The Need For A Weapon

We have all pondered and investigated the reasoning behind the smoking ban. We have found that SHS (second hand smoke) danger has been vastly exaggerated and that bar workers, or any other workers, are not endangered by SHS. Even ‘Devil Doll’ himself said so. He said that he would not feel uncomfortable being in the presence of smokers. But it goes further than that. His investigations revealed a MASSIVE involvement of age in the putative effects of smoking. As I have said, again and again, if AGE is massively important in the effects of inhaling many, many ‘packets’ of tobacco smoke into the lungs over a period of time, then it is logical to assume that AGE is also massively important in the effects of SHS. It is logical to assume that vastly diluted tobacco smoke cannot possibly cause any significant harm unless a person lived for hundreds of years. But there is a paucity of such studies.

Of course there is. Who is going to fund them?

Enstrom and Kabat started off funded by the American Cancer Soc, but it stopped the funding when the results were not to its liking. E and K got funds from Big T to finish the the study. The data showed that SHS danger was non-existent. A WHO study, I forget its name, showed similar results in that SHS was not a factor in certain health problems. The UN tried to hide that study.

There is always a problem with any such studies. For example, if you try to grow plants in a plot which has a large component of cement, it is unlikely that you will get a good crop. But some plants may well do very well. You can never tell for certain. It is logical to assume that the presence of the cement caused the paucity of good plants, but did it also cause the presence of the superb plants?

It seems that all the ‘weapons’ needed to batter and wound smokers are in the hands of ‘Devil Arnott’ et al. But it is not just smokers. All the weapons needed to attack fatties and drinkers are also in the hands of The Zealots.

What weapons do ordinary decent people who enjoy a drink, or a cig, or a burger, have? They have no weapons at all.

And yet Brexit and Trump showed that rebellion is possible. But there is a problem in the UK. Politicians do not realise that the rebellion is not just about the EU. It is about WHAT THE PARTIES AGREE ABOUT AND IMPOSE. In that case, there is no meaningful ‘opposition’.

In the case of the smoking ban, there was a ‘free vote’. Bollocks! It was already known what the vote would be.

Smokers need a weapon. It used to be UKIP until ‘professional’ politicians captured it. It is now almost defunct.

But do not despair. ‘None of the above’, as an idea, is taking root. Voters need to be able to register their disapproval as well as their approval.

I WANT TO VOTE! But what can I do if no candidate represents me?

Further, how ‘deplorables’ vote for A or B when A or B offer the same persecution?

There is only one truthful answer. Do not vote.


12 Responses to “The Need For A Weapon”

  1. Alan Says:

    Or more simply, none of the above!

  2. TheSmokerBlog Says:

    Or you could run for office?

  3. Smoking Lamp Says:

    The WHO study was Boffetta, et al: Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, No. 19, October 7, 1998: “public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure.” (This case-control study used data from the IARC. The period of enrollment of case and control subjects was from 1988 to 1994–16 years; IARC=International Agency for Research on Cancer.}

    Background: An association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven European countries. Methods: A total of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects up to 74 years of age were interviewed about exposure to ETS. Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. Results: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure. [J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1440-50]

    • junican Says:

      Thanks for that, SL. It reinforces my thinking that SOME of the studies were honest and objective. It also reinforces my thinking that the Zealots HAVE NEVER BEEN honest and objective. The agenda is supreme.

  4. Bill Says:

    Better still get off the electoral roll.

  5. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Hi Junican, i put a note on Frank’s site about my trip to Vienna. I know you read Frank’s writings so i hope you have read it. Basically i think you would love it. Weather last week was 24-27C so nice and warm !

  6. Tony Says:

    Smokers need a weapon. It used to be UKIP until ‘professional’ politicians captured it. It is now almost defunct.”

    I’m a bit puzzled by this. I can’t think of anyone who is prominent in UKIP that could be described as a “professional politician”.

    Not even ex-leader Henry Bolton could have been described as that. Although he was certainly a disaster for the party.

    With Gerard Batten as the new leader, I think the future looks very bright. What’s more, the campaigning pledge to allow smoking rooms has been restored along with the rest of the 2015 manifesto.

  7. Tony Says:

    Of course you could argue, with some justification, that you reckon UKIP can’t win in your constituency. But remember that all votes get noticed even if they don’t create MPs.
    UKIP managed to force and win a referendum on the largest democratic vote ever seen in the UK. And that was with only one MP (who turned out to be a Tory, anti-Farage, plant). So in effect, zero MPs.

    • junican Says:

      Tony. I have no idea what happened to UKIP in the sense that it seems to have lost its support lately. I voted UKIP in our local election a few days ago. But UKIP seats have been lost in great numbers. What I was really getting at was that UKIP COULD have become a force in politics had it seen beyond the success of Brexit.
      But I honestly have no idea what vision might have been. Certainly, taking up the ’cause’ of persecuted people, like smokers, COULD have helped UKIP retain its base.
      There is NO political party which aims to alleviate the problems of persecuted people.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: