Fighting the Battle Against Tobacco Control

Over at Frank Davis’s site Frank and other have been talking about an army of smokers. It is a reasonable hypothesis that a massive rabble can defeat the most well-trained, well-funded, well-armed, small force. Usually, that argument is stated the other way round – a small well-trained etc force can defeat a rabble.

I cannot help but feel that the millions of smokers in the UK swung the Brexit vote. Some people might say, and I have seen it said, that the EU has not been as vicious in its persecution of smokers as the UK Gov has been. That is true, but I hold that the EU has no right whatsoever to be persecuting smokers. I never had any authority to coordinate the spread of smoking bans. In fact, Health ought never to have been an EU competence at all. But it is possible to imagine such a competence in an advisory capacity, but only in such a capacity. I am thinking in terms of ‘best practice’. But such ‘best practices’ would concern actual clinical practices, approval of drugs and the like. Certainly not behaviour control.

I speak of behaviour control in the context of forbidding activities via limits. For example, Subry, the former Health Minister signed the UK up to the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) having allowed herself to be misdirected by her adviser, Andrew Black. He advised her that Ecigs had been dropped from the TPD, or mis-advised her by omission. She got sacked and he got promoted. Weird or what. In the TPD, a limit was placed upon the amount of nicotine permitted in ecig liquid. You could understand that if there was a level of nicotine which was dangerous and known to be so. But there is a problem which is not acknowledged – nicotine is a solid. It is not a liquid. It can be dissolved in water and, I suppose, in other liquids, but it is a crystal in its structure. It is a solid. Think of the salt in the sea. Given the right conditions, it is quite easy to see things under water in the sea. But the sea is full of salt. ‘Full of’ is obviously the wrong phrase. If the sea was ‘full of’ salt, then you would not be able to see one inch in front of you, nor would you be able to swim or sail in it. So think of nicotine in the same sort of terms – the solid, nicotine, is distributed throughout tobacco in a similar way that salt is distributed in the sea. Nicotine in ecig liquid is much the same.

No one knows what level of nicotine is dangerous, other than that it is quite high. So what the EU apparatchiks did was take an average of the level of nicotine that most people favoured. Some preferred, say, 30 ml strength and some preferred, say, 10 ml strength. Split the difference and demand a limit of 20 ml. That is what happened. There was nothing scientific about the 20 ml level. It was an arbitrary decision decided by a committee. The possibility that millions of smokers throughout Europe might need a higher level of nicotine to overcome the other attributes of smoking, such as hand to mouth motions and the simple activity of actually lighting a cig, never entered their minds. The blind led the blind. The absolute craziness is that those limits became LAW, and, since that law came from an EU directive, it is written in stone. There is no simple mechanism in the EU for directives to be repealed.

That is one of the reasons that I voted to leave the EU. It is an absolutely monstrous mediocrity. It is a ‘level playing field’ of average.

There is only one serious ‘big gun’ that Tobacco Control has. Without it, TC is powerless. That ‘big gun’ is Second Hand Smoke.

In 2007, PM Blair, and his Cabinet of Minsters, accepted the advice of ‘Experts’ that SHS was dangerous. Once those eminences accepted that premise as true, the rest followed. Bans and more bans. And yet, SHS was never described by ASH ET AL as DANGEROUS. It was always described as ‘a risk’. But the clever trick was to convert that small risk to a few people, such as asthmatics, to everyone.

Enstrom and Kabat did a study, initially funded by the American Cancer Society, or some body similar. When their results were unexpected (no effect of SHS on spouses), the Society withdrew funding. To complete the study, E an K got funding from TobComs.

But there was also the WHO study, I forget its name, which found that SHS had no correlation with heart problems, or was it lung cancer? That was a study by the WHO itself, but the WHO attempted to bury it. We know about it, but it is effectively buried.

Tobacco Control is a confidence trick, based upon ‘risk’ and not ‘danger’. The fight against TobCon must be based upon that fact.

What is the actual danger?

From that point of view, the idea of banning smoking in Council Houses makes no sense whatsoever. Why should a ‘danger’ apply only to Council Houses? Why should not that danger apply also to every house in the UK?

The key to fighting and defeating TC is epidemiological. It was epidemiology which brought in the smoking ban. A year or so ago, I examined the mortality statistics for LC between 1950 and now. I cannot now find my research, which is not surprising since I did not think that it was important at the time. In any case, medical advances in delaying death from LC must have affected the statistics. But what I found was that male LC deaths had reduced, but female LC deaths had increased. And yet female smoking had reduced, much the same as male smoking had reduced.

Success in the battle MUST come from the exaggerations of SHS DANGER. That is the hard thing in a political sense.


10 Responses to “Fighting the Battle Against Tobacco Control”

  1. Roberto Says:

    I fully agree: the alleged danger from “second hand smoke” is the key element that allows tobacco controllers to press the authorities to implement an authoritarian regulation of tobacco. Without the claim of harm from SHS smoking would be a private health issue affecting only the smokers, but once it is identified as a danger to the public surrounding the smokers the authorities (pressed by tobacco controllers) can justify and enact all sorts of bans, even those violating human rights of smokers (like outdoor bans or bans inside homes in public housing).

    Public health bureaucracies are acting on smoking in a similar way as if they were acting against the spread of a contagious virus. In such case a group or population is quarantined when there is knowledge that they have been infected by the virus. The quarantine is authoritarian and obviously violates the human rights of the quarantined, but authorities (assessed by physicians) justify it as a necessary measure to protect the public. The alleged harm from SHS is precisely what allows controllers to convince authorities to treat smoking along similar lines.

    For this reason, the important battle is to bring up the real science that proves that claiming ‘grave harms from SHS’ is a scientific fraud. This takes away from controllers the “quarantine to protect the public” argument. In this issue science is really against tobacco control. Not only epidemiological studies (over 120 of them) prove no statistically significant correlation between SHS and lung cancer or coronary disease, but measurements and studies of the physics and chemistry of SHS prove too small concentrations of toxic agents to produce significant health risk. The SHS fraud cannot be maintained forever. Sooner or later it will be exposed.

  2. Rose Says:

    Secondhand smoke

    A Tobacco-Specific Lung Carcinogen in the Urine of Men Exposed to Cigarette Smoke
    Stephen S. Hecht


    Environmental tobacco smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a carcinogen causally associated with lung cancer in adults, but there have been no reports of lung carcinogens or their metabolites in the body fluids or tissues of nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.


    Five male nonsmokers were exposed to sidestream cigarette smoke generated by machine smoking of reference cigarettes for 180 minutes on each of two days, six months apart. Sidestream smoke is the smoke that originates from the smoldering end of a cigarette between puffs. Twenty-four-hour urine samples were collected before and after exposure.

    “The urine samples were analyzed for 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) and its glucuronide, which are metabolites of 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), a powerful lung carcinogen in rodents. NNAL is also a lung carcinogen in rodents.”

    In three cases — with Subject 4 in studies 1 and 2 and Subject 2 in study 2 — the base-line results indicated exposure to NNK. In Subject 4, the urinary cotinine values before both studies were also consistent with exposure to tobacco smoke. In all the other cases the base-line urinary excretion of NNAL or NNAL glucuronide was either below or close to the limit of detection.


    Nonsmokers exposed to sidestream cigarette smoke take up and metabolize a lung carcinogen, which provides experimental support for the proposal that environmental tobacco smoke can cause lung cancer.”

    It was eventually found that these Tobacco Specific nitrosamines were due to a fault in the curing, exposing the leaves to combustion gases by positioning the burners inside the barn.

    This was rectified by 2001 because the tobacco companies refused to buy any more tobacco cured in this way and the growers had to go back to the old method of flue curing.

    “The heat and combustion gases flowed through a flue, usually made of brick, that snaked across the floor of the barn, then rose up through the barn. Because the gases moved through the flue, the tobacco was never exposed to them. The barns were heated, and the tobacco cured, but the heat was indirect.”

    (less than 0.1 part per million).

    But anti-tobacco has never accepted that fact, or the tobacco companies never told them, and are still going on about the dangers of TSNA’s as if they were still there.

    As with Enstrom and Kabat, they can’t admit that their thin excuse for bans was taken away at the last minute, for obvious reasons.

  3. Rose Says:

    Environmental tobacco smoke.
    Rodgman A.

    In 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a “draft” assessment of ETS and lung cancer in adults and respiratory disorders in children. Relying on weak and inconclusive epidemiological data, the supposed similarity between ETS and MS, the presence of “known or suspected carcinogens” in MS and by extrapolation in ETS, and the “biological plausibility” of an adverse relationship between ETS and health, the EPA recommended that ETS be classified as a “Group A (known human) carcinogen.”

    Fundamental physical and quantitative chemical differences among ETS, MS, and SS and human exposure to each smoke were disregarded: The three are not equivalent nor is ETS exposure a quantitative variant of cigarette smoking. A substantial difference in retention percentage overlays the huge dosimetric difference between exposures. As a result, the “dosage” of ETS retained is miniscule relative to MS.

    Also, conclusions reached by the EPA and the use of tenuous relationships as bases for Group A classification are unwarranted because of failure to consider the data upon which the “tumorigenicity” of the ETS components was based, questions on the presence and/or levels of these components in MS, and data indicating that a 25- to 30-fold decrease of a high-level dose of MS or MS condensate diminished the effects observed in bioassays from pronounced to zero, i.e., a threshold was demonstrated.

    Finally, EPA overlooked the more than 100 tobacco smoke components known to inhibit the tumorigenic action of many of the listed “tumorigens.

    Alan Rodgman, co-author of The Chemical Components of Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke, Second Edition

    “The book examines the isolation and characterization of each component. It explores developments in pertinent analytical technology and results of experimental studies on biological activity, toxicity, and tumorigenicity, including the inhibition of adverse biological activity of one specific tobacco smoke component by another tobacco smoke component.”

  4. Rose Says:

    Of course even TSNas weren’t really good enough for anti-tobacco because from the very beginning they’ve been out to get the plant itself,

    Europeans had been suspicious of all the nightshades since they first arrived because the flowers reminded them of deadly nightshade and for a while they were convinced that even tomatoes were poisonous.

    With tobacco that suspicion remained, as shown by the attitude of Ernst Wynder as late as 1961

    Medicine: Doctors at Work
    Friday, Apr. 21, 1961

    “Dr. Ernest L. Wynder of Manhattan’s Sloan-Kettering Institute has discovered that a nonflammable part of a waxlike chemical in tobacco smoke acts to inhibit substances that can cause cancer.

    The anticancer agent (Wynder once thought that the entire substance caused cancer)”,9171,895307,00.html

    What worries me is, apart those TSNas, they can transfer all the other junkscience they’ve done to the rest of the nightshades whenever it’s financially advantageous to do so.


    “Many plants of the Solanaceae family, which includes the genus Nicotiana, of which the tobacco plant is a member, contain solanesol; particularly those that contain trace amounts of nicotine.
    These include the tomato, eggplant, potato, and pepper.

    The potential interference due to these sources is negligible, cooking being the only likely potential source of interference. An interference of this type would bias results high, overestimating the contribution of ETS to RSP.”

  5. Rose Says:

    However, those TSNAs were clearly very important to anti-tobacco and when they found out how they were formed (tobacco scientists discovered how, not anti-tobacco) they reinvented them as the perils of thirdhand smoke in your own home!

    “Present research suggests that TSNAs are formed through a chemical reaction between nicotine and other compounds contained in the uncured leaf and various oxides of nitrogen ( NOx ) found in all combustion gases, regardless of the fuel used.”
    http: //

    It all started with a phone poll.

    Beliefs about the health effects of “thirdhand” smoke and home smoking bans.


    “There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Thirdhand smoke is residual tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette is extinguished. Children are uniquely susceptible to thirdhand smoke exposure. The objective of this study was to assess health beliefs of adults regarding thirdhand smoke exposure of children and whether smokers and nonsmokers differ in those beliefs. We hypothesized that beliefs about thirdhand smoke would be associated with household smoking bans.”

    “Data were collected by a national random-digit-dial telephone survey from September to November 2005”

    “This study demonstrates that beliefs about the health effects of thirdhand smoke are independently associated with home smoking bans. Emphasizing that thirdhand smoke harms the health of children may be an important element in encouraging home smoking bans.”

    Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards

    “This study shows that residual nicotine nicotine from tobacco sorbed to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) (laughing gas,vehicle exhaust) to form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs).
    Substantial levels of TSNAs were measured inside a smokers vehicle.”

    Our work highlights the importance of reactions at indoor interfaces, partiularly those involving amines and NOx /HONO cycling with potential health impacts.”

    You can see why I worry about the nightshades.

  6. Rose Says:

    In context, before I scare anybody.

    Nitrosamine residues in foods
    “There is extensive data on the presence of nitrosamine residues in numerous types of foods.
    Their formation is attributable to several mechanisms, of which interaction with active chlorine compounds is a minor contributor.

    Nitrosamines may be formed by nitrosation of secondary amines by nitrite/nitrous acid, by reactions of N-chloramines with secondary amines, thermal/cooking processes, and undoubtedly others including biological processes.”

    Table 2 Nitrosamine Exposures from Foods
    Food Type One or more Combined Nitrosamines (ug/100g)
    Potato 0.015-1.44
    Cabbage 0.014-0.19
    Corn 0.002-0.83
    Tomato 0.187-0.27
    Fermented vegetables nd-0.50
    Cheese 0.02-9.75
    Milk 0.03-3.70
    Milk (sour) 0.08-11.9
    Flour 0.02-1.44
    Bacon nd to 6.50
    Beef up to 788
    Frankfurters up to 27
    Ham 0.1-79
    Salami up to 131
    Sausage nd to 0.42
    Fish nd to 140
    Fish (processed) nd to 3.9
    Seafood/shrimp nd to 13.1
    Oil nd to 0.38
    Beer up to 6.8
    Tea 0.2-1.5
    Coffee up to 0.5
    http: // … ntType=pdf
    No longer available

    Nitrosamines in bacon: a case study of balancing risks

    “Nitrite has been used for centuries to preserve, color, and flavor meat. Today, about 10 billion pounds of cured meat products are produced annually, accounting for some one-tenth of the American food supply. Regulators became concerned about the safety of using nitrite in the early 1960s when studies showed the presence of carcinogenic nitrosamines in cured meat products”

    “Today there is little scientific support for the theory that nitrite is a direct carcinogen. To deal with the nitrosamine problem, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) lowered the permissible amount of nitrite in cured meats to that level considered necessary for botulism protection.”

    I just discovered that I posted all of this on your blog in 2013, I suppose it was due another outing.

  7. Smoking Lamp Says:

    I agree with Roberto. Exposing there SHS lies is essential to eroding tobacco control’s perceived legitimacy. I say perceived legitimacy since they have achieved their objectives through lies, propaganda, and persecution of smokers and those that dissent with their agenda.

  8. junican Says:

    It is always the case that edifices built on sand collapse rather quickly. SHS is the sand.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: