A Cancerous Society


I must warn that I am merely pondering out loud here.

For various reasons, mostly ‘smoking related’, I have read quite a lot of stuff in recent years about cancer. Starting from scratch, with no idea whatsoever, I gradually learnt that most cancers are named from the place where they appear – EG, mouth cancer, lung cancer, stomach cancer, etc. That strikes me as being very strange, and most unscientific. However, I suppose that it is reasonable to regard the cells in different organs as different cells.

But is there some common attribute to cancer, wherever it occurs? Whatever you try to read about the subject is so full of medical jargon that it is normally incomprehensible to the layman.

It seems that cancerous cells multiply quickly and invade spaces, thus causing ‘tumours’, aka lumps. Those cells are ‘zombie’ cells which do not do their job. But I do not know for definite if that is true. It may be that those cells are normal cells, but grow so fast that they cut themselves off from the blood supply, which renders them useless. They grow so fast that they crowd out functioning cells and render the organ useless. EG, you could imagine nice, pink, healthy lungs becoming white as the cancerous lumps lose blood supply. How much loss of healthy lung tissue is required to kill a person? I do not know. Does a tumour ‘spread’ or does it just get bigger and bigger? There is a difference in the sense that ‘spreading’ is easily misinterpreted as ‘spreading like flu’ – IE. ‘infecting’ adjacent cells.

The question then arises as to whether or not just ONE cell starts to multiply, and multiply, and multiply and gradually crowds out ‘healthy’ cells. Further, those rapidly multiplying cells would have to be immune to ‘cell death’ – ‘apoptosis’. Or maybe not. If they are multiplying very rapidly, ‘apoptosis’ may not matter.

I just have a vague fear that we plebs are not being told the simple truths about cancer. It is in the interests of THE WHOLE MEDICAL PROFESSION, INCLUDING BIG PHARMA to keep us all ignorant and fearful. It is also in the interests of politicians.

It is not difficult to understand how useful it might be to spread ‘tumours’ throughout the ‘body politic’. The vast majority of the people want to be left alone in a ‘fair’ society. They want to ‘do their own thing’ and enjoy life as best they can. They do not want to be harassed and persecuted via ‘sin’ taxes. I find it very weird that so many non-smokers want smokers to be persecuted via taxes. They seem not to be aware that the ‘easy’ taxes on smokers will eventually be transferred to them, once smokers become extinct. And the taxes will become greater and greater as more and more very old people survive for years and years and years.

Those thoughts are at the root of ‘the cancerous society’. ‘Tumours’ bubble up here and there. The latest one is ‘who is responsible for the Grenfell fire? Anyone with any sense would say, “No one”. Big mistakes were made, but no one intended to burn 80 or so people to death and destroy a multi-million pound building. It was AN ACCIDENT.

You could imagine that fire as a cancerous cell, but millions of such fires would have be observed from outer space before anyone noticed.

What is even worse is DIVISION. I wonder if Teflon Tony every realised, when he agreed to enact the general smoking ban, what a tsunami of hatred and aggression he had released. Anyone who disliked the smell of tobacco smoke could ACCUSE someone, no matter that no one was apparently smoking, of smoking. Could anything be more ‘Gulag Archipelago’? A feature of Stalin’s Russia was that failure to report transgressions (snitch) was almost as bad as the transgression itself. Is not the requirement that publicans enforce bans just as bad, if not worse?

I should imagine that The CABINET, and not just PM May, have very important things to deal with, in addition to Brexit. I can imagine the Health Sec being told roundly, “Oh, fuck the fuck off!”, if he tried to introduce the ‘New Tobacco Control Plan’.

But what is missing is a Government Plan to STOP propaganda which sows DIVISIONS. And it is easy to do. Stop funding the Dividers.

‘Rapid Division’ of cells is what characterises Cancer.

A ‘cancerous society’ is not ‘pimples’ like Corbin and his cohorts. It is prohibition, persecution, herding, fear-mongering, fear of speaking out, conformity, ‘hate speech’, and many other attributes.

How wonderful would it be it the Tories, Labour and the remnants of Liberal, thrust minor matters to the outer edge? Smoking has become a ‘minor matter’ since prevalence is so (apparently) low.

Cutting costs in Government is hard. The reason is that empires are built unobserved. In the Health Dpt, corpses can speak.

The ‘Cancerous Society’ can only be cured by cutting out the ‘tumours’ and incinerating the rotten flesh.

Put simply, it is enough for the NHS to deal with ‘HEALTH’ without CRUK ET AL interfering.  CRUK ET AL are tumours.

How Will Smoking Bans End?


I think that I have talked about this before, but it is always worth recapping.

Is there a ‘risk’ (as ASH ET AL would see it) that an MP will introduce a Private Member’s Bill to repeal the requirement for publicans to police the ban and that smoking would be allowed in ‘smoking rooms’, and that his Bill would succeed? For smokers and publicans, that would be a wonderful thing, but will it ever happen?

It all depends.

What I vaguely envisage is that somewhere in the world, which could be Majorca for example, a local authority (Majorca is largely self-ruled) will look at the diminishing tourism income and ask itself why it is losing so much business. It might ask all sorts of ‘interested parties’ for their opinions. But what is more important is that it might ask ‘interested parties’ how it could quite quickly greatly improve its attraction to tourists.

And this is where it gets interesting.

Suppose that I was invited to complete a survey from, say, Crete. Suppose that the survey asked me if I was more likely to visit Crete if there was no smoking ban. The survey would have to be cleverly designed to exclude non-smokers and anti-smokers. Or maybe Forest could do the survey using its huge data base. Or maybe people standing outside pubs smoking could be surveyed.

In fact, such a survey could be very nicely targeted. For example, it could contrast Majorca with Ibeza. The two islands are adjacent to each other and are much the same.

So the question would be:

“If Majorca had no smoking ban in bars, but Ibeza had a total ban, would you be more likely to go to Majorca than Ibeza?”

I wonder what the result would be? I have no doubt that there would be enough terrified, guilt-ridden, desperate to give up smoking, smokers around to vote for Ibeza to some extent, but I would expect that the vast majority (70%?) would vote for Majorca.

Suppose that such a survey took place, and convinced law-makers in Majorca that they could gain loads and loads of smoker-tourists if they relaxed the ban to exclude bars with adequate ventilation. Adequate? I remember some arsehole American Zealot (Rapace-ious?) saying that ventilation would have to have tornado force winds to remove tobacco smoke. In the bar in Mallorca which herself and I spent most of our time, the ventilation was a small fan near the top of the wall in the main room near the door. It was quite adequate. They had a not-well-defined non-smoking area at the far end of the room from the fan. It worked. Terrified non-smokers congregated at the non-smoking end of the room. The fan sucked out the ‘smoky’ air quite adequately. That bar used to be a busy bar with different acts on every night. For the last three or four years, it has been closed for most of the season.

Smoker-tourists are a different brand from others. They want fun rather than the group therapy of sightseeing. I remember going on a cruise which took us to the Azores. There was an organised trip which took us to the top of an extinct volcano. We were invited to look down into the crater and marvel that there were two lakes at the bottom, one of which was blue and the other green. The guide explained that the two lakes were situated in separate places where the volcano had erupted thousands of years ago, and that the stuff spewed out was different stuff so that ‘metals’ lined the sides and bottom of the lakes which were different, giving the different colours.

So I said to myself, “Right. Where’s the bar?”

But I was impressed by the size of the volcano. We do not always realise just how huge volcanic eruptions are. They are on an atomic bomb scale. Frank Smith was talking about volcanoes a few days ago, but I am not sure that Frank has ever stood on the rim of a volcano. If you want to know more, google ‘Vesuvius’.

“Right. Where’s the bar?” is the important thing. I have discovered that I am not much interested in sightseeing. People-watching, eating, smoking and drinking in warm conditions is more my thing.

But there is something else. I am not much interested in watching someone else take risks. There have been times in my life when I have taken risks and been horrified later by my actions. But all my deplorable risk-taking has been immediate and stupid. And that is what ‘taking risks’ is – it is immediate. The ‘risks’ of smoking are ephemeral, ghost-like, decades in realisation.

It seems that ‘Arnott’ has made a statement that smoking outside spreads SHS more widely than would be the case in an ‘enclosed place’, due to dispersion, and so, she says, SHS is more likely to poison people further away.

I think that there will come a point where even the most culpable of MPs will see that Arnott and co are beyond the pail. Just cut them out. Cut them out. If you defund them, then they will not be able to demand that you do what they say. Cut them out.

So I see the governors of a place somewhere where tourism is important, amending the ban. Just a bit. Just so as to permit small bars with fans to allow smoking indoors. Food would be irrelevant since the decision to eat is that of the tourist.

I can visualise that island doing very well. After all, smokers are more fun-loving.

And so, after a while, competition will cause other islands to move in the same direction. And then bar owners in far away places like Cyprus will demand similar treatment because of competition.

Thus, it will be islands which will demolish the stranglehold of the Zealots.

Once the dam breaks, it will wash away the likes of Arnott and co.

Very few human beings take enormous risks. Hitler took a massive risk when he launched WW2. He took a massive, massive risk and caused massive, massive death and destruction.

It is not unreasonable to compare Arnott et al with Hitler, even though the scale is at a much lower level. Both use the same methods of vilification and persecution.

I understand why Simon Clark from Forest said that he does not ‘hate’ Arnott. Nor do I. I see her as ‘the anti-Christ’ – the epitome of ‘the dark side’ By that I mean the slow but deliberate imposition of control. Do not do as your ‘conscience’ tells you to do. Do what we tell your ‘conscience’ to do.

And that is what I hate about politicians. None of them, from PM May downwards,  have the foggiest idea what to do about Brexit. They were all taken by surprise so that it had never occurred to them what the consequences of leaving the EU would be. I am not talking about trade and such. I am talking about PROPAGANDA.

The Soviet Union persisted for a decade or so purely as a result of PROPAGANDA. All the people knew that it was unsustainable.

Smoking bans must collapse if only because they are BANS. They are prohibitions. There is always an under current of resentment about prohibitions – there always has been.

The future is rosy for us smokers, but I am not sure that that ‘future’ will be in my life-time. I have been smoking today a blend of 2/3 Burley and 1/3 Virginia stuff which is very tasty indeed. It has a sweetness.

Why are smokers denied the basic human right to smoke blends of their choice as a result of the ban on importing tobacco leaves imposed by ‘permits’ which will not be granted? No other person in the EU is persecuted in this way.

Again an again, we come up against both direct and indirect persecution.

I do not know what to do. Should I write to my MP? What should I write? How could I explain the persecution in a way that resonates with her? In any case, would it matter to her.

‘There is a tide in the affairs of men’. Indeed there is, but the likes of Arnott always seem to sneak away into oblivion, even though they have caused no end of damage. But, even worse, is that their superiors are not even known.

Who Pays?


It is a wonderful thing that anti-smokers and non-smokers pay for the propaganda and lies. They pay in all sorts of ways.

Think about it. TOBcoms (tobacco companies) have to pay the duty before their products reach the market. That is the law. There may be importers who are the actual payers, but it is essentially the same thing. Imported tobacco products must pass through secure warehouses, and the owners of those warehouses must pay duties when the tobacco products are released from the warehouses. That is how the system works. So, warehouse A emits 100,000 packet of cigs to a wholesale retailer and warehouse A then pays the duty. The duty is paid in advance. The price to the wholesale retailer includes the duty.

The reader might have missed the importance of the word ‘secure’ in the last paragraph. ” Imported tobacco products must pass through secure warehouses….” Those warehouses must be akin to Fort Knox.

In Australia, some people tested the system and asked permission to grow their own plants. They were refused permission on the grounds that they did not have secure premises.

So, consider who is paying for the bureaucracy which controls everything that we wish to do. It is not smokers, since smokers have not received any benefit from secure warehouses. The fact is that no one receives benefit – there are only costs. Who bears those costs? It is the general taxpayer.

I find all this very amusing. I doubt that non-smokers realise how much extra tax they are paying to persecute smokers – and drinkers and fatties. Smokers do not pay for TV ads horrifying smoking. Taxpayers in general do. Non-smokers and anti-smokers pay.

What a giggle!! The Zealots, unbeknown to themselves, are paying for their Zealotry!!

I do not know how or when the persecution of smokers will cease, but I just have a feeling that somewhere, like Greece, will decide to kick the whole Zealotry into touch and revert to ‘property rights’. And that SHS will be seen to be of no more consequence the emissions from cooking a beef burger.

To what extent are bar workers affected by ‘fumes’ from the alcohol drinks that they serve? Are there no studies? Why not? I have a vague recollection that there are, and that the ‘risk’ was negligible and utterly minute.

What studies have produced significant harm from SHS? There are none because there is no significant harm.

And yet non-smokers have not woken up to the fact that they are paying for the anti-smoking Zealots!

If they did, then they would demand the de-funding of ASH ET AL.

Talking About ‘Risk’


Once upon a time, most of us were pretty clear in our minds about what the word ‘risk’ meant. It did not mean ‘Probability’ – it meant ‘Possibility’. If the result of an action was ‘probable’, then the word ‘risk’ was inadequate. You would not climb aboard an aircraft is the ‘risk’ of it crashing was ‘probable’.

“Public announcement: Do not board this aircraft because it will probably crash. You board at your own risk”.

I visited Nick Hogan’s pub in Bolton before he was arrested, tried, sentenced to pay a massive fine of £10,000 and then jailed because he could not or would not pay the fine. Hundreds of us smokers contributed to pay the fine and got him released. Over the bar was a notice which read (words to the effect): “Smoking in this pub is not permitted. If you smoke, you do so at your own risk”. The magistrates interpreted that notice as an invitation to smoke. I thought at the time, “Oh dear!” It was the ‘do so at your own risk’ which hit me immediately as a No No. He would have been better off plastering the walls with notices saying, “NO SMOKING”, but ignoring anyone who did smoke. Naturally, he was the sucker who provided the opportunity for The Totalitarian State to crush opposition with the jackboot. It was all pre-planned. Find a scapegoat as soon as possible and hit him hard. Later, a few publicans were prosecuted in Bolton for allowing smoking after time and when the doors were closed. They were fined a few hundred pounds. The initial gulag operation was pre-planned.

Did Nick Hogan take a ‘risk’? Of course not! The reaction of the authorities was ‘probable’. He crashed.

So we do not define the word ‘risk’ as a probability – we define it as a possibility.

I was thinking especially about mathematical calculations of ‘risk’, baring in mind the above ideas.

Here is an example. Suppose that a person has a habit of walking to his local for a beer, a smoke and a chat on one night per week, say, a Saturday because he is not working on the Sunday. He walks along a pavement next to a busy road. What is the risk that a vehicle will mount the pavement and kill him? Note again that it is not at all ‘probable’ that such an event would occur, since no one would walk on such pavements if the likelihood of being mown down was ‘probable’. But let us say that the risk is ‘X’. On Saturday night, when he goes for his pint, fag and chat, the risk of being killed by a vehicle mounting the pavement is ‘X’.

Now, suppose that our chap or chapess retires. He no longer has to get up in the morning to go to work, so he gets into the habit of going to the pub every night.

To what extent has his ‘risk’ of being killed increased?

It would be reasonable to say that his risk has increased seven-fold – one night per week has increased to seven nights per week. Is that a true assessment of the risk?

There is a problem. The problem is that the risk cannot apply to the past. If our person got to and from the pub without incident, then there was no risk. Nor will there be a risk tomorrow because tomorrow has not yet happened.

In other words, Time is crucial in such arguments. Every time that our person went to the pub, the risk was X. It neither increased nor decreased. That is, there is no point in talking about ‘increased risk’. The risk is always the same. Yesterday’s risk is irrelevant, and tomorrow’s risk is also irrelevant. They do not exist. Only NOW exists, and what happens NOW depends upon multiple factors. Thus risk X is multivariable, and cannot be simply multiplied. There is also the massive point that Risk X is absolutely minuscule in any case.

That is why epidemiology is not much use for decision making. What happened in the past, in epidemiological calculations, is not much use if conditions have changed. Thus, if the tobacco plants which provided tobacco for cigs are now no longer the varieties which produced lots of tar, and if the method of curing is flue curing (heat provided by hot water circulating through pipes rather than fires lit in the curing barn) then the old ‘risks’ (statistics) no longer apply. Thus, as with my example, only TODAY’S statistics matter. Yesterday’s epidemiological statistics have no relevance.

Thus the claims of escalating deaths from smoking cannot possibly be true. Around 1970, TobComs produced varieties of plants which were low in carcinogenic substances, and it is revealing that they did so in Canada with the help of the Canadian Agricultural Department. That is FACT!

‘Risk’, in the sense of ‘possibilities’, is something that we live with all the time. And there is no certainty that you will avoid ‘risks’ by staying indoors all the time.

I intend to print out some statistics to take with me on holiday and consider. I want to compare today with several decades ago. It is a bugger to do because we do not know how medical advances have changed mortality stats.

SHS ‘risk’ has been the justification of smoking bans. But there are no ‘probabilities’. The lack of ‘probabilities’ shows just how ignorant people in Parliament were when the smoking ban was enacted. There were only ‘risks’.

Being a living being entails risks. The major risk is becoming ‘un-living’.

I can live with that possibility and accept that it will become a probability in due course, but it will only become so AT A SPECIFIC POINT IN TIME! Sooner or later, some important organ in my body will stop working and I shall peg out.

I don’t mind that. I am 78 years old, but still reasonably fit and active.

There is no ‘risk’ from tobacco in my impending death. There is only ‘probability’ that some important organ will fail to function properly.

The ‘tobacco Control’ War


WW1 was horrific. Ten people with machine guns could mow down a thousand opposing troops in seconds.

The machine gun totally altered warfare. The expenditure of human lives became irrelevant in the sense of attrition. In previous times, wars were fought ‘hand to hand’, even though attrition was still predominant. My army is bigger than yours.

But there came a point where massive armies became obsolete in the sense that armies did not square up to each other. The Vietnam war is a good example. The massive bombers of the USA were useless when they had no targets.

I see Tobacco Control as a small army, consisting of machine guns, firing off volleys of bullets in all directions. There are no real targets. ASH ET AL hope to hit a target, whatever that may be. Hit any target. It does not matter to them if their pub smoking ban volleys hit non-smoking targets. They do not give a toss. The war that they are waging is a war of attrition. The objective is to kill as many smokers as possible. If non-smokers are hit by their volleys, it is ‘collateral damage’. It is ‘damage’ and is therefore impersonal. ‘Damage’ kills no one. It is just a nuisance, even if thousands of people are killed.

The persecution of smokers will only stop when smokers go underground. Tobacco is enjoyable, just like booze, tea and coffee. Talk about the iniquities of TC if you wish to, but go underground. Avoid purchasing taxed tobacco, of any  kind, if you can. Find other ways. For a large part of TC depends upon ‘addiction’, and such addiction is wonderful for politicians. They love a captive audience.

There comes a point where ‘the fear of failure’ rebounds upon the persecutors. The sad part, politically, is that the perpetrators can walk away scotfree.

There is something terribly wrong about MPs being absolved from responsibility for cock-ups. The General Smoking Ban was an ENORMOUS cock-up. It has done enormous damage in all sorts of ways. Massive pub closures could have been foreseen.

And so we see that the Tobacco  Control  War in the UK has always been a few Zealot Warriors against a supine massive army. But TC has the machine guns.

WW1 was totally unjustified from whatever vision you might take. And so is WW3, the World War on the persecution of smokers.

Are ‘Smoking Prevalence’ Figures True?


I do not doubt the veracity of National Statistics. They saw off an attempt by Zealots to fiddle the statistics a few years ago. What I doubt is that people are answering surveys honestly. In the present climate, why should a person admit to smoking tobacco? It is the equivalent to admitting to being a Jew in Nazi Germany. Even though such surveys are supposed to be anonymous, you can never be sure that your identity has been recorded on some computer. You can never be sure.

A couple of years ago, I answered the phone. “Hello”. I heard, “I am calling from the BBC ‘One Show’. We are doing a piece on growing tobacco plants. Can I call you back during the show to talk about growing tobacco plants?” “Well, Yes”, I replied, “But you must take into account that I only grow the plants as a hobby. I do it to amuse myself. The plants produce very little” I did not hear back from them.

But the question is: “How did they know who to ring? How did they know my identity and my phone number?” My blog is under the title ‘Bolton Smokers Club’ and not my name. So how did the BBC know?

A similar thing happened when I won a TC competition for the best slogan for something or other. My slogan was something like: “TobComs export the profits from tobacco sales but leave the health problems behind”.

Somehow or other, ASH ET AL discovered my true identity, and published it, despite the fact that my ‘entry’ was not in my proper name.

Is it therefore surprising that people who enjoy answering surveys do not tell the truth?

But there is another factor. Why should a smoker answer such a survey at all? Why not just ignore it? Some of us would answer a survey out of devilment, because we know quite a lot about how these things work, but many smokers would simply switch onto something more interesting.

Social media is a double-edged weapon. I mean ‘Social Media’ in all its forms, not just the internet. Thus, the representation of smokers might be totally useless because smokers just do not respond. It may well be that only smokers who feel ‘guilty’ respond. That is, they are afraid, worried about their health, exaggerate the ill-effects of smoking. How often have we seen people say: “When I smoked, I could hardly breath. Now that I have been ‘smoke free’ for six months, I can run a marathon in two and a half hours. And my running gear no longer stinks of BO”.

It seems that Smoking Prevalence’ figures in the UK, produced by ASH ET AL, are always much lower than those produced by the EU. There is not much that I can testify about except my person experiences. My local pub survives somehow, even though hardly anyone goes there. It used to do lunches and chicken-in-a-basket in the evenings, and it was packed on a Saturday night. Now, it does no food at all. In the last few days, the owner has cancelled the pub’s Sky Sports subscription. No sport to speak of on the pub’s TV.

My observations of the people who go the pub are that the ‘regular few’ (about a dozen) do not smoke. It is the bar staff who smoke – plus me. Several younger people, on a Friday night, the best night, smoke.

My local is owned by ‘Helman Inns’. It is a capitalist thingie – a ‘husband and wife’ venture. They have a few pub ‘ventures’ in their portfolio. I hope that they survive, but I would not give odds on it.

What ‘lift’ to trade would a relaxation of the smoking ban give to such ‘husband and wife’ enterprises?

But why have such enterprising people not got together to lobby the Government? “All we want is to be permitted, in law, to have sealed smoking rooms. That is all we want. We shall have fans of sufficient power to remove tobacco smoke. Our staff will only enter those rooms very occasionally to collect glasses and empty ashtrays. Why not?”

But the ‘why not?” was always available. It has always been a MASSIVE FAILURE of the pub and club Associations to believe that ASH ET AL gave a shit about the membership of ‘workingmen’s clubs’, or that BLAIR ET AL gave a shit about about the simple pleasures of the working class – aka, Labour voters.

It has amazed me beyond comprehension that UKIP has dropped its defence of smokers. It really is amazing. How did it become infected by the ‘Plague’ of anti-smoker dogma?

But all is not lost. Debunking of TC is appearing more and more often. No one wants to be CONTROLLED.

Are Smokers so Addicted That They Will Pay Any Price for Cigs?


You would have to be really, really desperate to pay £5 for a cig (in terms of inflationary values today). At what point of cost would a smoker decide to stop smoking?

I personally had that experience when I became married and, somehow, became Dad to three daughters. My lifestyle gradually changed from a carefree sexual hedonist to a Dad. There is always a delay.

At a point in time, given some stretching of that point, I decided to give up smoking. What were my motivations at the time? It is very hard to remember. There was a lot of ‘noise’ about ‘harm’ and breathlessness. Nothing as serious as cancer. But, there again, the word ‘CANCER’ was verboten. It is quite comical how The Zealots overcame the reluctance of the MSM to talk about cancer. They did it by, somehow or other, getting a very short report about how ‘cancer’ could be cured within the next two years or so. Of course, those cures have NEVER actually happened. The objective was to bring CANCER out of limbo.

I know that I stopped smoking for a year. I remember the ‘Slough of Despond’ which hit me – the ‘black hole of despond’. I cannot pretend otherwise than that  stopping smoking was painful.

The ‘pain’ lasted for about three days before it began to abate – only three days. After that, it became much easier to say, “No thank you” when someone offered you a cig in the pub. But the temptation was always there.

It is just a simple matter of fact that I was able to buy my first car after six months of stopping smoking. I am not sure that the two things are connected. EG, I may have had a good pay-rise. I cannot remember. But I started smoking again almost exactly after one year of ‘personal prohibition’. It is hard to describe how wonderful that first cig after twelve months was. Yes, it made me a bit dizzy, but, somehow, lots of tensions fell away.

Being ‘tension’ is not a feeling that is often talked about, and yet it is a real psychological problem. Would not we all be better off if we did not have ‘tensions’ to worry us?

A la ‘ASH ET AL’, “It is extremely worrying that millions of smokers are in a state of tension. That tension is bound to affect their health. They should not be tense. We are State funded anti-tobacco smoking puritans, but we recognise that ‘tension’ is dangerous. We therefore recommend that smokers should consider ecigs as an alternative to smoking”.

As regards my Heading, the question is redundant since THE SUPPLY will not dry up until the DEMAND dries up.


The Rebellion of Smokers


There are a couple of things which I have read/watched this evening which have raised my spirits somewhat. The first is a simple comment on Frank Davis’s latest post.

Timothy Goodacre says:

Isn’t it nice Frank to be part of the Resistance !

It can be so disheartening to see the latest claptrap from TC, such as last night’s post, that we fail to see the wood for the trees. Has smoking prevalence really fallen to 15.6%, or whatever perfectly exact number the Zealots claim? Remember the ‘confidence trick’. For some time, the EU stats for UK smoking prevalence have been higher than ASH ET AL’s stats. If ASH ET AL get their stats from YouGov, then they are very suspect since the owner of YouGov used to be on the Board of ASH. But it may be that the stats come from National Stats, which is a different thing. I do not think that Nat Stats has been got at. Even the most biased of MPs would think again about getting National Statistics to distort the figures. Having said that, I remember not long ago, Nat Stats revising a question concerning pub attendances after the ban. I cannot remember the question exactly, but it involved a sort of double negative. It was something like: “Do you NOT go to pubs because of the smoking BAN?”. It is a perfectly reasonable question, but it involves a double negative. Something like that.

Every smoker is a rebel provided that he does not feel ashamed. If he says to himself, “Life is short and it is better to enjoy yourself than live into decrepitude and senility”, then he is a rebel. If he says to himself, “I wish that I had not been so weak and started smoking, and I wish that I could stop smoking” then he is a wimp and deserves all the taxation and bans imposed upon him.

We are indeed fortunate that we precious few are part of the Resistance.

The other thing was watching the video of the conversation between Sir Roger Scruton and James Delingpole:


It is an hour long, but well-worth listening to. But there are so many strange ideas that it is hard to comprehend. For example, he said that wars are normal; that Muslim male youths are between a rock and a hard place – they want to drink alcohol and fuck, as is natural and normal, but their faith forbids such behaviour. They do not know what to do. They are, sort of, captive.

He is not the only one to say that there is going to be a massive conflagration, and he blames it upon ‘multi-culti’. The politicians who permitted it and encouraged it are long gone before the effects hit.

If I was a tobacco smuggler, I would not be smuggling packet of cigs. That would be rather stupid. I would be smuggling raw tobacco. In a recent Finance Act, importing raw tobacco requires a permit, contrary to EU Law since raw tobacco is an agricultural product and can be freely traded throughout the EU. Some States in the EU are tobacco growers, such as Poland and Bulgaria. They could object in the EU court to the ‘permit’ rule in the UK if they wished to. They probably will not, since they have the whole of the rest of the EU States to trade with.

Having said that, I doubt that smugglers give a shit about permits or have ever done so. They smuggle vast quantities of cured leaf and have ‘cottage industries’ shredding and flaking the stuff to provide bags of tobacco. I should imagine that a kilo bag of shredded and flaked tobacco is worth quite a lot more than the original raw tobacco leaves.

But I speak philosophically since I have no direct knowledge of such things. It just seems to me that it would be far easier to import raw leaf than packets of cigs. Does anyone sell ready-rolled ‘hash’ cigs? Perhaps they do.

I am pleased to be part of the Rebellion. It has cheered me up to recognise what Tim and Rose implied. We hold the high moral and ethical ground of what we do with our own bodies.

What it comes down to is that The State has no responsibility to take care of people who become horribly obese, but WE, THE PEOPLE, will help such people out of the kindness of our hearts, even though they brought the problem on themselves. Lots of people bring ‘accidents’ upon themselves because they take risks. In order to avoid ‘accidents’, one would need to insulate oneself.

The ‘Rebellion of Smokers’ requires refusal of ALL impositions. No laws concerning tobacco apply to us. We may have to obey, but only because of Force applied to us. But we have ways to circumvent the impositions.

It is not unlike Prohibition in the USA 100 years ago. The wealthy still enjoyed their fine wines and scrumptious malt whiskeys. It was the poorest people who were subjected to gang warfare.

Further Evidence of ASH ET AL Scraping the Barrel to Justify Their Grants


I think that I picked up the following article from Dick Puddlecote’s twitter feed. Read it because, even though it is nauseous, it shows just how desperate ASH ET AL are becoming to justify their existence and their grants:


The clue is in the last few words of the headline “…. aimed at the young”.

The Very Reverend Luke Clancy from the Universal Church of Health (Irish Congregation) is beside himself. He wants ‘combipacks’ to be banned. A combipack is a pouch of rolling tobacco which includes papers and possibly filters. According to his Holiness, such packs are ‘aimed at the young’.

Only when you get to the bottom of the article do you see some sort of definition of ‘the young’:

“A Healthy Ireland report has also reported a higher level of hand-rolled cigarette smoking among 15 to 34-year-olds.”

There were only a couple of comments. (Why is that the Irish peasants so rarely comment in their newspapers?) I added my penny-worth. I said, roughly, that DEMAND drove SUPPLY, and not vice-versa; people who bought combipacks did so because they found them convenient. There was no satanic plan from Big, Bad, Evil Big Tobacco; that the TC Zealots should call ‘young people’ ‘former children’ and be done with it.

Actually, I was quite taken by my new phrase – ‘former children’. Is that a newly coined phrase? Do you not just love it?

It does not surprise me to find that my comment has not appeared. And, no, I did not use foul language or call anyone names.

What is so awful about ‘former children’ in the age range 18 – 34, finding combipacks convenient? What does it matter if such ‘former children’ save themselves the trouble of buying papers and filters?

But what is most revealing is the desperation of ‘The Universal Church of Health (Irish Congregation)’ to find something else to ban. It begs the question: What would happen if ‘The Universal Church of Health (Irish Congregation)’ were to say nothing for a period of time? Clearly, it would not be ‘making a difference’. It would be redundant. It would become deceased. As Monty Python described it, it would become ‘an ex-‘pubic health advocate’.

I think that there is something else which the article reveals. It reveals how weak politicians are. Read the last sentence of the article:

“The Health Minister is being urged to use the Public Health Tobacco Act to see if he has the power to ban combi-packs.”

Erm… Is that sentence supposed to make sense? Maybe it does if The Public Health Tobacco Act actually includes combipacks. That is what Act are for – they ‘act upon’ specifics. If the Tobacco Act does not mention combipacks, then there is no way that the Act can be construed to forbid them – unless there is a clause which says ‘and everything else’. Clauses which say ‘and everything else’ abound in the TC Universe.

Politicians have created the divisions in our Nation by their supine attitude. The ‘sugar tax’ has defiled people who are plump. It has condemned them to remain indoors.

Demolishing the ethos that ‘equality’ means conformity to some ‘ideal’ is going to be hard work. It is not the idea which matters. It is political conformity which matters. Only Politicians can pass laws.

The point is that enjoying tobacco is a totally personal decision. We have been bombarded with scares for decades and decades. And we have been taxed and taxed. Who can blame smokers for finding a supplier of cheaper stuff?

Has the UK prevalence of smoking fallen to some 15%? Maybe it has, but maybe smokers have gone underground. Maybe they, generally, want to keep their ‘urges’ quiet. Would any reader here admit to looking at porn sites occasionally? Maybe smokers of ‘illicit products’ say that they no longer smoke. I would. The reason is that I do not trust the Government. It has the power and funds to hack my computer any time that it wants to. And why should it not, since it persecutes me, a smoker, as much as it can?

It is sad that politicians have turned out to be so venial. Why did Cameron allow PP? What was in his mind? Was he afraid of the backlash from The Medical Profession if he did not? And was he afraid that the Medical Profession could scupper his Party’s reelection prospects? No wonder that Brexit came as such a shock. The result came from The People and not Lobby Groups.

The Gov has said that ‘The New Tobacco Strategy’ is ‘coming’. But, just maybe, the ten million smokers are watching what is happening. Perhaps the ‘herd’ of smokers is not as ‘cow-like’ as is supposed. Perhaps they, individually, are fuming.

I think that we bloggers of truth are enormously important. Because we illustrate truth, we counter ‘fake truth’, and our voices are far more strong than the voices of ‘fake truth’.

The major demise of TC will occur when Trump et al defund the UN. I shall be surprise if Trump et al does not withdraw funding from the UN. In Trump speak, it would be ‘Let the Russians fund the UN’.

I have drifted – again. ASH ET AL is groping about to justify its funding. We should be aware that the only people who contribute any money directly to ASH are members of the committee. Absolutely not one person, to the best of my knowledge, who does not have a direct interest in ASH, contributes funds. Weird, is it not, that Government finances the ‘thorn in it side’?



So Where Are the Celebrations?


Hardly any mention of the 10th anniversary has appeared anywhere other than on our blogs. Such mentions that have appeared, in the MSM, have been derogatory in in tenor. It is especially weird that the Guardian of all newspapers, being a Labour rag, published an article calling into question the the ‘benefit/cost’ ration of the smoking bans, and conducting a sort of poll of how readers where affected by the ban. The comment of our esteemed friend, Frank Davis, was actually published, although in an abridged form. The Guardian published this:

It was possibly the blackest day in my life. We smokers all trooped out of the pub with beer glasses in hand and stood around bewildered in the car park. Somebody that I didn’t know came up to me and said, “It’s not a free country any more.” And he was right. My little circle of acquaintances, with whom I regularly drank and smoked and played pool, vanished on 1 July, never to return. The pubs emptied and never refilled. And I only sat outside them, alone with beer and cigarette, on warm sunny days thereafter. My circle of friends, some of them of 40 years standing, took longer to disperse. There was no longer anywhere to meet them. And most of them had banned smoking in their homes as well. I now usually vote UKIP because Nigel Farage is a smoker who stands up for smokers.

I don’t think that that summary actually diminished Frank’s submission by much, although the changes were ‘political’.

Perhaps what attracted the Guardian was the last sentence – why Frank voted UKIP:

I now usually vote UKIP because Nigel Farage is a smoker who stands up for smokers.

What the Guardian left out was the previous sentence:

For decades I used to vote Lib Dem. But given that 95% of Lib Dem MPs voted for the illiberal and undemocratic smoking ban, I stopped voting for them after 2007.

Do you see? They left out the most important bit – that Frank changed his allegiance of decades. They made him look like a ‘floating voter’ who changes his voting habits on a whim.

That trick is the epitome of ‘fake news’. ‘Fake news’ is not just about ‘false news’, if at all. It is about leaving out important bits. EG. A spokesperson for the local authority concerned with the tower block fire might say that the specification of the cladding were approved in building regulations, but turned out to be insufficient. Newspapers would turn that around and state that the people who created the building regulations were to blame for the fire. That is what they do. They create ‘fake’ news by twisting things.

ASH ET AL have been doing exactly that for years and years.

I was blathering on Conservative Home yesterday:


Many comments were the usual astroturf stuff about the fact that they do not like the smell of tobacco smoke in pubs. The smell of tobacco smoke in pubs is ‘fake news’, since the ban was supposed to be about the health of bar staff, and nothing else. It is important to understand that – only the health of bar staff justified the smoking ban in pubs. Absolutely nothing else mattered. I got bogged down somewhat with a ‘stinker’. A ‘stinker’ is a person who ‘stinks’ probably because of BO (Body Odour). Years ago, there were umpteen adverts on TV for unctions which would dispel ‘BO’. I have not seen such and advert for years and years. Perhaps no one suffers from BO anymore, or, more likely, that no one gives as shit about BO. The ‘stinker’ in question called into question my ‘statistical qualifications’ I saw him off by comparing ‘relative risk’ with ‘absolute risk’.

I watched a speech at the Nicotine Forum. Here it is, I hope!:

It is well worth listening to. He really, really believes that smoking cigs is an abomination, and that Tobcoms are to blame. He really, really blames them. Be that as it may, he is very eloquently about ‘freedom’. “Your body is your own, and only you can decide what to put into it. The State has no right whatsoever to dictate to you”.

The only trouble is his acceptance of ‘combustible danger’. It is as though he accepted Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ without demure. It was PERFECT! That again is ‘fake news’ – lots of ‘confounders’, such as wartime experiences, genetic dispositions, wartime deprivations, etc, were not considered.

It seems to be that the UN was always FAKE. Immediately after WW2, the UN was set up. Who set it up? The Brits and the Yanks. And the purpose? To avoid massive wars. Russia became strong as well. All the other countries were ‘recipients of largess’, and that is all that they were interested in.  But ‘receipt of largess’ demands obedience.

The same applies to the EU. States in receipt of largess must obey. Such States must surely by apoplectic with rage that they have been become slaves of some incomprehensible ‘system’.

THANK GOD that we in the UK have voted to ‘leave’ that dictatorship. What has become more and more clear is that the ‘dictatorship’ is being imposed little by little in Europe.

The ‘Tobacco Directive’ is the perfect example.

Who decided that smoking is EXTREME! Who decided, and who controlled, people like ex -PM, Blair, and ex-PM Brown. Who controlled them? Why did they allow themselves to be controlled? Why did Cameron allow himself to be controlled as regards PP?

There is a terrible stench of ‘conformity’ and ‘not important’. But the wishes of Smokers ARE important, and we will not go away. Bugger smoking bans. What is important is ‘persecution via taxes’. That is the most important thing. Is it any wonder that Oz is ‘the wild west’ of illicit tobacco?

The idiots brought it upon themselves and there is no way back.