Sunday, 4 April 2010

duuuuh.... (drool).

Smokers are stupid. A Study Done By People With No Vested Interest Honestly has proved it. A study in which the conclusion was certainly not forgone. Oh, heaven forbid the antismokers should stoop so low. Again.

The final scores, on average?

Smoker average IQ, 94

Nonsmoker average IQ, 101

A difference of seven points. If you've taken more than one IQ test, you'll know that your score can vary by far more than that even between days. It is not a precise test. Seven points is not a big difference and certainly not significant.


Researchers in Israel took data from more than 20,000 healthy men before, during and after they spent time in the Israeli military.

Right. So joining the army carries no risk that needs to be assessed by an individual, but smoking does. If Israel has conscription, which seems likely since they are at perpetual war, then they have taken a normal healthy young man and put him into a situation where he can expect to be shot at. In that situation, is his assessment of the risk associated with smoking more likely to be determined by his IQ, or by the chance that he might be blown to bits tomorrow anyway?

IQ scores in a healthy population of young men fall between 84 and 116, but those who smoked more than a pack of cigarettes a day averaged just 90 between them.

What? What? That is a healthy population of young dolts. A range that extends only up to 116 includes nobody who will be going on to become a doctor - I hope! I beat that when I was 16. And I am not a medic.

Look, you fuckers. We smokers know you don't like us, okay? We know you despise us and regard us as less than dogshit on your shoe. We know you think of us as subhuman freaks who should be carted off to camps and exterminated. We know we have no support among any of the main political groups. Even those who are incensed at attacks on other minority groups, even the members of those minority groups, regard smokers as a legitimate whipping boy.

Iain Dale is mightily incensed at Chris Grayling mentioning that owners of private premises should be allowed to choose what they allow on their premises. Iain Dale insists that his own minority group - gays - have rights that transcend the choices of private property owners. Read his article and you'll probably agree with it. Replace all the references to sexuality with references to smoking and see how it reads then. So some places don't let gay people do gay things inside. NO places let smokers smoke indoors. They are not allowed to allow it. They are not even allowed to allow smokers to smoke in an enclosed area outdoors even when no non-smokers are present. You want my sympathy, Iain? Forget it. Your party hates me, and you are happy to leave me legally ostracised while campaigning for yourself to be legally accepted.

In his piece on Labour's 'eighties' gaffe, Iain Dale has list after list of things that were better in the eighties. On no list do the words 'smoking allowed' appear. On no list will you find 'smokers not being continually shat on over and over again just to make some Righteous little prick enjoy a moment of smug self-satisfaction'.

Frank Davis puts it very clearly. You cannot expect the pariah to care when you, too, find yourself put upon. Especially not if you are among those who have been kicking us all along.

So am I stupid? Let me put it this way. I once looked at MENSA's website with a view to trying for membership. On the front page it said 'Did you know that only one in fifty are in the top two percent?'. Really. It said that. I thought 'These people are morons' and when I found out they expected me to pay to be let in, I thought 'No, I'm not stupid enough for that'. So now, you antismoking Nazis, you know what you are dealing with. Call me stupid. Underestimate me. Ignore me. Pretend I'm not there. It will make the next stage easier.

If you are black, female, gay, Asian, Muslim, anything, you are protected by law against discrimination. If you smoke, discrimination against you is enshrined in law. There is an election coming up and all the main parties support that discrimination. Every smoker must be made aware that the party they vote for might well be one that hates them, that regards them as filthy stupid vermin and wants them exterminated. Every smoker must be made to see this.

No compromise, no discussion. A total reversal of the smoking ban with a total elimination of all 'No smoking' signs from all public spaces. A legal requirement to allow smoking on private premises whether the owner likes it or not. Exactly the same rights as demanded by every other minority out there with no exceptions. Not one. Prosecution for refusal. There will be no permission to have 'non-smoking areas' anywhere at any time. Displaying a 'no smoking' sign will have the same penalty as displaying a 'no Gypsies' sign.

There is no evidence at all for harm caused by second hand smoke. It is lies.

The 'smoking causes cancer' meme, now that smokers have been invigorated into actually looking into it, is at best tenuous. Many things cause cancer. The smoking link is not as proven as it has been claimed.

Third hand smoke is a sick and stupid joke.

Now we are to be regarded as mentally deficient if we smoke. This is too much. We have put up with a hell of a lot here, we have put up with being banned everywhere, we have put up with being forced outside then being told we are costing money and polluting Righteous diesel-filled air by being outside, we have put up with fake coughs and snide remarks, we have even put up with businesses being allowed to say they will not employ smokers. Enough.

Smoker's groups like Freedom2Choose and Forest have been content to act on the defensive so far. It is time to go on the offensive.

No compromise. Those who oppose us offer none and accept none, so we should offer none either. A total acceptance of smoking enshrined in law is the only goal here. Total. No exceptions and no opt-outs. We are a minority, respect us or go to jail. It works for everyone else.

Fake coughing is hate crime. Snide remarks are hate speech. Claiming smokers are stupid defined only on the fact that they smoke is discrimination.

It's not just smokers, you know.

"People with lower IQs are not only prone to addictions such as smoking. These same people are more likely to have obesity, nutrition and narcotics issues.

If you drink, smoke, or are even the teeniest bit overweight, all three main parties hate you. They consider you too stupid to decide for yourself how you want to live. Are you really going to vote for someone who wants you dead?

If you live on a Labour sink estate and cope with it by dosing up on ex-legal highs or hemp or the starry powders or the booze or the fags, you are voting for a party that wants you eradicated.

If you are a Tory voter who enjoys a snort at the weekend, your party wants you exterminated. You are voting for your own transportation to the camps.

They will not stop with smokers, and nobody will help us because everyone who is not a smoker thinks like CAMRA - 'Oh, those are just the smokers. They won't come for me next'.

On one side, the Devil of government. On the other, the deep blue sea of denial.

Smokers, they will not stop and we can expect no help. We have to stop them. There is no point waiting for reinforcements. They are not coming.

Tomorrow I'll visit that Freedom2Choose forum again and see if I can't fire things up a little.


Billy The Fish said...

Have you though of declaring smoking as your religion? Tell 'em you're a 'Smoker'. Infer that capital 'C'. Insist you have to commune with your deity Nick O'Teen every hour by the medium of inhaled incense. If they deny you, claim oppression and demand a written apology. Worked for that Jedi fella, didn't it?

PT Barnum said...

There really is a 1984 thing going on here. It's getting harder and harder to believe in a time before the smoking ban. Did we really smoke in pubs and cafes and restaurants? Were there really (nasty) little glass boxes inside hospitals for in-patients to smoke in? Smoking carriages on trains? Smoking on the upper deck of buses? Smoking in the coffee rooms of university libraries?

Now it's getting harder and harder to find a hotel which will let you smoke in your room!

And, by the by, compare episode 1 of the new series of Ashes to Ashes (Gene Hunt Rools ok!) with the last series. All of a sudden, nobody smokes anymore! They've all quit! And no NRT in sight. Such willpower....

JuliaM said...

"And, by the by, compare episode 1 of the new series of Ashes to Ashes (Gene Hunt Rools ok!) with the last series. All of a sudden, nobody smokes anymore! They've all quit! And no NRT in sight. Such willpower...."

I hadn't even noticed that! But you're right...

Anonymous said...

Brunell liked a smoke and so did Einstein.

tug said...

I don't know why the smokers in the country have not played the Discrimination card,there is no doubt that the smoking ban Is discrimination not only to the smokers but also the Private Pubs and Clubs that saw smoking customers as their main income.

Simon said...

Hahahahaha, that's brilliant, no seriously, the more they claim the more ridiculous they appear.

For the record, the last time I did an IQ test I was pissed and still scored 146.

So either I have to keep drinking to offset the mental damage of smoking or, erm, this is bollocks!

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Leg-iron

Some years ago the institution you mention organised a lecture by Prof Hans Eysenck at the National Liberal Club.

Appropriately, Prof Eysenck was embroiled in a debate (i.e. being vilified) on his findings on the IQs of people of African descent compared with the general population. If he had found they were higher, it would have been smiles all round.

His lecture was on smoking and cancer. One point he made was that cause of death was being attributed to lifestyle. Studies comparing causes of death given by doctors and actual causes established by autopsy suggested that lung cancer was being over-reported simply because the deceased was a smoker.

He further suggested that this process was self-reinforcing – as more doctors gave lung cancer as cause of death for smokers, more doctors followed suit – a bit like the ‘following’ achieved by Millikan’s measurement of the charge of the electron ( p 12 col 1) – and hence the rise in deaths from lung cancer amongst smokers since the War.

Whenever I see a smoker outside in the cold, I cough loudly. I advise them that next year they will have to leave the country to smoke, and the year after that, the planet. Then I give them a beer mat. On one side it states ‘save our pubs’, on the other that we won the fight to keep the pint (this time), and pledges support for traditional beers by cutting taxes, and for landlords to decide on smoking policy.

There is an alternative, so come and join us – the party which cannot be named (except on Have I Got News For You).

And start your own war for smaller government – starve them of cash by not paying taxes (legally) and drain them of resources by claiming everything you are entitled to.

And stand for your local council.


Anonymous said...

Eysenck also conducted a smallish (c600 male smokers) longitudinal study in which the pertinent question was 'How highly do you rate your chances of developing lung cancer?'

Three times as many of those who opted for 'very highly' went on to get LC as those who said 'not very highly'.

This is known as the nocebo effect. It could be argued that those who constantly reinforce the LC-smoking link are contributing to many of those subsequent death.


The witch from Essex said...

'Smokers, they will not stop and we can expect no help. We have to stop them. There is no point waiting for reinforcements. They are not coming.'

Millions of smokers just sit and do nothing and accept the discrimination. So perhaps it's true that smokers are thick !!

Some of us smokers are not thick, but we haven't a clue how to 'stop them' Fake charities like ASH are still being given fortunes of taxpayers money to do their dirty work.

The NHS can't afford cancer drugs and yet spend millions on 'smoking cessation'

Other than write to M.P.'s , stop going out and buying tobacco products abroad as a 'protest', what can we do ??????????

Leg-iron said...

Billy the Fish - the 'religion' argument works for the Climatologists too, even though their mantra of 'make heating too expensive to use' has killed more people than passive smoking ever could. They'll soon top the figures attributed to active smoking too. Naturally, they won't get the blame.

Leg-iron said...

PT Barnum - we need pictures of people smoking in pubs, on trains and buses, with 'Remember this? remember who took it from you?' under them.

Hang on. If we work it right, we could get ASH to fund it.

PT Barnum said...

Essex witch, I know how you feel all too well. The only thing I've found is to conduct my smoking life in a legal but completely unapologetic way. Never skulk outside anywhere but stand there in a confrontational manner daring anyone to pass comment. Never 'sneak out' for a fag, declare loudly you're going and complain about the stupid rule as you leave. They want to make us ashamed and furtive. Don't let them.

Leg-iron said...

JuliaM - I saw an old episode of Columbo the other night. He puffed on that cigar throughout, no matter where he was.

It won't be on the BBC now.

Anonymous said...

Just before his death, Eysenck completed a book summarising his research on smoking. It has never been formally published but the manuscript was passed to forces. You can download the entire book from this link:


Kin_Free said...

I fully agree that we should be demanding more and have said so for a long time. I also believe we should be spending more time discrediting the junk science that claims harm caused by PRIMARY smoking rather than appealing to common sense with SHS. - No one in power is listening!

SHS studies have been fully discredited yet many professionals STILL ignore that fact and continue to claim that SHS is harmful - same with discredited heart attack studies and just about every other aspect in the anti-smoker campaign.

This is their achilles heel!

THEY LIE and we need to be showing this up at every opportunity. USE those obvious lies on SHS to target their lies on primary smoking. ABOVE ALL - WE MUST TELL NO LIES and we can claim the moral high ground back.

It is clear to me that their lies are nothing new but go back decades. The studies on PRIMARY smoking are full of anomalies. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO CLAIM THAT THE DEBATE ON PRIMARY SMOKING IS OVER - IT IS NOT.

I am sick of hearing, even from pro choice commentators, arguments to the effect of " We all know how dangerous smoking is, but we want the right to kill ourselves" This only supports their case - and IT IS WRONG!

Anti tobacco have effectively taken the monopoly on smoking studies and are in a position to claim whatever they like - and they WILL do just that.

Look at the studies in the pipeline from only one funding source for one year only - each 'study' has been set up to 'prove' smoking is bad for you, to further the anti-smoker agenda - NOT to find the truth! These studies will be drip fed every week

Many open minds are beginning to question anti-smoker lies and fanaticism , we need to expand that base, but if they continue to believe that smoking kills thousands then they will continue to believe that the end justifies the means.

In short - I endorse Leg Irons call to action -to attack rather than continue to defend - playing 'catch-up' all the time.

Anonymous said...

I've just watched Ashes to Ashes and I think the previous commenters must have not watched the same episode. Smoking throughout - I was very surprised at the BBC!!

opinions powered by