When the UK Becomes ‘Smokefree’

So we take the definition of ‘smokefree’ as stated by TobCON – no more than 5% smoking prevalence. Of course, it is quite likely that TobCON will say that there are still far too many smokers. 5% of an adult population of some 40,000,000 is 2,000,000. But suppose that ‘smokefree’ is achieved. What will happen to ‘smoking related diseases’?

I have found a useful site. It lists 50 ‘reasons’ to stop smoking or not to start:


Frankly, with a bit more invention, they could probably have doubled or trebled that number. Anyway, another site listed 32 ‘health problems’ linked to smoking. But, oddly enough, I could not easily find a simple, direct list of ‘smoking related diseases’. I did not look far because there are loads and loads of sites, all ‘propaganda related’. Perhaps, as part of its internet censorship, the Gov should take a look at those sites. There is clearly a conspiracy to flood the internet with only one totalitarian narrative.

So what will happen to those diseases?

OK. Here is a short list:

  • Lung Cancer. Smoking dramatically increases your chances of developing lung cancer. …
  • COPD. …
  • Heart Disease. …
  • Stroke. …
  • Aortic Aneurysm. …
  • Oropharyngeal Cancer. …
  • Esophageal Cancer. …
  • Cataracts.

So if smoking stopped, would nobody suffer and die from those diseases?

It is not sufficient to say that smoking ‘increases your chances of …..’. That does not establish cause and effect. In fact, the wording is wrong. A better sentence would be ‘If you are a smoker, it is somewhat more likely that…..’.

I read Simon Clark’s piece at:


I admire Simon, but sometimes he also gets his phrases wrong. EG, in that piece,

At that point what possible reason could there be for further anti-smoking measures?”

It is an easy mistake to make. Was the 2007 smoking ban intended to stop people from smoking? No, it was not. The propaganda said that it was to stop bar staff etc from suffering from SHS. Its effect, however, was entirely to bash smokers. It is hard to believe that there was not an intention to bash smokers, since it is perfectly obvious that there were alternatives to the ban.

No, it has gone on for far too long. Every smoking ban and other ‘initiative’ (especially taxation) is aimed directly to hurt smokers. Arguments stating ‘for the children’ are just straw men. So Simon’s phase should read:

“At that point what possible reason could there be for further anti-smokER measures?”

The diseases listed in the above short list will not go away. Sooner or later, some ‘condition’ will cause a major organ to fail and the person will die.

Another thought. What will happen when everyone, from birth, is diagnosed to have some ‘non-communicable disease’?

Is there an answer? There must be, but politicians are not the people able to decide since they are here today and gone tomorrow. The answer ought to be provided by academics, but they seem to be obsessed by ‘preventing what cannot be prevented’ -aka, death.

But, in the first instance, it would probably be a ‘good thing’ if correct words were used. The word ‘disease’ should never have been allowed to be corrupted. For example, malaria is undoubtedly a disease. It is ‘communicable’ in the sense that mosquitoes ‘communicate’ it? But, hang on a minute. I always thought that ‘communicate’ meant exchanging information either verbally or by other means. When did the word ‘transfer’ cease to be appropriate? But if a disease cannot be ‘transferred’, by whatever means, it is NOT a disease. It is a ‘condition’.

I suffer from prostatism. It concerns the effect of the prostate gland becoming enlarged. It is not uncommon. I wonder how many readers know that the ears and nose continue to grow bigger throughout life? The effect of the enlargement is to squeeze the uthera and interrupt the flow of urine from the bladder to the outside.

It is not ‘a disease’. It would be stupid to say that it is, any more than to say that a broken leg is a disease, even though it is ‘non-communicable’, or, better, ‘non-transferable’.

Words have power. The more dramatic the word, the more carefully it should be defined and used. Words like ‘epidemic’ and ‘crisis’ should be curtailed to be more precise in their meaning.

‘Smokefree’ is a nonsense word. The atmosphere always contains smoke. It will always contain smoke. “There is no safe level of smoke” is a silly statement because it is impossible to prove – it is impossible to prove a negative. “There is no safe level of alcohol consumption” suffers from the same defect – it is impossible to prove.

In the meantime, we must find every opportunity to laugh at ‘Public Health’. EG, what area of London will become ‘smokefree’ by 2030?


7 Responses to “When the UK Becomes ‘Smokefree’”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    The so-called smoking-related diseases all occur in non-smokers too. In many cases they are on the rise despite the drop in numbers of persons smoking. The lung cancer link is far from definitive and severely exaggerated and of course clung dance among non-smokes is on the rise. Bottom line the ‘health’ rationale for persecuting smokers is specious. Second hand smoke is a ruse. Smoking bans must be repealed.

    • junican Says:

      There is a difference between LC deaths and occurrence of LC. As far as I know, LC deaths have reduced amongst men over the last decade or so. But that does not mean anything if treatment has improved.
      The important thing is that Gov should stop Zealots from calling the shots and gaining the funding.

      • Some French bloke Says:

        LC deaths have reduced amongst men over the last decade or so.

        This mostly applies to the three decades from 1980 to the year 2000 and *only* in the UK, not so in the notoriously rabidly anti-smoking nation known as the US of A, or elsewhere! Afterwards, just when, from an anti-smoker’s point of view (with its in-built lag-time theory), those male *and* female rates should have really begun to plummet, the male downtrend becomes less marked (see graph below).

        But that does not mean anything if treatment has improved.

        Survival rates for LC have not been improving significantly since the 1950s, in spite of ‘incessant technological renewal’ in every area. For various cancer sites, notably prostate and lung, diagnostic errors are rife and anti-smoking prejudice, from politically clueless clinicians, can only aggravate detection bias as regards LC, that in turn can only lead to more diagnostic errors.

        And in the same timeframe, women’s mortality rates from LC continued to shoot up anabated (see graph below), not just in the UK. Food for thought…

        An honest LC researcher (if such an animal even exists) should let go of the smoking red herring: clearly the truth is elsewhere. If science and politics were cognitively aligned, the anti-smoking scare would now be a long-forgotten damp squid, or, more likely, it would never have seen the light of day.

      • Some French bloke Says:

        damp squib.

      • junican Says:

        It would be very nice if someone gave an unbiased opinion of the data in that graph.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    More people get lung cancer from diesel particulates than smoking. Hilarously they reckon Bristol will be smokefree by 2024. Well when you go to Bristol and see how many people enjoy tobacco you just know its a load of bollocks !

    • junican Says:

      The inhabitants of Bristol should scoff at their councillors, especially those who voted without conviction.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: