There has never been a time in recent history when mankind has been obliged to obey the dictats of an elite other than by the use of force by the elite. Thus we see how ‘persuasion’ that smoking tobacco is harmful has turned into PROHIBITION. It is sometimes difficult to see that the Smoking Ban is PROHIBITION. It is just the same as PROHIBITION of alcohol manufacture and sale in America was in the 1900’s in the USA. There is no difference whatsoever. The only thing that is different is that the PROHIBITION is the other way round. Rather than ban the manufacture, rather than the ‘use of’, the new PROHIBITION bans the ‘use of’ rather than ‘the manufacture’. But it is essentially the same thing.

In the USA, in the prohibition era, people disobeyed. Illicit manufacturers of ‘alcoholic products’ were portrayed as criminals and outlaws and gangsters. I am sure that there were such organisations, but I suspect that the real situation was far from what was portrayed by ‘The Government’. I suspect that the real situation was that, by and large, individuals brewed their own alcoholic beverages and held parties where everyone enjoyed themselves.

The equivalent of parties today is ‘smoky/drinky’  places, and the equivalent of ‘illicit brewing’ is home-growing, white-van man, venturing abroad to make purchases and the purchase of ‘agricultural products’. What is important to understand is that there is nothing ‘dishonourable’ about any of these practices. The 650 MPs in Parliament seem to think that they can pass laws, and, because they pass them, then everyone must obey.


The mere fact that 650 MPs say so is no different from a tyrant saying so. In the end, the 650 MPs rely just as much on physical force as would a tyrant.

Sometimes, these 650 MPs rely upon another false dichotomy, which is that ‘the average’ is ‘the norm’. We see that erroneous dichotomy in ‘recommended alcohol units per day’ and ‘five portions of vegetables and fruit per day’. Is it not a curious thing that, somehow, the Tobacco Control Industry has engineered a situation where there is no such thing as a recommended limit of, say, “Five cigarettes a day”?

If there was such a recommendation,  what would be the effect if all smokers adhered to the ‘recommended limit’? If the findings of the Hill & Doll ‘Doctors Study’ were followed, then almost no one would suffer from ‘tobacco related diseases’.

Erm… Not true. As GaryK has pointed out, 85% of smokers die from ‘tobacco related diseases’, but 84% of non-smokers also die from ‘tobacco related diseases’. The difference between the two is not a question of ‘why’, but a question of ‘when’. It is clear therefore that smoking is not THE CAUSE of these diseases but rather the earlier incident of these diseases comparatively speaking. But why should non-smoking be the norm? Why should not non-drinking, or not being a glutton, or not being a couch potato, or not living in a city rather than the countryside, or living at the top of a block of flats rather than at the bottom, be the norm?


Russia has become the latest Nation to succumb to the Zealots, despite the fact that it has a low rate of lung cancers and a high rate of smoking. Why has Russia become subservient to the Zealots? No doubt the Russian people will BE FORCED to obey the strictures, but they must surely be mindful of the recent regimes of intolerance and servitude. I suspect that the answer is extremely simple – it is matter of taxation.


3 Responses to “Disobedience”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “85% of smokers die from ‘tobacco related diseases’, but 84% of non-smokers also die from ‘tobacco related diseases’.”

    As do most people, including pipe/cigar smokers and ex-smokers.

    There even isn’t much difference among light to heavy smokers.

    Tho there is some marked, not significant, differences according to the disease.

    % of total deaths due to diseases ’caused’ by smoking

    Neversmokers = 84%

    Ex-cig smokers = 85%

    Current cig smokers = 85%

    1-14 cigs/day = 85%

    15-24 cigs/per = 87%

    25+ cigs/day = 84%

    Ex-pipe/cigar smokers = 85%

    Current pipe/cigar smokers = 84%

    Heart attack deaths as a % of total deaths

    Neversmokers = 32%

    Ex-cig smokers = 31.5%

    Current cig smokers = 28.3%

    1-14 cigs/day = 31%

    15-24 cigs/day = 29%

    25+ cigs/day = 24.5%

    Ex-pipe/cigar smokers = 30%

    Current cigar/pipe smokers = 29%

    • garyk30 Says:

      If you look at cancers

      Never-smokers = 18.6% of total deaths

      25+/day smokers = 23.4% of total deaths.

      25% greater to even out the heart attack data.

  2. Junican Says:

    I often wonder if the termination of the Doctors Study in 2001 (?) was deliberate, so that it would not be possible to account for the deaths of ALL the doctors (apart from those lost to the study) and thus do the calculations, which you have done, for ALL the doctors. However, when you consider the ages of the doctors after 50 years, there can have been only a very small number who were under 75. Doll said in one of the reports that, even if a doctor failed to return a later questionnaire, his death could still be traced via the medical register. However, the question arises as to whether or not the medical register keeps track of doctors who have retired. I doubt it somehow. Thus, it may well have been the case that no reports whatsoever were being received towards the end, which would of course justify the termination of the study.

    So we have this curious situation. There were about 54,000 male doctors and roughly two thirds of them agree to take part – 34,000. By the end of the study, 25,000 had died. Thus, the results of the study are based upon only a half of the original study group. Statistically, I am sure, that there is no problem with that with regard to cause of death, but there could be problems if the smoking status of the deaths has not been known for many years. Thus, one wonders how many lung cancer deaths were recorded as ‘heavy smoker’ deaths because the doctor in question reported himself as a heavy smoker twenty years before?
    There is something suspect about the whole thing. If I am right about the dates, it seems to me to be impossible that Hill and Doll decided to start the Doctors Study only after they were disappointed by the reception of the Hospital Study. The time-scales are wrong. The Hospital Study results were published in 1950. It would have taken some time for the publication to have any effect on perception. The Doctors Study started in 1951. I cannot believe that it could have been organised in a few months. It must have already been planned – with an agenda.


    “With an agenda” means that other possible contributing factors were known about but ignored. These might be location and smogs, war time experiences and deprivations from that source, personal exposure to the illnesses of their patients. It may well be that the certainty of the Doctors Study is correct, but, to the best of my knowledge, I have not seen any information about WHY some of the doctors were heavy smokers.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: