Thursday 4 February 2010

There is now no doubt.

The smoking ban was never about health. The costs of smoking to the NHS, as shown in the previous post, are trivial compared to the overall costs of allegedly smoking related illnesses caught be people who have never smoked - so even if we give up smoking, we can still get them and as ex-smokers they will still be classed as smoking-related illnesses. The true figure for actual active smokers getting ill is much lower, and since non-smokers also get these illnesses, the true figure for illnesses actually caused by smoking is even lower still.

It's all been a scam. Smokers knew that. Publicans and restauranteurs knew it too, even as they nailed the boards and the 'closed' signs over their windows. Train operators knew that people smoking on a windswept platform posed no risk to anyone but they banned it anyway. Out of pure, malicious, spite.

Passive smoking appears on no death certificate anywhere and nobody has proved any link between a smoker and a non-smoker's illness. Anti-smokers complain about 'the smell' which offends their delicate little nostrils and complain about having to wash their hair once in a while. I wash mine every day, which is why I don't smell of tobacco.

They complain about smokers in the street, which is where they demanded we be put, rather than indoors in places they never visit and where they didn't have to see us. They complain about us in pub beer gardens in summer when they want to sit out there and pay no mind to the fact that we were out there in the snow and the rain. Because they didn't want us indoors to spoil their twee and feeble little lives by doing something they don't like. There is no passive smoking. There is certainly no third-hand smoke. If you pass a smoker in the street you will not die from one little trace of smoke in among all those traffic fumes, but I now really, really wish you would.

Because you have demonised us and looked down on us and pretended it was for the cheeeldren when you banned us from places that don't allow children, pretended it was for health costs which are less than what it costs to treat your dementia, pretended that we were damaging you just by existing in places you never visited and still don't and even pretended we were causing global warming. All of it based on lies. Every word of it.

The final, absolute proof? They are now targeting Electrofag. Which leaves no residue and no lingering odour of any kind. Which contains none of the 400 chemicals in smoke from burning plant material other than nicotine - and it doesn't even have to contain that. You can use it to produce nicotine-free flavoured steam.

Obo pointed the way to this one and very wisely ducked. There is also this one.

They want to regulate it as a pharmaceutical. They don't want to do that to tobacco and its 400 chemicals. They want to do it to Electrofag which contains about five, none of them harmful and two of which are already pharmaceutical grade - the nicotine and the propylene glycol.

All you antismokers cheering, consider this. We are going to smoke. If we can't have Electrofag any more we will go back to tobacco. Those who have switched completely from tobacco to Electrofag will switch back. Gum and patches are no good, it's the action of smoking that smokers enjoy. The gum is as bitter as an ASH activist and the patches are as irritating as a fake cough. Especially the fake cough produced by the hideous old bat who passed me in the street as I was rolling a cigarette. Cough cough cough. Pathetic. At least wait until I light it before pretending it bothers you.

It's the action of smoking that bothers you people. Not the smell. Not the health. Not the pretendy science that backs up every damn report ever issued. It's the sight of someone enjoying something that you don't like.

This demand for pharmaceutical regulation is a de-facto ban. It takes years, and millions, to run the trials required for this and guess what? ASH will lie about the results. We know, now, that there will be no harmful effects of Electrofag at all even though ASH are pretending that a whiff of steam will instantly kill every non-smoker within a hundred yards. Oh, I wish.

The tobacco ban was never about harm reduction. It was always about enjoyment reduction and control.

There were Electrofag users who cosied up to the likes of ASH, just as CAMRA have always done, in the hope that these witchfinders would pass them by. Well, you misread the signs. it's not tobacco they want to get rid of, it's enjoyment. You can have nicotine as a patch that will give you a rash or as a gum that tastes like the arse of a badger that's been out for sixteen pints and a vindaloo. You cannot have it in any form that resembles smoking. Why? Because ASH and their pharmers want to crop your income for themselves. They are setting about eradicating competition. Not protecting your health. Protecting their income. It's all they really do and you useful idiots have been a big help to them so far.

I have been reasonable in the past when faced with an antismoker. You don't like it, I don't do it when you're around. Well, no more. You can all get cancer and die for all I care and if I am to be blamed for that then you can rest assured I will do anything I can to make it happen. Why not? I'll get the blame anyway.

This was bound to come. I thought it would take longer. The attack on a harmless nicotine inhaler that doesn't even inconvenience a non-smoker is the final proof.

It's all been a con. A money-making scam for ASH and the pharmaceuticals.

And you idiots helped them. For free.


Angry Exile said...

I think E-fags have already gone that way here. Either regulated or outright banned, not sure which, but it was a foregone conclusion. The government don't make the big tax bucks on E-fags and Big Pharma would prefer smokers trying to quit or just last till the next place they can light up use gum and patches, both of which are as horrible as you said. They were also counter productive for helping give up because it's hard enough going all day not even thinking about ciggies without being bombarded by bastard adverts with dancing cartoon cigarettes. I loathe them both.

Chief_Sceptic said...

Well, well, well - as you say, it was only a matter of time - but, this soon ? ...

Are NuLabor using this blog as a recipe book ? ...

Or is it just the rush to exact as much revenge on (and control over) the UK's population as posible, before the fortcoming legislation ? ...

And, NOT A PEEP from the Con\LibDems either ! - not that I'm all that astounded by that ...

Stop Common Purpose said...

The smoking ban is about social control.

MTG said...

Nobody could have done more to merit a place on any major tobacco company Board, LegFe.

Naturally I will defer to the judgement of Obno the Clown on such matters - but smoking must be on par with eating earwax as the most disgusting of all personal habits.

Mrs Rigby said...

The smoking ban is a good way of exercising control of a huge proportion of the population and a way of introducing the on-the-spot-fines. Once the fines were acceptable for one thing they could be rolled out for other things. No need for the courts and the expense of a trial - all it needs is just one person in uniform (or wearing a badge) saying that a person not wearing a uniform was doing something bad so they should be punished, instantly.

Banning smoking in pubs has had a knock on effect. Not many people drop into their local for the evening, they go there for one drink or for a meal and then go home - so there's less social interaction, and less chatter.

Anonymous said...

MTG & Earwax
Another saddo just been lowered from some Ivory Tower on a mission
of misery to make up for their
reluctance or inability to form
normal lasting relationships.
If what you suffer from is incurable , Try a clinic in Zurich
and do us all a favour ,non smokers
as well.

The Smoking Earwig

Chief_Sceptic said...

To quote Winston Churchill ? grossly out of context ...

" The lights are going out all over Europe " ...

Why ? - 'drinky \ smoky' places are suddenly making the news, even here in Norway - demonised (of course) as 'illegal pubs in darkened basements' ! ...

How pathetic an accusation is that ? - oh joy of joys, the worms are turning furiously - and I'm a non-smoker ! ...

hangemall said...

Sorry. I put th WV bit in the middle.

Dave H said...

Totally O/T LI, but on

'And there was me thinking.....'

you fell into the can't-see-the-wood-for-the-trees trap. Not the only one. Bollox.

Maybe you spotted it at once and just decided on a scientifically precise answer anyway.

It only occurred to me after few units.

Bollox again.

Leg-iron said...

MTG - your opinion is your opinion and you're entitled to it. For me, I find those people who chew with their mouths open, affording anyone sitting opposite a perfect view of the homogenate they are preparing to swallow, absolutely repellent.

I'd rather they were smoking, to be honest.

But I don't plan to stop them doing it. I just sit where I can't see them.

All an anti-smoker really needs do is not go to places that have smokers in them, and since there are no longer any such places, that's not at all difficult to do.

Leg-iron said...

DaveH - 'disappeared' - groan.

Perhaps David Copperfield would be held responsible.

Anonymous said...

Cough cough cough. Pathetic. At least wait until I light it before pretending it bothers you.

bill hicks " jeez buddy, thats a real bad cough you got there. you should take up smoking, even i dont have a cough that bad and im on two lighters a day."

timbone said...

I was at a music festival held at Butlins Skegness, sharing a chalet with three non smokers. One couldn't understand why it had been banned in pubs because it didn't bother him. Another was a Doctor who was disgusted that it had been banned on railway platforms. The third person was a raving anti smoker. When we were leaving, he turned round to me and said that there were two things about me that he did not understand, I didn't smell and I didn't have a bad cough in the morning.

Anonymous said...

'They want to regulate it as a pharmaceutical.'

i think you hit the nail on the head right there. once it is of course the supply and manufacture can be farmed out, it can be controlled and dosed and even taxed more in the from of prescription charges. as such it can become a controlled substance before you can even blink.

Anonymous said...

in the *from of prescription

*form of,

Leg-iron said...

Tmbone - I hope you told him it was because the hype he'd been fed was all lies.

Anon - Electrofaggers should stock up while they can. Once it's under the control of the Pharmers it'll be as overpriced as the gum and patches that don't work.

They will probably not supply blank cartridges and refill bottles (the economical option: we surely can't be trusted with bottles of concentrate! Think of the cheeeeldren!) and they will probably not supply a zero nicotine option because that would help those who want to quit. Their version will probably taste like a burning cowpat too. It's medicine. It's supposed to taste terrible.

The Pharmers have no interest in helping you stop. Their interest is in selling you NRT for the rest of your life. There is no profit in those who actually stop.

Once they get control of Electrofag, they'll ruin it.

Anonymous said...

The main researcher in the FDA trial concluded "“They are not going to die from an e-cigarette – but they could die tomorrow from a heart attack due to their smoking. The carcinogens that we have found are in very, very small quantities, just above the level of detection.” - Dr Murray Laugesen.

In other words NICE is LYING (again) no surprises there then. Can you publicize this fact (and quote) please.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I forgot to add - The FDA's May 2009 study was reviewed in July 2009 by scientific consulting firm Exponent, Inc., in a report commissioned by the manufacturer of one of the electronic cigarettes tested by the FDA. Some of the criticisms in Exponent's report are poor standards of documentation and analysis and failure to perform relevant comparisons to FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapy products, which Exponent claims contain TSNA levels comparable to those of e-cigarettes. The study concludes that the FDA's claims of potential adverse health effects were not supported by the study

opinions powered by