“No Secret to Long Life”

I found this newspaper report by accident (thanks to ‘Daily Nicotine’ – see sidebar). I couldn’t resist posting a link to it:


As you can see, it is a Telegraph article of today’s date.

Britain’s oldest man celebrated his 110th birthday party with his favourite tipple, a glass of whisky.

That gentleman is 110 years old! Doesn’t he look well!

But what amused me a particularly made me want to publish it was this:

And Ralph Tarrant insisted there was no secret to living a long life, revealing that he smoked until he was 70 and still enjoys a drink.”


“He told the Daily Mail: “There’s no secret to getting old. There’s no need to live too carefully, I smoked until I was 70 and I still enjoy a drink. I don’t know what the future holds, but I’ll keep going as long as I can.”

I really can’t stop tittering. The phrase, “Live long and …. smoke” keeps popping into my mind.

No doubt Tobacco Control would say that he has only survived so long because he quit smoking when he was 70, but, erm, hang on a minute – shouldn’t the damage have already been done? After all, 40 years have elapsed and the ‘delayed effect’ is way overdue. Shouldn’t he have died from any one of hundreds of ‘tobacco related diseases’ by now? Why not?


There are a number of things which interest me about this article (apart from the fact that the fascist zealots must be seething about the free plug for smoking). We have this chap who smoked until he was 70 who has now reached the age of 110, and looks very well, and we have the Scottish McTear V Imp Tobacco case where Mr McTear died from lung cancer at the age of 53. TC brought this case to court in order to try to blame McTear’s lung cancer on his smoking, but, in the event, TC dared not bring its evidence before the court. Instead, TC relied upon ‘authority’ in the form of quotations from the Surgeon General’s report. So we have a complete ‘medical’ contradiction – one chap smoked and died from lung cancer at 53, while another chap smoked and is still alive at the age of 110, and appears to suffer from nothing other than aches and pains occasionally.

Let’s think about how the Zealots researchers would treat this. They would add the two ages together (even thought the second chap is still alive) and get an average at death of about 81. They would then say that 50% of smokers die 28 years prematurely. Although I am clearly exaggerating the situation, the statistical tricks that TC use are not dissimilar.

That puts me in mind of a study which Harleyrider often quotes. I can’t remember the name of the study. It researched the lifestyles of nonagenarians and found that these people did not live in a particularly healthy way. They smoked, and drank, and ate what they liked and did just as little exercise as any normal person. And yet they were all in their nineties. The researchers were unable to find anything remarkable about their lifestyles at all, either good or bad.


I was reading earlier some stuff on ecigs (I forget where). It turns out that a ‘famous expert’ has said that any country which bans eicgs is “Nuts”. Erm …. Australia has banned ecigs, as have a couple of other countries. Well, right. But, to me, all these experts, who are now falling out, betray thereby the weakness of their case regarding smoking bans and such. I came across this site today (via Dick Puddlecote):


A professor writes in the London School of Economics blog about how alcohol denormalisation could follow the tobacco template. He describes the various necessary steps in moving from describing smoking as ‘naughty’ to bringing the various public bodies together to end up with legislation. It is an interesting read. There were no comments before mine (apart from a couple from the author). I said:

Right, Professor. And what has this vast expenditure of time and money produced of any significance?
A smoking ban in some enclosed places.

And upon what is the paltry result based?

Two massive lies:

1. That private property is public property.
2. That second hand smoke is dangerous.


I’m right, am I not? What have the Zealots actually achieved after the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds in the UK? All they have achieved is the discomfiture of smokers as a result of the ban. Can anyone think of anything else? Has there been a fall in smoking prevalence since the ban? TC stats show a slight fall, but knowing TC as we do, they are almost certainly fictitious. Who believes a word that TC speaks? In any case, the black market is hardly likely to reveal its figures, is it? In the USA, some States have banned smoking on some beaches and in some parks. Big deal! What smoker, who might want to smoke in a park, would go to a park? Who cares? And there are lots of beaches ………. Who cares?

But it goes further than that. What the fascist Zealots have actually really achieved has been totally destructive. Frank Davies (see sidebar) ran a survey. He had a couple of hundred responses. The survey was conducted among smokers outside pubs. His survey revealed that quite a lot of smokers go to the pub considerably less often than they did before the ban, as well as other economic effects. But the damage is not limited to pubs. As we know, the ban has had a serious effect on bingo clubs which is especially serious for the older generation. It has been obvious from newspaper and blog comments that a deliberate campaign by TC has caused societal disruption and hate. This is amply illustrated by the Bolton Hospital fracas about smoking shelters, as well as the ‘fascist thugs’ failure to impose a smoking ban in the open air at the Glasgow hospital.

TC has so far managed, via its fascist propaganda, to confuse what is important. It has managed to give the impression that smoking bans, marketing bans, disgusting pictures on fag packets, regulation of ecigs, etc are MEASURES OF SUCCESS. They are not. More non-smokers are getting lung cancer than ever before. People who are going about their lawful business are being criminalised. Resentment against nanny state interference is building up (see the Mirror poll which revealed 80% AGAINST the smoking ban).

Another thing that struck me while I was reading a few blogs today was the dispassionate nature of almost all the pro-ecig academics. The word ‘pleasure’ never seems to enter their vocabulary. As they see it, people never take up ecigs for pleasure; they only take them up to quit smoking. Even the Doctors and Professors who advocate ecigs fall into that trap. That is the danger of being within an enclosed circle – you cannot see outside. It follows without saying that it never occurs to them that people smoke tobacco for pleasure. According to TC, they only do so because the were tempted by Big Tobacco, who made it their business to addict people, literally, by their additives to tobacco. Oddly enough, it is just possible that TC is right! How do we know that, in years gone by, Big Tobacco did not add additives which were addictive? How do we know whether or not pure tobacco is addictive? It might very well not be. Also, how do we know that pure tobacco is not harmless? It might well be the additives which cause harm. How do we know otherwise?

Note that I am not stating these things as FACTS. I am just hypothesising.

I understand that the new EU Tobacco Directive is due out tomorrow. It will demand that member states regulate ecigs as medicines. There will be much discussion of that. What will not be discussed is the further demonisation and persecution of people who enjoy tobacco.

8 Responses to ““No Secret to Long Life””

  1. cherie79 Says:

    It never seems to occur to these people that we don’t want to stop, we like smoking. I saw the article about the 110 year old man and it did make me smile. I don’t think how you live makes much difference when it’s time, it’s time. There are numerous well known smokers, Churchill etc. who lived into their 90s. Also I was thinking about my friends, family and others I know and the ones who got dementia, including my mother, were never smokers while my aunt who has smoked since she was 10 is 87 and I don’t know any smokers who have alzheimers.

    • junican Says:

      Clearly, Cherie, there are those who want to stop. But I suspect that, in the majority if cases, it is cost which is important. The addiction argument has been around for decades (at least six decades), and yet certain animal experiments could not get these creatures addicted to nicotine. They could get them addicted to heroin and other substances, but not nicotine. So why do we smokers find it so difficult to stop? My personal opinion is that it is a combination of three factors:
      1. We enjoy smoking.
      2. Prior to the smoking bans, it was a little pleasure which we could enjoy almost anywhere and at any time.
      3. We got into A HABIT of enjoying this little pleasure.
      What made me finally decide that I was NOT suffering from an addiction was the Manchester airport ban. On the first few occasions, the thought that ‘I could do with a fag’ kept leaping into my mind, but I soon got used to not smoking in the airport – or on the aircraft. It now doesn’t bother me at all to wait until I arrive at my destination. Not one bit. Does that mean that I am happy about the airport ban? NO IT DOES NOT! It is just as stupid and vindictive and pointless as the pub ban.

      • cherie79 Says:

        I agree it is a habit not an addiction, if I am in a place I cannot smoke it doesn’t bother me at all, I just don’t think about it. However it is a habit I enjoy, cancer notwithstanding, and I bitterly resent the ban. Not just for smoking but for the loss of freedom and the government deciding it could control private businesses and decide what is a ‘public place’. As you have often pointed out where will it end and the methods employed by TC are being widely copied for other ‘unhealthy lifestyles’. I just want to be left alone as I used to be. BTW I got a vets bill today for my cat for £650 ! good job it wasn’t the NHS or his illness would have been blamed on my smoking around him.

      • junican Says:

        We have a cat. He’s thirteen years old. He went to the vets today for routine jabs. The vet was surprised at his age – he is so fit. Needless to say, he spends most of his time snoozing in the shs filled house. Another nonagenarian in cat terms!

      • cherie79 Says:

        Despite my late husband and I both being heavy smokers my last cats lived to 21, 19, 18,16, and 12 the last got leukaemia. My oldest one now is 14 and doing well so much for SHS! be sorry to lose her as she is the last one we had together, the other two acquired me since he died.

      • junican Says:

        “Acquired me” …. LOL.
        “Dogs have masters. Cats have servants”

      • cherie79 Says:

        Very true, I have been ‘owned’ by cats nearly all my life. Every time I say no more another one finds me, a bit like houses they always found me too. The quote I heard was ‘dogs have owners and cats have staff’. When I did once have cats and a dog the cats ruled the roost then too.

      • junican Says:

        I think that your quote is more accurate than mine, but they amount to the same thing.
        My daughter has a shiatsu dog. She brings her to our house when she goes to work. Bella (the dog) tries to bully Marcus (the cat), but he has none of it. In fact, he makes fun of the dog by running hither and thither much faster than the dog can.
        But they do ‘get along’!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: