Going Back to Basics

We must all have experienced situations where our plans have hit the buffers – our calculations have turned out to be faulty. It happens all the time. Be in no doubt that your decisions are based upon calculations, though hardly ever mathematical calculations.

I decided some years ago not to be bothered about smoking on aircraft. At first, the desire for a fag was hard to resist, but, as time passed, that desire went away. Being on an aircraft, for me, is like being asleep in bed. Being in an aircraft at 30,000 feet is like being in a dream. It is both common-place and surreal at the same time. When you take off from Manchester and climb into the air, you can see below you the layout of the land. Almost all of it is green fields. That impression becomes even greater as you pass over France. Only when you pass over the Pyrenees mountains do you see constriction of human habitations. But human habitations are still there.

Why would people want to live in such mountainous habitations, miles and miles away from conurbations where all the ‘best things in life’ can be experienced? One can only assume that people who live in such places are content.

It seems to me that contentment is a dirty word these days. Politicians like nothing better than discontentment to pursue their agendas. They rely upon discontent. Contented people do not riot and raid shops. They do not provide headlines for newspapers.

But do we not see a contradiction? The Party in power want contented citizens whereas the Opposition want discontented citizens. But neither Party ca actually DO anything to change the situation in the short term. In which case, only PROPAGANDA is likely to have any effect on the contentment of The People. That is, contented people can be persuaded to become discontented by propaganda.

If you go back to basics, you can see without doubt that The Tobacco Control Industry is a monopolistic leach on society as a whole, and not just on smokers. It leaches off non-smokers as much as smokers, but in different ways. The millions of pounds which the UK pays to the FCTC Organisation, which organises jollies in far away, luxurious holiday resorts, come from non-smokers as much as smokers. The fewer the number of smokers, the more that non-smokers have to pay to persecute the smokers.

‘Going back to basics’ also requires a reexamination of Doll’s Doctors Study. Ideally, someone with time would resurrect the original data, which I believe is stored at Manchester Uni. Needless to say, no Academic would want to undertake such as task. It would be poison for his career. But an Academic nearing retirement could.

The Hospital and Doctors Studies linked Lung Cancer with Smoking, but both ignored other factors. Remember that you take a puff on a cig from time to time, but you breath in atmospheric pollution with every breath that you take. Atmospheric pollution could quite easily tip innocuous smoking ‘over the top’.

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Going Back to Basics”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    I believe your criticism of the Doll and Hill studies is on target. There are numerous confounders that they ignore. It is likely as you suggest, they conformed their results to meet their forgone conclusion. It would be nice to see the data objectively examined. I also wonder what there is no follow up research to conform their findings. I also wonder what the Whitehall studies that discounted linked between smoking and heart disease are ignored.

    • junican Says:

      A scenario:
      “There may be sulphuric acid in the air that you are breathing, but it is better not to smoke cigs because that only makes things worse”. That about sums up TC.
      There was similar research, but that research also ignored confounders. Fisher complained about it, saying that the same methods will produce the same results. They were designed to do so. Think ‘accumulation of evidence’.

  2. Bucko Says:

    When I’m in an aircraft it’s stark terror. Having a fag is the last thing on my mind, all I care about is getting off the damn thing alive

    • Rose Says:

      Being able to have a cigarette was the only thing that got me on a plane until smoking was banned. I haven’t flown since, they terrify me.

      • junican Says:

        Softies! Take-off is wonderful! It is the best part of the flight. The power!!! And yet that wonderful experience lasts only for a bout 50 seconds. Landing is almost as good. There is a feeling of levitation as the aircraft gradually falls out of the sky. Between the two, you get to see magnificent sights of cloud formations and the lie of the land below. Sadly, there is ‘a risk’, but when is there not ‘a risk’?

  3. buckothemoose Says:

    “Softies” Yep. That’s me 🙂

  4. nisakiman Says:

    Short-haul flights without a ciggy aren’t really a problem. The flight time from here to UK is only about three and a half hours, which in reality equates to about five hours when you take into account all the fart-arsing around at departure and arrival. I find long-haul a bit more tiresome, which is why when I fly to Bangkok I tend to use Qatar, which gives me a stopover at about the halfway mark, and allows me to stretch my legs a bit and have a smoke. It usually works out quite well, as the connection gives me an hour or two in Doha Hamad (which is a brand new airport, and quite well laid out with lots of facilities) – long enough to have a coffee or whatever, but not so long as to be a pain. The longest flight is the BKK – DOH leg (against the jet stream, so slower than on the way out), which is about seven hours in the air. I usually have an e-cig with me, which is ok for a bit of stealth vaping if I’m feeling in need of a smoke.

    • junican Says:

      All perfectly understandable, Nisak. I have become used to not smoking on planes, but I have not become used to not smoking in pubs. “The walk of shame” is still very real to me.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: