Some American Statistics About Smoking

Via a link to a link, I came across the Gallup Poll about smoking in America. Gallup is pretty well respected. Here is the link:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1717/tobacco-smoking.aspx

There is a lot of interesting information in it. For example, look at these figures (unfortunately, it is not a site that you can copy and paste from):

Have you yourself smoked any cigarettes this week?”

YES.

July 2014……21%.

July 2013……19%.

Skipping some years:

2012…..20%.

201o…..22%.

2008….21%

July 2007….21%.

So, since 2007, hardly any change has occurred in smoking prevalence in a very broad sense.

But you can go back much further. For example, 1997 was 26%. 1987 was 30%. 1977 was 38%.

But do you see the sequence?

Between 1977 and 1987, the decrease was 8%.

Between 1987 and 1997, the decrease was 4%.

Between 1997 and 2007, the decrease was 5%.

Between 2007 and 2014, the decrease was 0%.

You can look at the table yourself, and you will see variations, but the tendency for people not to smoke has decreased over the the past several years. It makes you wonder why that is so. Could it be that the massive hype due to the massive spending of the Tobacco Control Industry in demonising tobacco has in fact been massive advertising of smoking? You know what they say – “There is no such thing as bad publicity”.

But there are some figures in there which I think are really weird. For example:

As a result of increased restrictions on smoking in public places, do you feel unjustly discriminated against as a smoker, or do you think that the restrictions are justified?

YEAR…………….YES…………NO. 

2014……………….37%………..58%.

Nothing in the figures for years between 2014 and 2008.

2008………………36%………..62%.

2007………………47%………..51%.

2006………………42%………..56%.

2005………………39%………..59%.

I find that absolutely amazing. In excess of 50% of smokers DO NOT feel that they are being discriminated against by  smoking bans!

But perhaps the answer lies here:

In general, how harmful do you feel second hand smoke is to adults – very harmful, somewhat harmful, not too harmful, or not at all harmful”

Year………Very…..Somewhat…….Not too……..Not at all.

2014………57…………31………………..7………………..4.

2013………59…………29……………….7………………..3.

2012………56…………32……………….8……………….4.

2011………54…………30……………….9……………….4.

There isn’t an awful lot of variation in earlier years. You have to go back to 1999 to get below 50% who think that SHS is very harmful.

Does anyone else think that the above figures for SHS harm are absolutely amazing? Why do so many people think that SHS is significantly harmful? Added together, the ‘Very’ and ‘Somewhat’ approach 90%! Thus, even smokers are wide open to suggestion and propaganda, and few of them make any enquiries.

There again, considering that 80% of the American population are non-smokers, why should they think? They don’t have to think when they are being told. But I do find it awfully depressing that so many people deny their own experiences and accept the dogma without question. A very large number of these people must have been around smokers in the past and never experienced any discomfort or become ill.

—-

But there are other conclusions which can be drawn from these figures. I have often wondered why politicians seem to be so gullible. Perhaps they have been shown these figures and that is why they support the Tobacco Control Industry. They believe that they must, because 90% of the VOTERS think that SHS is ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ harmful. Politicians do not say why they support Tobacco Control, of course. That would show that they are not independent minded. “The reason that I support Tobacco Control is because 90% of voters believe that SHS is dangerous. I know that it is not dangerous, but how can I vote against smoking bans anywhere and everywhere if voters have this mistaken belief? What can I do about that mistaken belief? It ain’t my fault”.

In some ways, although it is all very depressing, it is good to know what is going on. It helps us a little in our attempts to bring reason, rather than emotion, into the equation.

Q. “Is SHS dangerous?”

A. “Well, there is no evidence that it is immediately dangerous to any normal person, but I suppose that it might be if you are still alive after one hundred and thirty years”

Q. “What about children under the age of eighteen?”

A. “The subdivision of such children who are, say, less than 13 years old will hardly ever actually inhale much tobacco smoke, but studies have shown that inhaling a little such smoke can be protective in later years against asthma and other things. The further subdivision from 13 to 17  may experiment a little with smoking, but not to any great extent, unless they are personally well-off. If they are personally sufficiently well-off to smoke copiously, then they must be rich, in which case, who cares if they kill themselves?”

For the ‘Doctors study’ showed that even inhaling a concentrate packet of tobacco smoke into the lungs for thirty years produced no death threats, and even after longer period of smoking, only a small number of people died as a result of smoking (if indeed it was the smoking which caused their deaths).

So there are targets for us to attack. There is no doubt in my mind at all that:

1. The State has no right whatsoever to determine our adult behaviour, provided that we do not harm others – harm being actual physical harm, and not ‘cost to taxpayers’ harm.

2. The ‘Doctors Study’ (and other studies conducted since, such as Enstrom and Kabat ‘Spouses Study’ and the ‘Nonagenarians Study’, and the use of smokers lungs in transplants) show that SHS harm to a normal person is extremely unlikely to occur until long after the normal human lifespan.

3. That second hand inhaling of vapour from electrofags might be dangerous, but not within a lifespan of 532 year or so.

4. Studies have not shown any significant harm to dogs, cats, gerbils, wasps and flies which inhabit the homes of smokers from time to time. (There may be no such studies)

=====

At the moment, it is hard to see how and when the Tobacco Control Industry will collapse. Certainly, sooner or later, someone in Government will wake up and see that there are thousands of academics and researchers in universities who are not earning their keep by teaching, which is what students pay their fees for. University students do not pay their fees to fund research into smoking. Nor should the ‘Charity Foundations’ be using our university buildings and infrastructure to pursue their pet projects. That is not what our universities are for.

Internationally, I think that the WHO concentration upon the FCTC, and the consequent lack of resources and time being applied to Ebola, has done that corrupt organisation a lot of damage – far more than appears on the surface. Theoretical early deaths from voluntary smoking are one thing, but actual deaths from Ebola are a much more urgent matter, and the WHO has been found to be useless, useless, useless.

 

=====

Better stop there, I suppose. One has drifted. I was reading earlier a post on another site which summed up our political system nicely. There are, it said, ‘predators and parasites’ which pervade our institutions and our economy. These ‘predators and parasites’ need to be identified and rooted out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Some American Statistics About Smoking”

  1. nisakiman Says:

    “In general, how harmful do you feel second hand smoke is to adults – very harmful, somewhat harmful, not too harmful, or not at all harmful”

    What would be an interesting follow-up question to the above would be:

    “If you answered very or somewhat harmful, why do you believe this to be so?”

    Of course the answer from the majority would have to be “I read / heard that it was harmful in the MSM”

    It just goes to show the power of propaganda.

    Re the WHO, I left a comment on Frank’s blog on this very subject a short while ago.

  2. magnetic01 Says:

    O/T
    Left a comment for you on the previous thread.

    Regards

  3. prog Says:

    TC would be f*****d without the SHS shite.

    As an aside, vapers would do themselves a BIG favour by collectively condemning and highlighting the junk that causes smoking bans. Trouble is, it seems reasonable to assume that smokers who totally switch to e-cigs are probably among the most brainwashed. Which is why smokers should not regard them as allies. Indeed, they need smokers more than smokers need them.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: