO (Warped in the Head Orgainsation) have demanded that tobacco be eradicated-mind you, 40 years ago they demanded that the illegal usage of drugs be eradicated and look where that got them!
     Interestingly nasbouk have now published their in depth survey of shisha businesses-it does not make pretty reading. The headliner screams at you:

92% of the shisha community DO NOT trust government - and who can blame them?

An in depth survey carried out by nasbouk.co.uk (National Association of Shisha Bar Owners) found that 92% of shisha business owners no longer trust government and 100% think that government should compensate them for their losses as the smoking ban is totally discriminatory!

     The full survey can be read here and has been sent to many media sources but whether any will have the balls to actually print the survey or truthfully report on the survey is a different matter for as I've already pointed out - the costs just don't seem to matter anymore! One Asian gentleman remarked that this situation was "Uganda all over again" - and didn't Britain create merry bloody hell about Idi Amin and his dictatorship ways?

   
            Idiot Idi & Dumkopf David-both happy to kill off prosperous businesses!

     And just to keep the old 'taste buds' flowing, the Working Mens Clubs survey will be released sometime next month. It was presented in the Club Journal to mark the sixth anniversary of this wondrous law that has still seen approximately 500,000 deaths per annum-despite smokefree everywhere! It will be very interesting to see what the clubs have to say after six years of forced socialising-forced to be without many of their mates that is! Also, interestingly, many hundreds of clubs have gone since July 1st, 2007 so you see folks, it's not just the pubs that are suffering!

     It matters not whether you smoke or not, the truth is that the smoking ban has to be amended to accept all people in order for this country to survive financially. Whilst the imbeciles (no names mentioned of course) try to lobby the EU for even more restrictions this country sinks further & further into the financial abyss. No one has yet come up with  viable alternative to the vast amounts of revenue that will be lost to this nations Treasury should these loons have their evil way and the EU simply don't care as they are too busy furnishing their own houses with 'carpets of gold'.
Mind you, I suppose that they could always employ smokers to lay those carpets as smokers are far better, far more alert workers!

A one woman Parliament & the abyss!

Smoking bans KILL businesses - FACT!   

     So who needs Camoron, Clegg or any of the otherS who waste their time in the House of Commons trying to sort out this countries many problem-most of which were created by this governments predecessors who also sat in the House of Commons, but purposefully set about destroying this country bit by bit! I only need to mention the Human Rights Act & Immigration and it won't take you long to join up the dots to see where Blair got us, and worse still, where we are going to end up. Bankrupt.
     There are many who attend that chamber who shouldn't be there, for varying reasons too. Many of them are elected because they are of the red persuasion, many because of the blue area they are 'standing in' come election time and some for the simple reason that the voters want neither red nor blue. The common denominator is that once they attain this MP status they simply forget all about their constituents and do whatever they feel like doing, vote the way they think things should be not what their consituents (who actually put them there) think.

     ... and here is the news... Luxembourg... err... I went Dave

     We now have a prime example of such an insidious creature. A woman that has gone from reading the news to creating the news - by flitting off to Luxembourg to 'do her own thing' under the guise of representing this country. Why is she still in a job?

    "I'll have 20 silvers please Mr Patel"

Anna Soubry has left the studios that gave out the news and, off her own bat (though I bet we paid for the flights etc) tootled off to Luxembourg to assure a group of people that they have OUR support for even more tobacco control, even though we have shelved the ridiculous plain packing idea. It appears that we don't need the other 600+ MPs any more as "SuperSoubs" is a one woman government!
Broxtowe contains all these constituencies:

     Area                                                 Constituency                               MP

Attenborough	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Awsworth	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Beeston	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Bramcote	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Chilwell	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Cossall	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Greasley	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Kimberley	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Nuthall	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Stapleford	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Toton	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry
Trowell	Broxtowe	Anna Soubry

     Broxtowe is an area of nigh on 70,000 voters and she only scraped in by 309 votes but I'll wager that she never asked one of the 70,000 or even one of the 309 who ensured her election if they minded her doing her own thing in Luxembourg. She certainly never asked any of the seven people I know in the Nottingham area. There are plenty of smokers in Nottingham and I would imagine that when this bit of news gets around the place, attitudes toward her will change dramatically!
     Bill Cash (House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee) is rightly furious that this junior minister of no real consequence has simply sidestepped his committee and gone striding off to Luxembourg with so much as a by-your-leave. When does she "get her cards" for such gross misconduct I ask?
As Liberal Vision states: 

 "Quite how one woman – sticking two fingers up to the UK democratic process – was able to waltz into a room and declare she was negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom – when, in fact she clearly had no authority to do so whatsoever -  will be beyond most people’s comprehension."

And as our friend Chris Snowdon says:

  "The problem with Anna Soubry is not that she is necessarily a bad person. In another role, she may have some merits (and I have defended her once before). She is, however, a politician and is the latest in an unbroken line of inexperienced MPs parachuted into the superfluous role of Minister for Public Health, a junior position created in the late 1990s. The list of previous occupants is a Who's Who? of where-are-they-now? non-entities such as Dawn Primarolo and Caroline Flint. Like those before her, Soubry wants to make a name for herself and 'public health' offers plenty of headline-grabbing opportunities to do so."

     Anna Soubry is simply the latest 'caped crusader' who thinks she holds the salvation card to the nations smokers-who aren't actually a problem but have been demonised to such an extent that people now genuinely think they must be a problem! Chris mentioned past puppets in Primarolo & that obnixious thing named Flint.
       
Primarolo-defunct               Flint-defunct

 
     Who's next?
      I remember when the Shisha bars/cafes/lounges were first ever mentioned as an exemption as they were/are purpose built businesses-the purpose being that smokers united to... err..... smoke socially. Flint was invited by a business owner, holding a shisha pipe, to try shisha and promptly started screaming like a Banshee "They're trying to kill me, they're trying to kill me" before scuttling off down the Edgware Road! Of course, the shisha owner was trying to do no such thing and was totally bewildered, but the Flint creature was simply trying to amplify the non existent point that SHS kills-shame really that she didn't run into the middle of the Edgware Road-amid all those marvellously healthy, invigorating exhaust fumes then she she could have really 'felt the force'!
     Talking of shisha businesses it is now abundantly clear that local councils are hell-bent on eradicating such empires as the latest prosecution was for allowing smoking to occur in a tent! Yes, a tent. A rather large tent actually, a marquee which was deemed as an enclosed space by Tower Hamlets local council EHOs.
Now we all know that a tent is a piece of equipment used for pleasure but the owner used it as a premises for his shisha business-silly boy. We already know just how corrupt the system has become with regard to any possible smoking related prosecution so I am very surprised that Mr Dabir Ahmed even thought he would get away with this silly attempt at swerving the law. Bless him, his efforts cost him £1,225 + the inevitable costs for his efforts.
Tower Hamlets (starring role in the short film "Ghetto's of London") is the area where certain loonies decided they would be implementing Sharia Law-and probably the same place that a much needed uprising of the people of this country will begin!
     I say "a much needed uprising will begin" because it now transpires (despite all protestations beforehand) that the anti smoking brigade are now complaining that non-smokers have to endure endless columns of putrid, all enveloping, death delivering plumes of smoke in beer gardens-in nice weather! Well upon my soul, where else are smokers supposed to go? As complainants have been told at my local pub, "if you don't like sitting out here because of the smokers then go inside where they are not allowed". It's as simple as that. If people han't moaned so much about smokers and then got the pubs to themselves then we wouldn't have this apparent problem now.

     Of course a beer garden is for the use of ALL patrons of a public house-not just the chosen few, so for the very few that do complain about smokers I simply say, "look, you got what you wanted, you got smokers expelled from the pubs so why do you feel the need to sit out here with them? You don't need sunshine, you got your little ray of sunshine as from July 1st, 2007!" I suppose we will have to have a parliamentary debate on this matter as well, but this is what this stupid law created-and it need never have been like this.
     We need massive support for Philip Hollobone's (MP) Private Members Bill to be introduced in the autumn for this is to have the smoking ban amended so as to allow the decreasing number of Working Mens Clubs to use a separate room for smokers. And before you all start screaming about staff, there is a thing called choice ..... it's something that occurs in a democratic society (though I'm not sure what Camoron's interpretation of DEMOCRACY actually is?) WMCs are struggling to survive. 
They are the places where people of all ilks go to socialise, as decreed by one Reverend Henry Solly some 150 years ago. WMCs were once thriving businesses but although they have declined slightly since the late '80's', the smoking ban has electrified that decline since 2007! Read all about the clubs in this excellent book, you'll be amazed at just how much you DIDN'T know. More than 700 clubs have successfully claimed business rebates, which tells you just how much damage the smoking ban has done and is still doing!
     Of course we all now know just how much of a coward David Camoron (Hitler did at least have one ball !) is as far as defending his people goes. OK, so plain packaging has been shelved but so has our supposed refendum on the completely corrupt EU. And while he has ministers, junior ministers, backroom staff, cleaners & waste bin emptiers galloping around europe on missions of mercy with regard to possible cigarette legislation in the future and, worse still,  doing that 'galloping' as they see fit, then we can be assured that this country will sink even further into the abyss. 
Perhaps "SuperSoubs" thinks that with plain packaging coming into being, the entire world will be saved..... but until then she should be sacked!