Perhaps Frank Davis might like to add those people to his ‘Smokers’ Graveyard’ page.
ONGOLE, SEPTEMBER 18:
Tobacco farmers should not lose heart and take their lives, as the Union Government and the State Government will do everything possible to help them in the present market crisis, according to Nirmala Seetharaman, the Union Minister of State for Commerce and Industry.
She visited the tobacco auction floor here and at other places in the Prakasam district on Friday to apprise herself of the situation. She later visited the families of the tobacco farmers who committed suicide and consoled their families. She said roughly 30 million kgs of the 172 million kgs of authorised crop needed to be sold in Andhra Pradesh and all efforts would be made to complete the auctioning of the authorised crop by the end of the month. The auctioning of the unauthorised crop, or surplus, would be taken up in October.
She appealed to the farmers not to take the extreme step of suicide, as the crisis in the tobacco market was caused by the slack demand in the international market.
Especially, there was a problem with the low-grade tobacco which was fetching low prices on the auction floors making it unremunerative for the farmers.
Y.V. Subba Reddy, the Ongole member of Parliament, met the minister and appealed to her to take immediate steps to rescue the farmers. The low grade tobacco was not even fetching Rs 65 per kg and the problem should be addressed.
When the farmers expressed dissatisfaction that the minister had not made any specific promise, she said she would discuss the issue with the Chief Minister and come out with concrete proposals.
(This article was published on September 18, 2015)
I have read a couple of articles about this, but I have not seen any numbers attached to it. I do not know how many tobacco farmers have killed themselves.
Who is to blame?
If the matter went ‘mainstream’ in the MSM, then Tobacco Control would most certainly blame ‘Big Tobacco’. But what is ‘Big Tobacco’ supposed to do when demand for tobacco products falls? The reality is that The Tobacco Control Industry is to blame.
I remember some big wig in the WHO saying that there will be no problem for tobacco farmers when smoking tobacco is stamped out; all they need to do is diversify. Needless to say, he did not say what they would grow instead, or whether there would be any demand for the alternative produce. But that is the attitude of The Tobacco Control Industry, is it not? REAL DEATHS, HERE AND NOW, do not matter when compared with their computer produced ‘early’ deaths among very old people.
Here are figures which I have gained from Nat Stats:
Lung Cancer Deaths.
1 – 4…………………….0.
5 – 14…………………..1.
15 – 24…………………3.
25 – 34……………….18.
35 – 44………………176.
45 – 54………………593.
55 – 64……………..4543.
65 – 74……………..9802.
75 – 84…………….10077.
Is it any wonder that ASH ET AL are not bragging about the result of their efforts? Despite smoking prevalence decreasing from very roughly 70% in 1970 to 20% in 2014, in 2014 some 31,000 deaths were recorded from LC after the age of 54, while only some 800 deaths for that reason occurred before 55. Also, the stats show that male deaths from LC have fallen over the decades but female deaths have risen, even though smoking prevalence has decreased for both male and female since 1970. Tonight is not the time to look at the figures in detail – I did that a couple of days ago.
Is there not clearly something terribly wrong with the TCI conjectures? How can a gradual reduction over some 55 years in female smoking result in more female LC deaths? No wonder ASH ET AL are not bragging – there is nothing for them to brag about.
Why have male deaths from LC fallen steadily while female deaths have risen steadily? It cannot be smoking prevalence since both categories have experienced reduced smoking since 1970. Here is that graph again:
Male smoking collapsed, especially among older people, but female smoking also fell from 1970 onwards. I say again – that was 45 years ago. How can female LC deaths increase when smoking prevalence among females decreased starting 45 years ago? The idea of a delayed affect makes no sense, especially since giving up smoking is supposed to reduce the long-term affect.
In fact, there has been no evidence that there is a ‘delayed affect’ due to smoking other than a conjecture based upon the evidence of Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’. I say again – a conjecture. The conjecture goes like this:
1. The vast majority of the doctors, on average, started smoking aged about 20.
2. Lots more smokers get LC than non-smokers.
3. LC, for the most part, only starts to appear around age 50.
4. Therefore there is a 30 year delay between starting smoking and LC death.
Those four statements appear to be true. But there is nothing causal illustrated by the statements. For example, we could take the incidence of foreign holidays.
1. Most people do not go on foreign holidays before age 20.
2. Most people killed by aircraft crashes are going on foreign holidays.
3. The majority of people going on foreign holidays appear to be around 50 years old.
4. Therefore there is a 30 year delay between starting to go on foreign holidays and being killed in an aircraft crash.
Those statements are probably true. But do they mean that aircraft travel should be banned?
No, obviously, they do not.
What is important is not the comparison but the actual incidence of aircraft crashes.
In much the same way, in the ‘Doctors Study’, out of some 25,000 male doctors, most of whom smoked, only some 1,000 got LC, whether smokers or not. Very few non-smokers died from LC.
Even if it were true, which is doubtful, that smoking was the actual cause of the LC, one might reasonably ask why persons should not take that minor risk, especially since Tobacco Companies have bred new strains of tobacco plants which produce much less tar and also produced tips which absorb the tar. In Canada, for example, TCs cooperated with Government agricultural agencies to develop a variety of tobacco plant which produced little tar. But the courts in Canada did not permit the Canadian Government to be at fault. From that judgement (which was not actually about the relative safety of lower tar), came the idea that all cigs are as dangerous as each other. Thus, a mild, tar-free cig such as a modern, tipped B & H is no safer than an un-tipped Capstan Full Strength of old.
How can that be? It can only be because smoking can kill people after they are dead. If the truth could get a foot-hold, the reality of SHS harm would probably require that persons live for hundreds of years before SHS could cause a problem. That ‘calculation’ is based upon the Doll ‘Doctors Study’ 30 years delay.
The FRAUD is self-evident, and the Charlatans know it. They cover it up by shouting. We must put blame where it belongs: Cameron et al did not give a toss that they criminalised 25% of the population for daring to light a cig in a car, even though that car might be subjected to an inflow of the exhaust fumes of petrol and diesel engines when on a motorway.
If these people pass such legislation, how can we trust them with more important stuff?
Thus, it becomes ‘every man for himself’, thus criminality becomes the norm. There are so many ‘laws’ that I suspect that I ‘criminalise’ myself a hundred times a day. Certainly, if I go outside smoking, I throw the cig end away. What am I supposed to do – swallow it?
ALL SMOKERS ARE, DE FACTO, CRIMINALS.
Let us accept it. We are outlaws. But when the worm turns, let us not forget who were the people who persecuted us. They have a lot to answer for.
Excuse typos. It is late…..