So, it wasn't smoking, then?

A load of bullocks, yesterday. Oddly enough, that's all literally true!

The EU are to take more money off us because we didn't do an impossible thing. Again. While the Cameroid and the Clegginator try to keep at least one treasury official in post against the machinations of the newspapers, while they try to reduce expenditure on Labour's nonsensical idea of society, the EU is going to dip its hairy hand in the till and take a wad of the cash they've saved.

Why? Because the air is full of stuff.

The UK has one of the worse rates of air pollution from cars and factories in Europe. Previous research shows air pollution already kills 24,000 people a year and could kill up to 36,000 because of lung complaints.

Lung complaints? How can this be? Smoking is banned everywhere. There can be no more lung complaints. Air quality in every public place must be wonderful by now.

The main problem is exhaust fumes and emissions from power stations or factories around London.

It's really no wonder the Labour government did nothing to solve this. They were listening to the drone of the Dreadful Arnott and her ASH holes who insisted that every case of any kind of lung disease was due to smoking. Those 24,000 deaths were attributed entirely to smoking. No other possible cause could be considered. It all had to be down to smoking. Nothing else.

Well, smoking is banned in all enclosed public places and in many open ones too, and guess what? The deaths due to lung disease are now set to rise from 24,000 to 36,000.

ASH would not allow anyone to consider the effects of a factory's emissions. No, it was all caused by a little bit of dried leaf in a paper tube. They would not permit mention of the fumes from many, many tons of traffic. No, it was all caused by a little bit of dried leaf in a paper tube.

Smoking was banned because the Dreadful Arnott decided to have a crusade against smoking. Her accomplices in the health dictatorship were only too keen to apply harsh controls to people. Her funding Pharmers wanted to sell nicotine in dangerous concentrations in patches and gum, rather than let us get a little bit from tobacco. Their footsoldiers followed in droves chanting 'We don't like the smell. Ban it'.

There was never any health reason. There was never any link between all those lung diseases and a little bit of leaf in a paper tube. That research they all like to point at in the 1950s shows a strong link between rising industrialisation post-war and lung disease. The controls are invalid because the controls smoked too. Almost everyone did.

It is possible that smoking heavily for many years will damage your lungs. Of course it is. If you inhale a lot of any kind of smoke for a long period, it is likely to damage you. But being in the presence of that heavy smoker once in a while does not cause long term damage. There is no second-hand smoke. It's a Pharma phantasm created to sell patches and gum, which don't work and are not meant to. It's justification for 'I don't like the smell' and those who cry those words don't care whether the justification is real. They don't like it, so it must stop. Even in places they never visit.

Here's the Pharma creed: There is no money in a cure. The profits are in the incurable.

The disease with no cure and no actual ill effects is the Holy Grail of Pharma. If they cure you, you stop buying their stuff. If they can convince you that you cannot live without their product, they have a customer for life. Chronic illness is their bread and butter. Believing yourself addicted to something they can sell you in a 'safer' form has whole boardrooms in fits of laughter.

Now the lie must at last break. Even those who really don't like the smell must surely realise that 'the smell' was their one and only motivation. It would be more valid to ban flowers for their proven effects on hay fever sufferers, and equally valid to ban air freshener sprays. Many people don't like smell of them, they stick to your clothes, so surely it is an infringement of their right to live a stench-free life? What's the difference?

There is only one difference. You like the smell of one and not the other. Therefore everyone else must feel the same way and anyone who doesn't is abnormal and subhuman. Right?

That is the consequence of the Righteous programming encouraged by Labour and likely to continue for some time yet. The idea that there is a 'standard human being' of standard height and weight, with standard food requirements and preferences, standard drinking habits and standard preferences for scents. Any deviation from the standard is abnormal and must be corrected.

The Righteous are dangerous, as the article proves. Instead of requiring that factories, motor manufacturers and so on develop and install ways to reduce pollution, they blamed it all on a bit of dried leaf in a paper tube. Instead of requiring town planners to route heavy traffic away from heavy population, they blamed it all on a bit of dried leaf in a paper tube. So nothing has been fixed. Nothing. Lung disease continues to rise even though smoking has been banned, even though pubs continue to close, even though more and more vicious controls on smokers are applied, even though smokers can be legitimately treated as filth by the Pure Ones. None of it has improved anyone's health one jot.

In fact, by ignoring the much more serious problem, they have made it far worse.

There is only one crumb of comfort here and it's only for smokers. When the incidence of lung disease continues to increase, this time they won't be able to blame us for it.

We've already been banned. And unlike any other ban, this one has been rigorously enforced.