Archive for the 'Smoking' Category

Free will

February 6th, 2012

I cannot understand this modern obsession with health.

Every day the papers carry some story, each one more ridiculous that the last claiming that picking your nose causes knee cancer or that using a telescope will cause your eyes to drop out.  Some claims are so patently absurd that you have to laugh, but they are still printed in that air of frenzy that would have you believe they have discovered the meaning of life.

Why?

What is the point of all this garbage?

In an ideal world, the WHO or whatever would inform us that Professor Fred has discovered a possible link between sugar and obesity, or that the University of Narnia thinks cigarettes may be bad for you, and they would then leave us to make our own decisions.  After all, it’s my body, my health and my life.  That’s called free will.

One of the latest bits of blindingly useless bits of information to emerge is that Ireland is to have a 72% increase in cancers by 2030.  Apparently Bulgaria is the place to be with a 2.2% increase.  What use is this information?  Instead of wittering on about future trends, why don’t they just devote their time to finding cures?

Why has the WHO published these figures?  What possible purpose can they serve except to cause depression amongst the gullible few who actually believe the claptrap?  Are we all supposed to suddenly change our lifestyles?  Are we all supposed to switch from high sugar to sugar free?  On second thoughts, sugar will kill you and so will sugar free, so you can’t win there.  It can serve no purpose whatsoever except to justify some grossly inflated salary somewhere.

Of course in the last few years, governments have taken it upon themselves to force us to live their lifestyle of choice.  Smokers have taken the brunt of the greatest “denormalisation” programme since Hitler decided he didn’t like Jews, and now they are turning their attention to drinkers and eaters.  They won’t be happy until we are all eating government regulated food, drinking government approved drink and exercising following an exercise regime laid down by… [you’ve guessed it] government.  Even then, people are still going to fall ill and die so what will they have actually achieved, apart from making society miserable?

Possibly the last paragraph in the WHO statement is the most telling -

“We need to urgently look at introducing fat and sugar taxes and how these unhealthy foods are promoted, and even greater restrictions on the advertising and sale of tobacco”

So having failed to “educate” us, they want reams of further government control on how we live our lives.  [Though I would love to know how they intend to further restrict tobacco advertising here in Ireland – the only places where you ever see any sight or mention of tobacco is in the breathless press releases by ASH and on the little signs in tobacconists about not selling tobacco to under 21s.]

I just cannot see the point to it all.

More bullshit for the growing pile

February 1st, 2012

From yesterday’s Irish Times -

Irish officials may adopt UK scheme to cut smoking rates

There are quite a few questions I would have to ask about this.

For a start, I would love to know just what sort of magic bullet the gubmint seem to think this bloke has, that they invite the Gardai and Revenue along. Who is this bloke who seems to claim he can achieve what virtually every country in Europe has failed to do?

Actually, the answer is probably quite simple. He is an expert at bullshitting.

I have seen dozens of statistics that purport to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the rate of heart attacks has fallen dramatically after the introduction of a smoking ban.  And without exception every one of those proofs has proved to be a load of codswallop.  Heart attack rates have been falling steadily just about everywhere, and there isn’t a single case where smoking bans have caused the rate to vary, so the quoted figures, I can guarantee are the figures for the natural decline.  I notice he doesn’t hive a time period for this decline?  Is it since 2005?  2000?  1950?

I have tried to find the source of the figures he quotes, but I came up with a blank.  The nearest I could find was the crowd mentioned in the article called Fresh [Smokefree North East].  Reading through this site there is precious little in the way of hard figures.  It is full of innuendos and the glib clichés that the Righteous love so much -  “it is estimated that”, “a growing body of evidence that” and “the figures show” [which is never accompanied by the “figures”].

One of the claims is that “A campaign against tobacco smuggling has been very successful”.  Apparently this remarkable claim is based on a “survey” of 4000 people.  Now, how can a survey prove that smuggling has decreased? Unless the 4000 are all smugglers whining about their loss of trade, I can’t see how this “survey” can prove anything.  If some health freaks ring me up and ask my about my illicit tobacco supplies, do you really, honestly think I am going to give them the unvarnished truth?  Hah!  I will lie through my teeth just to confuse their figures.

There is one little statement though that really gets me going – “We know from the drink driving law that we can change people’s behaviour”.  Oh boy!  This is the Smug Righteous at their best!  Who is the “we”?  A group of smug little bastards who really sincerely believe that they know what’s best for us and believe they have a natural right to herd us into their way of thinking.

After all, we can’t think for ourselves.

Can we?

All roads lead to Pharma

January 28th, 2012

There are several ways of giving up smoking.

You can go “cold turkey”.  You decide one morning that this is it – you are no longer a smoker and you just stop.  You resist all temptations and that is that – you are no longer a smoker.

Another method that is becoming increasingly popular is to switch to the electronic equivalent – the e-cigarette, the e-pipe or the e-cigar.  While these have been marketed as smoking alternatives, increasing numbers of ex-smokers are reporting that they very successfully used the e-route to quit altogether.

The method we hear most about is the so-called “nicotine replacement therapy” – the patch, the gum and the nicotine inhalers.  Of the three methods these have been proved to be the least successful by far, over a long period.  They tout themselves as being successful but that is only measuring cessation rates after a month or less.  After a year, most smokers who have tried this route are back on the fags again.

The likes of ASH and the other Anti-smoker organisations would have you believe that the aim of their campaigns is to get people to stop smoking.  You would imagine therefore that they would chose the most successful route and would advertise that.  You would imagine that they would be delighted at the e-equivalent for a start.  Here is a method that has a proven high success rate and achieves their aims.  So why are they so desperate to have the e-cigarette banned or at the very least, subject to the same restrictions as cigarettes?  Does that make sense?

If you check any of the government quit smoking campaigns or look at the ASH cessation methods, they all suggest that the best way to quit is to “contact your doctor or pharmacist”.  Why would that be?  A doctor or pharmacist doesn’t sell e-cigarettes?  You don’t need a doctor or pharmacist to tell you to go “cold turkey”?  But what have doctors and pharmacists have in common?  Yup – the pharmaceutical trade.  They are both going to suggest the least successful method – the pharmaceutically produced patch, gum or inhaler.  They will even promote Champix, which has incredibly dangerous side effects.

Why is this?  Why do ASH et al insist on promoting the least successful method while attacking the more successful?

Surely you can come to the obvious conclusion?

Would it help if I mentioned pharmaceutical sponsorship and grants?

Sheer spite

January 24th, 2012

It’s an interesting concept.

An organisation whose primary aim is supposed to be the health and welfare of the nation is forcing smokers not just to leave hospital buildings but is now forcing them out onto the road.

There is no logic behind this move, as even those who believe in the myth of Environmental Tobacco Smoke will have to admit that smoke outdoors poses no health risk whatsoever?  Those same people will have to admit that standing by the side of a road in one’s pyjamas on a cold winter’s day is not exactly the healthiest of actions?  Even some of the more enlightened members of the medical profession can see that.

I am no expert on the individual hospitals around the country, but amongst the hospitals I am familiar with, leaving the hospital grounds will bring you out to a very busy main road, or else there is one hell of a long walk to get to the perimeter of the grounds.  Forcing either option is nothing short of dangerous and spiteful.

Of course, reading the first article above we find some telling pointers.

“The HSE’s director of public health policy, Dr Fenton Howell, who is a former chairman of Ash, the anti-smoking lobby group, …….”

So here we have The Righteous in plain view again.  This is not about health – it is about a single minded obsession with beating down and humiliating smokers at every opportunity.

“He added: ‘We need to recognise that there is almost a sense that cigarettes are not as dangerous as they are. Five and a half thousand people die from tobacco every year, and there are thousands admitted to hospital beds because of their addiction.’”

At least he is beginning to get the message.  Cigarettes are not the equivalent of a loaded gun.  What he is really saying here is that people are starting to think that cigarettes are not as dangerous as ASH claim they are.  And then he plays ASH’s favourite game of plucking figures out of the air. There is nothing like a spot of emotive figure-juggling!

“We can’t manage patients by letting them continue the thing that brought them into hospital in the first place.”

OK.  Apply that to the few cases where you genuinely think that smoking may have contributed to the problem, but then you also have to force all victims of sports injuries to renounce sport for life.  All road accident injuries must have their driving licence immediately revoked, or they must be banned from the pavements.  Patent rubbish.

Probably the most telling statement in the article is near the top -

“The introduction of the smoking ban is being staggered so professionals within the hospital can get sufficient training in smoking cessation therapies such as nicotine patches and gum.”

There couldn’t possibly be a connection between between the fact that the anti-smoking lobby are so heavily funded by Pharma, and the promotion of Pharma products that have been proven to be useless?

Could there?

Plain garbage

January 18th, 2012

I had my usual little jaunt around the Interweb this afternoon.

Somehow I ended up on a site belonging to a British MP.  Now this little twat calls himself a liberal yet he is one of those idiots that believes that selling cigarettes in plain packaging is somehow going to stop people smoking.

He seems to be under the impression that the colour of a cigarette package somehow entices “children” to buy the things?  This must be one of the most deluded ideas that the Puritans have come up with yet.

When I started smoking, it was a case of nipping into a tobacconist and buying a cigarette.  Yes.  That’s right – one cigarette.  To this day I couldn’t tell you what brand it was or what colour its packaging was.  I know that practice of selling single fags has been stopped but it does indicate that packaging played no part in my choice.  Later on in life, I started buying them by the pack.  As far as I remember, I used to smoke Country Life which had a rather drab design, but was nice an cheap.

I have never heard of an instance where a twelve year old wanders into a tobacconist, sees the packs all stacked up behind the counter, and thinks to himself  “Wow! I must buy one of those.  They look great!”.  For a start, there is an age restriction on buying the things, so if he is under eighteen he shouldn’t be able to buy them anyway.

Plain packaging will have several effects.  It will make the tobacconists life far harder as he now has to read every label to make sure he is selling the right brand.  It is going to cost a fortune. The biggest consequence though will be a boom time for counterfeiters.  One outcome I can guarantee won’t happen though is that fewer people will buy them.

So far, the efforts of the Righteous have resulted in the closure of hundreds, nay thousands of pubs with the consequent loss of jobs.  It has divided society and stigmatised a large minority of the population.  The one thing it has failed to do is to reduce levels of smoking.  On the contrary, levels in Ireland have increased by 2% since the bans came in.

It’s worth reading that article.  It is a scary insight into the mind of a deluded bigot.  Here is a man on a mission to save people from themselves.

The best reading though is in the comments!

« Prev - Next »