That slippery slope that doesn’t exist?

Like a soft drink do you? Well get ready to be de-humanised for it over the next few years.

Smokers such as myself have already experienced it. But is only just starting for the lovers of soft drinks.

For smokers it first started with colossal rises in tax on tobacco products.

Guess what, soft drink lovers, it's going to happen to you in the near future.

Thousands of cases of diabetes and cancer could be avoided, saving the NHS £300million, by putting a health tax of 12p a can on sugary drinks, it is claimed. (My bold: They don’t actually know)

Academics have calculated the likely reduction in consumption caused by putting up the price of full sugar drinks like Coca-Cola and Pepsi and the resulting health benefits.

The work by experts at the University of Liverpool and the Children’s Food Campaign will fuel the growing campaign to extend the principle of a duty on unhealthy products from cigarettes and alcohol to some types of drink and food.

The start of your fall from grace begins there. They actually admit to wishing to follow the tobacco control template

Health campaigners and doctors have controversially likened sugar and its contribution to obesity and ill-health as the ‘new tobacco’.

Next will be horrendous images of diseased kidneys, rotting teeth, and pictures of ill people in bed  covering your can of delight.

The next step will be to of course will continue with fizzy pop being hidden behind screens for “THE SAKE OF THE CHEEEELDREN”.

You tell me what comes next….

SOURCE

Outside with you.

 

Of course I couldn’t even think of inflicting that, as I’ll never be a rabid Anti-smoker.

I could tell I was back in the UK when…….

As I was exiting the airport terminal into the open air, and commencing to light up a ciggie,  an officious prick in uniform passing in the opposite direction  through the entrance way tells me in a loud voice, “No smoking in the terminal”. FFS

It really goes to show what a rigid, almost police state we seem to have become.

It was an absolute joy being on Crete for two weeks. No petty officialdom anywhere in sight. Smoking is hardly restricted at all. The average grecian is not the slightest bit bothered whether someone smokes or not. Ash trays are on the tables in tavernas and if you stub out a cigarette in one it will very shortly be replaced with a clean one.

I suppose I shouldn’t complain as I’ve just found out that the identical house to me, next door, is being solid for £150k more than I thought the houses were worth.

Maybe I’ll sell up and move to Greece.

Lies, damn lies, and fiddled statistics.

“Science is not always a neutral, disinterested search for knowledge, although it may often seem that way to the outsider. Sometimes the story can be very different.”

This should be required reading for all those rabid anti smokers out there.

How times change.

Smoking and health have been the subject of argument since tobacco was introduced to Europe in the sixteenth century. King James I was a pioneer antismoker. In 1604 he declared that smoking was "a custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." But like many a politician since, he decided that taxing tobacco was a more sensible option than banning it.

By the end of the century general opinion had changed. The Royal College of Physicians of London promoted smoking for its benefits to health and advised which brands were best. Smoking was compulsory in schools. An Eton schoolboy later recalled that "he was never whipped so much in his life as he was one morning for not smoking". As recently as 1942 Price’s textbook of medicine recommended smoking to relieve asthma.

The times they were a changing (Apology to Bob Dylan).

Then we had the Doll and Hill study.

These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer.

But were their study results correct?

Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, "even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung causes cancer."

I’m not going to further plagiarise the document but suggest that smokers and anti smokers both have a read of the article. I think as an antismoker you may be disturbed, if not slightly guilty about your persecution of smokers. I leave you with this:

But the continuation of Hammond’s work, with its demonstrated faulty methodology, was used by the Australian authors to deduce that smoking causes premature death to the extent of 17,800 per year in Australia. Their conclusions should be compared with the results of a survey by the Australian Statistician in 1991 of 22,200 households, chosen at random. This showed "long term conditions", including cancer and heart disease, to be more common in non-smokers than smokers.

Hah.

Is this the real cause of the rise in Lung Cancer?

If so this should frighten the living daylights out of the Antismoking fake charities such as ASH.

The question to be asked is this:

Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?

I’ve written this post as the WHO have just come out of the closet and admitted that outdoor air pollution is maybe the main cause of lung cancer.

A major environmental health problem

Air pollution is already known to increase risks for a wide range of diseases, such as respiratory and heart diseases. Studies indicate that in recent years exposure levels have increased significantly in some parts of the world, particularly in rapidly industrializing countries with large populations. The most recent data indicate that in 2010, 223 000 deaths from lung cancer worldwide resulted from air pollution.

The most widespread environmental carcinogen

“The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances,” says Dr Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Section. “We now know that outdoor air pollution is not only a major risk to health in general, but also a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.”

 However a research scientist  came up with a study in 1998 which if was true should have turned the prevailing orthodoxy on it’s head about cigarette smoking.

Here is a few facts from her work:

• tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
• that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
• that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
• that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
• and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.

And even more damning is her summary.

"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".

Over to you ASH.

Freedom of speech. Hah.

Put that in your pipe….

and smoke it.

Interesting little video showing the lack of knowledge at a NHS smoking quit line.

Sorry about the music.

Lock them up

I suppose this may be the next stage of the game in the endless war of the Anti-smokers against the twenty percent of us who partake of a perfectly legal product.

Those gracious days.

Those were the days when smoking was the norm.

Up to 70% of men smoked and a sizeable coterie of women did so also. Every home was littered with ashtrays, even those whose occupants didn’t partake of the pleasure. You only had to say “Do you mind if I smoke” and a plentiful supply of  ash trays would appear as if by magic. Even the bedroom was not out of bounds.

In those days smoking was permitted everywhere. Cinemas, buses (Top deck only), offices, pubs (Natch), trains, aircraft, & just about everywhere.

Then about twenty years ago the Nu puritans started to gain the ascendant. Slowly but surely they pushed the line that “Smoking kills”. Regardless of the fact that smokers knew the risks and accepted  as a fact of life, smokers might one day be struck down with lung cancer.

As the Nu puritans, showered with government money, became bolder, more and more diseases were added to the list of smoking related diseases. Cardiovascular, cancer of the Asoephegous (supply your own spelling if you’re a nosy nu puritan reading this post), gum disease, etc. Nothing was off limits to the nu puritans.

Slowly but surely the creep of prohibition set in. Bans on public transport, planes, etc. Then private offices were to have smoking rooms, etc. The evil of second-hand smoke

Of course the governments of the time, seeing their tax revenue falling, jumped on the band wagon of nu health, and vowed to save the nation by increasing tax on tobacco. This of course gave legitimacy  to the nu puritans, who have since redoubled their efforts to de-normalisation of the smoker.

So then they came for the pubs and clubs. The hysterical cry arose “We must save the bar people from dying of second hand smoke”, Of course they didn’t care that they would put thousands of staff out of work, many who smoked, and the rest, glad that they had employment. The government seemed to fail to understand that pubs are actually private premises. But then again when have you known an intelligent politician.

Of course the nu puritans have won the battles so far, but the hardcore  of us proud smokers will never give in. Unless the government bans tobacco completely (Do you think they will want to lose the £11.5 billion in tobacco revenue? If you do then find another planet to live on), then the nu puritans will have lost the war.

It’s a war of time and resolve. We can get through the display bans and plain packaging and though I may not see it in my life time we shall prevail.

PS.

You’re next fatties, drinkers, salt likers, etc ,etc,etc. The template is in place and now being used.

PPS,

Can you guess which one is the nu puritan?

Is it the ASHen faced one on the left or the comely wench on the right?

(The clue is in the text)

Sneaky

Smoking whilst driving will attract a fine for “careless driving”.

Police currently enforce most careless-driving offences by issuing a warning with no further action, but government plans revealed yesterday will give them the power to issue fixed-penalty tickets.

Last one on the list.

Now I’ve been lighting up cigarettes whilst at the wheel for more years than I can remember. It’s completely second nature to me. I do it without taking my off the road for a second.

And before someone at the back shouts out that you must have both hands on the wheel. That’s bollocks.

Have you never changed the radio station, switched the lights or windscreen wipers on? Do you never change gear?

Just another little money earner for the government coffers.Or just paving the way for no smoking in cars?

Smokefree

More likely they want “Free of smokers”.

Save me from pontificating MPs

MPs have called for a drastic reform of the pub industry to stop locals closing at an "alarming" rate.

In a strongly-worded report, the Business Select Committee criticised the large pub companies which run most of the country's pubs, so-called pubcos, saying self-regulation had failed.

The committee said that after being given a number of chances to change the way it runs the business, pubcos should now be subjected to statutory regulation.

That statutory regulation you want to bring in? Look at the last one you brought in. The smoking ban. Have you not thought that, that in itself, has done the most damage to the hospitality industry?

Maybe you haven’t read this you muppets.

Almost three years after the introduction of smoking bans in the three countries, Scotland had
lost 7.1% of its pub estate (467 pubs), Wales 7.3% (274), and England 7.6% (4,148). Scotland,
which introduced a smoking ban a year earlier lost a further 4% of its pub estate in the fourth
year after the ban, mirroring a similar decline in Ireland (11%) which banned smoking in pubs in
2004.
Total pub losses in England, Scotland and Wales since the introduction of smoking bans in all
three countries are in excess of 5,500.
According to CR Consulting’s report, which was commissioned by the Save Our Pubs & Clubs
campaign, “While there is significant variation in the trajectories of pub closures before the ban,
there is an almost total correlation between the three countries after the ban.
“This indicates that they are affected by a strong common factor ‐ the smoking ban. The
correlation is in fact so close that the trend line for the three countries is identical.”

I would suggest that you MPs and your so called select committees butt out and do what you do best. The only problem is the only thing I think you have any expertise in, is fiddling your expenses and being professional liars.

I used to go to a local pub every Sunday before the smoking ban and had to fight my way to the bar. Now I rarely go once every three months. last Sunday I went. There were only five others in the pub, one of which was the barman. The other three were with me.

Just get out into the real world outside the Westminster bubble and speak to real people. Get away from your sycophants, and your lackeys in the MSM (a certain Nick Robinson from the BBC springs to mind) if you want to find out why pubs and clubs are closing at an alarming rate.

God give me strength. I truly hate the cunts. My MP hasn’t the decency to even acknowledge my correspondence. Yes you, John Stanley, you waste of space.

Guy Fawkes had the right idea. Roll on November the fifth. (or should that be filth)

Smoking and me.

I will admit that I’m a lifelong smoker. Bearing in mind that I’ve been smoking for about 45 years and paid tax on my illegal perfectly lawful habit, why am I supposed to feel guilty about it.?

If for instance I average out the duty per pack of cigarettes at £2 per pack, then the extra tax I’ve paid, compared with an Anti smoker is: 2 x £2 x 360 x 45 = £64,800. And that is a very conservative estimate on the tax take. (I would hesitate to guess that it’s probably double).

What is worse is I suspect that my tax has probably gone on supporting the salaries of a couple of “smoking cessation advisors” or even worse, helped to fund the Quango ASH.(Spits).

Of course the Anti smokers will say that I’m a drain on the NHS. Well actually no. In my entire working career I’ve had precisely three days off due to the flue, my dental treatment is paid for by myself at no little cost, and I have private health insurance for myself and my family.

If as surmised that as a smoker I will die early, then of course I will be swelling the coffers of the state  by doing so. I won’t draw my pension for as long as the Righteous.

So to you Antismoker out there. Just look at what you’ve contributed. Misery for 25% of the population due your  incessant whining about how the whiff of cigarette smoke makes you feel sick, and the fatuous belief that SHS will kill you. It actually makes me sick with despair at how low this great country has fallen. Citizens fought for the right for minorities to peacefully co-exist. When the government comes after your favourite vice of choice, just remember this post.

Maybe in the interests of fairness you’d chuck £64,000 into the kitty just to even the score. After all I’ve been subsidising you for long enough.

Cheques payable to:

The Filthy Engineer

Sort code: I forget

Account number: Rhymes with Alzheimer's

Don’t even think about buying property in Wales.

Not if your a smoker.

Dr Tony Jewell, chief medical officer for Wales, said that stopping people lighting up in their own homes would protect their children from the dangers of passive smoking.

and.

'It could be seen as the final piece of the protection picture or at least adding to the growing public consensus on the social acceptability of smoking.'

I suspect they will do one of those surveys in Wales in the near future. One of those that is phrased like this.

“Should smoking be banned in homes for the sake of the cheeeldren?”

Of course they’ll get an 80% yes vote for that.

So then they’ll produce a law which they won’t have a hope in hell of enforcing.

I don’t live in Wales but if I did I’d just love a state sponsored, No smoking enforcement officer, to just try it on. It is my property and it is nothing to do with the state with what I do within it within reason. (Obviously murder is slightly over the top).

What has become of this country?

I need to sit down in a darkened room.

With a cigarette.

Thanks to the Angry Exile for this

War and smoking. The dangers.

Now, I’ve been around for a fair few years and had one or two life threatening moments in my career.

Just a simple question. What should I fear the most?

1. Smoking cigarettes and dying at the ripe old age of 65?

2. A 500lb bomb and living to the age of 33?

The heath fascists would say I probably shortened my life by smoking 60 a day whilst the 500lb bombs were raining down. At least I would have died with a smoke wreathed smile on my face.

Life is full of risks, and to be scared to death of risk is to cheapen the very essence of being a sentient being.

That’s why smokers need to chip away at the boundaries of the anti smoking crusade, drip by drip. The answer is as Leg Iron writes, they don’t know who you are.

It’s also a case of embarrassing them in the public eye. Making them looking petty minded, spiteful, and only after money.

Petty minded and spiteful is exposed by the school that decided it’s pupils were going to run around the Medway stealing cigarettes from smokers.

Money is Sandwell council’s decision to prosecute a 70 year old women from dropping cigarette ash.

Believe you me, smokers, this is a war that can be won, just by exposing the righteous for what they are. Petty tyrants that are addicted to control. Just chip away at their power, bit by bit.

Then of course a 500lb bomb on Sandwell council and one on Medway would be so much more satisfying.

PS. If MI5, CIA, SOCA, and any other security service reads this blog. Fuck off.

Oh and before I forget, If you drink or are slightly overweight you’re are next in their sights. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

Neglect us at your peril

Don't forget we are 22% of the population

 

If you want to ignore us so be it. Just don't expect me to vote for you.

Nick Hogan case picked up by the MSM

They really are a bit slow. Do keep up.

 

Freedom arrived earlier than expected for smoking ban martyr Nick Hogan yesterday... courtesy of a briefcase full of cash carried by a man in a green Guy Fawkes mask.

Former pub landlord Mr Hogan became the first person to be jailed in connection with the smoking ban when he was sentenced to six months for refusing to pay a fine imposed for flouting the legislation.

His plight inspired a campaign on the internet to raise funds to pay off his outstanding fines.

It reached its climax yesterday (national no-smoking day, no less) when a mysterious blogger called Old Holborn delivered the money to Forest Bank prison in Salford - 11 days into Mr Hogan's sentence.

The arrival of the self-styled ' libertarian vigilante' at the Category B prison in his mask, full black costume and hat left other visitors amused or bewildered.

In the prison car park, Old Holborn, who wore his costume to hide his identity, flipped open the metal case to reveal enough bundles of used fivers and tenners to pay the £8,445.15 needed to secure 43-year-old Mr Hogan's release.

 

Source

And now for......

In light of todays article about why the police are tied up with HSE regulations, comes a good comedy debunking of HSE, PC, Offense, & antismoking. And pottery?

H/T to Harry Hook at the Final redoubt