“We Have No PLANS to Extend the Smoking Ban”

“We have no plans to extend the smoking ban” (or words to that affect) said the Health Dept. That was in connection with the plan, proposed by Public Health, to create smoking exclusion zones around pubs, schools, playgrounds, etc.

A little before the indoor ‘public places’ smoking ban (including tents which are outdoors but have a roof and more than 50% of the sides closed) was introduced, a Tory candidate for the GE at the time came round our estate. I complained about the proposed smoking ban. He said that the Tories had ‘no plans’ to introduce such a ban. As I recall, Labour had nothing in its manifesto at the time about a smoking ban either.

And yet the politicians colluded with a few Fanatics to bring in that law, even though there was no public demand for such a law.

“We have no plans” is meaningless. Why? Because:

  1. The plans are not being drawn up by the Health Dept.
  2. Upon demand, the plans will ’emerge’ in a fully fledged state.
  3. They will be appended to some minor amendment of the licensing laws or something similar.

I think that we have all learned how these tricks are pulled. We have seen it often enough. For example, the definition of a tobacco product was changed within a Finance Act as a minor amendment. I can’t remember the detail. It could have been “….. or any other substance which can be smoked” – something like that. In other words, a tobacco product need not be tobacco. Tommy Cooper would have been proud of the conjuring trick.

What we have been seeing, over the past several years, has been the deliberate erosion of all that magna carta and the USA constitution stand for. ‘The individual’ has been replaced by ‘the population’. The individual has no longer the human right to seek happiness in his own way. He may do so only in the approved way, and that way must be a healthy way. Failure to be healthy is a criminal offence. Or it might as well be. Fatties and smokers are in the stocks, available for upright citizens to throw rotten eggs at. “Your right to smoke stops at my nose” – Erm….. No…… You have the right to remove your nose from my smoke. “It is wrong that people can blow smoke in my face when I am eating a burger in the pub garden”. Wrong again. If the publican permits smoking on his property, you have the right to remove yourself from said property. The claim to rights over other people is akin to me being first onto an aircraft and being upset by sight or smell of a person who has been allocated the seat next to me. According to these people, I should have the right to demand that the crew force that person to get off the aircraft or move elsewhere. “Excuse me, stewardess, but this person who has just sat down in the seat next to me smells of aftershave. I do not like it. I insist that you force him to sit elsewhere”. “Excuse me, stewardess, that baby crying is really upsetting me. Kindly attach some sort of parachute to it and throw it out of the aircraft”.

“The tyranny of the majority” is alive and well and is promoted by ‘Public Health’. I am amazed that intelligent politicians have not spotted that trick even though it is glaringly obvious. It exhibits itself in the form of surveys. “70% of respondents agree with the smoking ban” is tyranny of the majority, and it is blatantly obvious. It also exhibits itself in studies such as the Doll ‘Doctors Study’, although the derivation is more indirect. In that study, the ‘majority’ is the difference between smokers who got lung cancer and the non-smokers. The ‘difference’ was something like 15 to 1. It does not matter that the number of smokers who got lung cancer was small – about 4% (? I forget – it does not matter for the purpose of this post). The real majority was that 96% (?) of smokers did not get LC, but the majority which caused the smoking bans was the artificial majority of the difference.

What bothers me is that politicians (especially cabinet ministers), supposedly  intelligent, did not spot this blatant corruption of science. Perhaps we should not be surprised.

In my opinion, epidemiology is not a science in itself. It is counting. It is similar to mathematics. It is a tool which science can use. For example, the real science of the power of gravity was when Galileo noticed that a pendulum takes the same length of time to swing backwards and forwards, even though the arc that the pendulum is traversing is growing shorter and shorter. IE, when the pendulum is swinging through its longest path, it moves fast, but when it swings through a shorter path, it moves more slowly. A pendulum which starts with a big arc moves rapidly, but, as it slows down, it moves through a shorter arc. All the time, however, the length of time for the completion of each arc is the same.

His observations were the science; the timings were mathematics. I read that Galileo observed the pendulum in a church which had an incense burner swinging in a big arc above the congregation. He timed the movement of the incense burner by using his heartbeat. You have to imagine it – three heartbeats this way and three heartbeats that way – again and again, regardless of the slowing down of the incense burner. I just wonder how the church got the incense burner moving in the first place. One can only imagine that it was hanging from a chain which could be ‘wound up’, much like an anchor. I suspect that the reason for the incense burner was because most of the congregation stank. I have it on good authority that the Kings of France never washed. They wiped their faces with perfumed cloths. I wonder what they did with their arses? I know that that the Roman legions who defended Hadrian’s wall had communal shithouses. Relics have been discovered which show that the practice at the time was to use a sponge on a stick to wash the arse. Is it not weird that the Romans, 2000 years ago, had the equivalent of bidets, and that we, in 2015, in the UK, still do not regard it as normal to have bidets in our bogs? Sometimes I doubt that we Brits have advanced beyond savages. I wonder if Cameron has a bidet? Does he wash his arse after having a shit?

I am just watching BBC News. They are showing migrants on flimsy boats arriving in Italian waters. Right. The cargo is human beings and you must care for them. You must. But there is a simple answer over time – confiscate the boats and destroy them or sink them. Better still, interrupt the voyages, offload the cargo, return it to where it came from and then sink the boats. IE. Make the process unprofitable. The word ‘refugee’ has been hijacked, just like many other words. It used to mean people fleeing from war-zones. It now means anyone who wants to enjoy a better class of poverty, or a higher standard of criminal rewards. How on earth Blair ET AL could possibly arrive at the conclusion that importing masses of presumed labour voters, who would ‘rub the noses of Tories in diversity’, would enhance “Britishness” beats me.

This island is FULL, FULL, FULL. The USA is 30 times bigger than England, Wales and Scotland (or thereabouts), and yet its population is only 5 times bigger. It has lots of space comparatively. Russia is even bigger.


“We have no plans”.

In that case, who does have the plans?

I personally DO believe that there is a limit to the population. It must be so. It makes no sense to deny it. Sooner or later, all the habitable surfaces of the earth will be full. What will happen then? It isn’t so much a matter of resources since we haven’t even begun to scratch the resources available in the crust of the earth. No. It is a matter of space. People need to be able to move around. But it is possible to imagine a skyscraper which is a mile high and is the equivalent of a city spread out over the land. That is, the people could be housed within a sort of anthill. There is no reason that such people should not be happy and content, provided that they had what they need and want. For such people, a holiday might be to emerge from the collective and swim in pools, lounge on deck chairs, eat a bit too much in the eateries and drink a bit too much booze – and smoke. Erm… Perhaps ‘smoke’ is a bit too far.


“We Have No PLANS to Extend the Smoking Ban”

When the WHO deliberately prioritised the TC jamboree in Moscow before Ebola, it showed its corrupt nature. It is a matter of FACT that the WHO is a totalitarian, fascist organisation. While we sleep tonight, it is gobbling up the fruits of our endeavours.

We need a new “Labour” movement. The new “Labourers” will be everyone who is not working for ‘charities’, government, public health, and such. The new “Labour” will be producers of goods and services and will exclude those who suck on those producers.

Why is it not so already?



13 Responses to ““We Have No PLANS to Extend the Smoking Ban””

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    On September 9th, 1998,

    Clive Bates, director of anti-smoking group ASH, said:

    “This is a scaremongering story by a tobacco industry front group. No-one is seriously talking about a complete ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants.”


    On August 9th, 2015,

    A Welsh Government spokesman (who, for some completely inexplicable reason, failed to note his name, despite being extensively quoted for the Daily Post story at: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/smoking-could-banned-north-wales-9817471#comment-2187380453 ) said:

    “The claim that we will be banning smoking in pub beer gardens is a mischievous interpretation. … We have no current intention to make beer gardens entirely smoke-free.”


    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      Thus did Bates reveal his subservience. Little did he know what was being decided in high places. Or, he was lying.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        Mr. Bates has actually defended his statement, but I believe it’s what would be called a “semi-accurate” defense rather than a “truthful” defense. I’m quite sure that no or almost no British politicians were “seriously” talking about trying to implement a ban on pub smoking in the next five or ten years after 1998 — simply because even the craziest Antismokers amongst them would never have thought such a thing possible.

        It would have seemed at that point to be as unlikely as requiring all women the UK to “wear the veil” when outdoors out of religious respect for the Muslim population. No one is seriously talking about such a likelihood today either, correct? And yet, with the proper sort of campaigning, with enough money behind it and the correct support through what is portrayed as “the norm” and “the right thing” in the media… it could happen.

        If you think about it, it sort of happened in reverse in Western culture in the 1960s: compare the Free Love generation to the 1950s’ era of conformity and conservatism. The only difference is that in that case the change was spontaneous… truly coming from the grass-roots and simply being reflected through media coverage. Today the changes are directed from the top down. Try getting away with an ordinary sit-com or even drama series where a quarter or a third of the main onscreen “good” characters are shown smoking and enjoying their smokes. See how long that’s allowed to remain on the air.

        To get back to Mr. Bates…. A *truthful* statement would have recognized that the radicals, himself likely fully included, were indeed talking about and hoping for full pub/restaurant bans in 1998. After all, it had happened in California… one of the largest and most populous US states. They just weren’t “seriously” talking about its near-term implementation because they never believed it could happen: the “trick” of blackmailing smokers by holding their pubkeeper and pubworker friends as legally responsible hostages enslaved to act as Citizen Law Enforcement Vigilantes simply hadn’t been seriously considered yet.

        After all, slavery WAS against the law back around the turn of the century in the UK, wasn’t it?

        – MJM

  2. garyk30 Says:

    “number of smokers who got lung cancer was small – about 4% (? I forget –”

    Doll’s lung cancer death rate was 2.47/1,000 per year.

    That is 2.5/10ths of 1%.

    I do not think that any total numbers are given.

    • junican Says:

      “2.5/10ths of 1%”.
      Gary, dear, you sometimes make simple things look hard. “2.5/10ths of 1%” equals 0.25%. A quarter of 1%.
      I thought I saw figures which equated to something like 1000 LC deaths out of some 25,000 smokers, or it could have been ‘out of 20 thou or 15 thou’. It doesn’t matter much what the exact figures were. All that matters is that the percentage was small. Thus, any number of factors might have contributed to the LC in addition to, or alternate to, smoking.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        Gary and Junican, the best figures I have been able to come up with from generally accepted medical figures (which I realize some here dispute) are that LC occurs in slightly less than one-half of a single percent of nonsmokers and about 5% of smokers. Very light but regular smokers might go down to one or two percent, while very heavy regular smokers might go up to 15% … or, with certain confounders, even higher. There are arguments to be made for the figures being lower or higher and arguments to be made about the validity of the statistics pointing to such large increases for smokers and arguments to be made that there are other confounding factors not generally recognized that might account for a good bit of any statistical increase observed among smokers. But those are generally the sort of figures I use in my own thought and argumentation about smoking and secondary smoke exposure:

        4/10th of one percent for “nonexposed nonsmokers,” (i.e. 4 people out of a thousand) increasing (*IF* you take the Antismokers’ own Bible, the EPA Report, at face value and correct) to 5/10ths of one percent (i.e. one *extra* person in a thousand) “exposed nonsmokers *AFTER* forty years of constant, daily workplace exposure in the heavily smoky and poorly ventilated working conditions in the US between 1940 and 1980.

        Of course current concerns about odor and fashion, combined with the lower proportion of active smokers in the population would greatly decrease workplace exposure even if there were no bans, probably, combined, by a factor of 90% or so. Thus the one extra death per 40,000 worker-years of exposure predicted by the EPA would become about one extra death per 400,000 worker-years of exposure. Assuming of course that all medical research and advancements are halted in their present stage of development. Obviously if medical research continued the rates would likely be lower than the 1 in 400,000.

        Of course the increased rates would be even lower, or perhaps altogether nonexistent, if the EPA Report was indeed as invalid as Judge Osteen and the US Congressional Research Service determined.

        – MJM

  3. nisakiman Says:

    Is it not weird that the Romans, 2000 years ago, had the equivalent of bidets, and that we, in 2015, in the UK, still do not regard it as normal to have bidets in our bogs? Sometimes I doubt that we Brits have advanced beyond savages. I wonder if Cameron has a bidet? Does he wash his arse after having a shit?

    Back in 1967, when I was first travelling in Asia, I was somewhat disconcerted to find that the toilets did not have toilet paper, but instead had a lidless aluminium teapot and a tap on the wall next to the loo. It became obvious that the proceedure was to fill the teapot with water, and then direct the water from the spout down the crack of your arse and wash yourself clean after having had a shit. You would then wash your hands with soap and walk away feeling clean.

    These days, my house is fitted with a Thai ‘bum-gun’, which is like a small shower head with a trigger, which is essentially an advance on the ‘teapot’ method. I haven’t used toilet paper (unless I find I have no choice) since I was first in Asia back then in the ’60s. Once you get used to washing yourself every time, the idea of smearing it around with a bit of tissue paper loses its appeal.

    Of course, the Japanese have elevated the ‘bum-gun’ to a technological tour de force, and now produce computerised loos with heated seats, multi-choice spray systems and driers, not to mention ‘apps’ for your phone to control them remotely! 🙂

    • junican Says:

      I don’t quite know what to say!
      OK. Have you ever heard of ‘golfers’ arse’? Golfers spend hours walking around courses. Any ‘irritant’ to the arse very rapidly becomes extremely painful. No one ever talks about it. For some reason, on a golf trip, the subject came up (at dinner!). I told the group that I had suffered from ‘golfers’ arse’ for years, even going to the extent of taking a tub of vaseline on trips. But then I found the solution. It is simple. After crapping, wash your bum – every time, if you can (obviously not possible in public toilets). Such civilised actions have still not really reached the medieval UK – bidets are few.

  4. beobrigitte Says:

    In my opinion, epidemiology is not a science in itself. It is counting. It is similar to mathematics. It is a tool which science can use.

    I believe it is more statistics. That means you can ignore the points you don’t like.

    A simple example: if you want a cv of <5% you take out all the "flyers" – which indicate that something somewhere in your system is not functioning as it should.
    By taking out the flyers you add a great variable (assumption) to your equation. And you end up with what you want – YOUR idea proven!

    It's such a pity that seemingly our politicians have not even passed o-level math…..

    • junican Says:

      I’m not quite sure what you mean. By ‘flyers’, do you mean the same thing as ‘outliers’? That is, those results which seem to be too extreme? For example, if 9 studies showed harm from smoking and 1 study showed a beneficial affect, you would throw out the 1 showing a beneficial affect because it does not ‘conform’. Is that what you mean?
      It has certainly been done.

      • beobrigitte Says:

        No, it’s WITHIN one study: you do the same each time, the results vary slightly and you can draw a line/curve.
        The results outside giving a “nice” line/curve would scew up this nice line/curve, but the more of them you have, the more it shows that you have a problem with the method or a part of it.
        So, if you want 10 studies to show what you want to see as a result, you just ignore these “flyers” in each individual study (they all might have occurred for different reasons!) and , voila!!! Here is your 10 studies showing the same result.

        Works best in Epidemiology.

      • junican Says:

        Ah, right. They are ‘outliers’ within a study. I was reading something about that earlier today. Provided that variations are close to ‘the norm’, they can be accepted as ‘noise’. It s a result which is way out of line which is discarded. Such a consideration would apply to a 95 year old smoker who has smoked all his life and shows no sign of ‘tobacco related diseases’.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        Outliers are usually dumped with the reasonable excuse that they are suspect as being valid pieces of data.

        E.G. if I survey 100 smokers with “How many packs a week do you smoke, and 98 of them give me figures between a half pack (as in very occasional weekend type smokers) and 20 packs (generally up to and including the very two or so who might chug through 3 packs a day) but throw out the two who claim to smoke 100 packs a week. Most likely those two are not giving me real data, or I wrote it down wrong (i.e. 100 instead of 10), or they answered with the number of cigarettes instead of the number of packs. Leaving those two pieces of data in for analysis would contaminate my entire study.

        Antismokers traditionally like outliers for their propaganda when the outliers are in their favor. Ann Landers or one of her clones had a very literate 7 year old who’d write in about her struggle with her five pack a day addiction. Outliers also make for great propaganda when you want to make a point stronger by using the phrases “As low as…”, or “Up to as many as…”.

        I believe that some data gatherers simply lop off, as a matter of routine, the top and bottom five percent of any data set that they suspect would be vulnerable to lies, exaggeration, or mistakes. You’re far more likely to be getting a valid curve if you just measure the 90% in the middle and then extend the results.

        – MJM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: